Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2017:681
Date: 2017-09-14
Language of the case: Portuguese
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Approximation of laws
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Portugal

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 14 September 2017 1. Approximation of laws — Insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles — Extent of cover for third parties under compulsory insurance — Concept of ‘third parties who have been victims’– Pedestrian who is the insured owner of the vehicle involved in the accident — Included (Council Directives 72/166, 84/5, as amended by Directive 2005/14, Art. 2(1) and 90/232, as amended by Directive 2005/14, Art. 1a) 2. Approximation of laws — Insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles — Extent of cover for third parties under compulsory insurance — Exclusion of personal injuries and property damage sustained by the insured owner of the vehicle as a pedestrian — Not permissible (Council Directives 72/166, Art. 3(1), 84/5, as amended by Directive 2005/14, Art. 1(1) and 2(1) and 90/232, as amended by Directive 2005/14, Art. 1a) 1. As regards more specifically the circumstance of a victim of a motor vehicle accident being the insurance policy-holder and owner of the vehicle involved in that accident, it must be recalled that the Court has held that the aim of protecting victims pursued by the First, Second and Third Directives requires the legal position of the owner of the vehicle, present in the vehicle at the time of an accident as a passenger, to be the same as that of any other passenger who is a victim of that accident (judgment of 1 December 2011, Churchill Insurance Company Limited and Evans, C‑442/10, EU:C:2011:799, paragraph 30). By analogy, the Court must hold that the fact that a pedestrian who was knocked down in a motor vehicle accident was the insurance policy-holder and the owner of the vehicle that caused that accident does not permit the exclusion of that person from the concept of ‘third parties who have been victims’, within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the Second Directive and Article 1a of the Third Directive. As observed by the referring court and as correctly argued by the Commission, the fact that the owner of the vehicle concerned and insurance policy-holder was not within that vehicle at the time of the accident, but was a pedestrian who was knocked down by that vehicle cannot justify, having regard to the same objective of protection pursued by the First, Second and Third Directives, as described in paragraph 41 of the present judgment, a difference in treatment. (see paras 41, 44, 45) 2. Article 3(1) of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, Article 1(1) and Article 2(1) of the Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, as amended by Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005, and Article 1a of the Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicle, as amended by Directive 2005/14, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes from coverage under compulsory insurance against civil liability with respect to the use of motor vehicles and, therefore, compensation by means of that insurance the personal injuries and property damage sustained by a pedestrian victim of a motor vehicle accident, on the sole ground that that pedestrian was the insurance policy-holder and the owner of the vehicle that caused those injuries and that damage. (see para. 61, operative part)