Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2021:405
Date: 2021-05-20
Language of the case: Polish
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Subject matter: Approximation of laws
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Poland

Translation C-707/19 — 1 
Case C-707/19 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
23 September 2019 
Referring court: 
Sąd Rejonowy dla Łodzi-Śródmieścia w Łodzi (Poland) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
2 September 2019 
Applicant: 
K.S. 
Defendant: 
A.B. 
 
ORDER 
Łódź, 2 September 2019 
The Sąd Rejonowy dla Łodzi-Śródmieścia w Łodzi (District Court for Łódź-
Śródmieście in Łódź, Poland), 13th Commercial Division, composed of: 
President […] 
having examined […] 
during an in camera hearing 
the action brought by K.S. 
against A.B. 
as regards the question referred for a preliminary ruling: 
hereby decides: 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 2.9.2019 — CASE C-707/19 
 
2  
1. to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice of the European 
Union for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 267(a) of the Treaty of 
25 March 1957 on the functioning of the European Union […]: 
(a) Must Article 3 of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against 
civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the 
enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ 2009 
L 263, p. 11) be interpreted as meaning that, within the framework of 
‘all appropriate measures’, each Member State should make insurance 
undertakings fully liable under insurance against civil liability, 
including for consequences of damage in the form of the need to tow 
the victim’s vehicle to his home country and the cost of necessary 
parking of vehicles? 
(b) If the answer to the above question is affirmative — can this liability 
be limited in any way by the laws of the Member States? 
2. to stay the proceedings in both cases pursuant to Article 177(1)(31) of the 
Kodeks Postępowania Cywilnego [Code of Civil Procedure] [Or.2] 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING TO THE COURT OF 
JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION OF 2 SEPTEMBER 2019 
Scope of the obligation to regulate insurance against civil liability in respect 
of the use of motor vehicles under Directive 2009/103/EC of the European 
Parliament and of the Council […] 
[…] 
[…] 
[…] [Or.3] 
II. Description of the subject matter of the dispute and the main 
proceedings. 
II.I On 23 January 2017, the applicant K.S. brought an action before the District 
Court for Łódź-Śródmieście […] against A.B. [for] payment of 
PLN 14 413.78 as reimbursement for the costs of towing a damaged vehicle 
(make: V.) together with statutory interest for late payment from 17 April 
2015, of PLN 14 113.78 as reimbursement for the costs of towing a 
damaged vehicle (semi-trailer) together with statutory default interest from 
17 April 2015, and of PLN 6 020 as reimbursement for the costs of parking 
the damaged vehicles together with statutory default interest from 18 May 
2016. In support of his action, the applicant stated that on 30 October 2014 
in K. (Latvia), an accident occurred in which a V-make vehicle with a semi-
K.S. 
 
3 
trailer was damaged. These vehicles were [Or.4] the applicant’s property 
and were registered in Poland. The insurer of the party responsible for the 
damage with respect to insurance against civil liability was the defendant — 
A.B. As a result of the accident, the vehicles in question were damaged in 
such a way that it was impossible for them to return to the head office of the 
victim’s company. 
Consequently, the applicant incurred the costs of parking the damaged 
vehicles, amounting to PLN 6 020, and the costs of transporting the vehicles 
from Latvia to Poland […] amounting in total to PLN 32 860 (PLN 16 600 
net for the V-make vehicle and PLN 16 260 net for the semi-trailer). The 
defendant acknowledged its liability for the claim of 30 October 2014, but 
only paid compensation amounting to PLN 2 246.22 as reimbursement for 
the costs of towing the V-make vehicle and PLN 2 246.22 as reimbursement 
for the costs of towing the semi-trailer; the defendant refused to pay the 
amount of PLN 6 020 as reimbursement for the costs of parking the vehicles. 
II.2 In its defence, the defendant A.B. sought that the claim be dismissed in its 
entirety. In support of its claim, the defendant pointed out that under Latvian 
law, which is the law applicable to the insurer’s liability, the insurer is 
obliged to reimburse towing costs only within the territory of the Republic 
of Latvia and to reimburse the costs of parking only if those parking costs 
were related to ongoing criminal or other proceedings. 
III. Contents of legal provisions applicable to the case 
III.1 EU law: 
Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the 
use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against 
such liability […] 
(2) Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (motor 
insurance) is of special importance for European citizens, whether they are 
policyholders or victims of an accident. It is also a major concern for insurance 
undertakings as it constitutes an important part of non-life insurance business in 
the [Or.5] Community. Motor insurance also has an impact on the free movement 
of persons and vehicles. It should therefore be a key objective of Community 
action in the field of financial services to reinforce and consolidate the internal 
market in motor insurance. 
(3) Each Member State must take all appropriate measures to ensure that civil 
liability in respect of the use of vehicles normally based in its territory is covered 
by insurance. The extent of the liability covered and the terms and conditions of 
the insurance cover are to be determined on the basis of those measures. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 2.9.2019 — CASE C-707/19 
 
4  
Article 3 
Compulsory insurance of vehicles 
Each Member State shall, subject to Article 5, take all appropriate measures to 
ensure that civil liability in respect of the use of vehicles normally based in its 
territory is covered by insurance. 
The extent of the liability covered and the terms and conditions of the cover shall 
be determined on the basis of the measures referred to in the first paragraph. 
Each Member State shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the contract 
of insurance also covers: 
(a) according to the law in force in other Member States, any loss or injury 
which is caused in the territory of those States; 
(b) any loss or injury suffered by nationals of Member States during a 
direct journey between two territories in which the Treaty is in force, if 
there is no national insurers’ bureau responsible for the territory which 
is being crossed; in such a case, the loss or injury shall be covered in 
accordance with the national laws on compulsory insurance in force in 
the Member State in whose territory the vehicle is normally based. 
The insurance referred to in the first paragraph shall cover compulsorily both 
damage to property and personal injuries. 
Article 5 
Derogation from the obligation in respect of compulsory insurance of vehicles 
[Or.6] 
1. A Member State may derogate from Article 3 in respect of certain natural or 
legal persons, public or private; a list of such persons shall be drawn up by the 
State concerned and communicated to the other Member States and to the 
Commission. 
A Member State so derogating shall take the appropriate measures to ensure that 
compensation is paid in respect of any loss or injury caused in its territory and in 
the territory of other Member States by vehicles belonging to such persons. 
It shall in particular designate an authority or body in the country where the loss 
or injury occurs responsible for compensating injured parties in accordance with 
the laws of that State in cases where Article 2(a) is not applicable. 
It shall communicate to the Commission the list of persons exempt from 
compulsory insurance and the authorities or bodies responsible for compensation. 
The Commission shall publish that list. 
K.S. 
 
5 
2. A Member State may derogate from Article 3 in respect of certain types of 
vehicle or certain vehicles having a special plate; the list of such types or of such 
vehicles shall be drawn up by the State concerned and communicated to the other 
Member States and to the Commission. 
Any Member State so derogating shall ensure that vehicles referred to in the first 
subparagraph are treated in the same way as vehicles for which the insurance 
obligation provided for in Article 3 has not been satisfied. 
IV.1 Latvian law: 
Sauszemes transportlīdzekļu īpašnieku civiltiesiskās atbildības obligātās 
apdrošināšanas likums [Law on compulsory insurance against civil liability 
of owners of motor vehicles] 
Article 28. The costs of evacuating the vehicle or its remaining parts include the 
costs of evacuating the vehicle or its remaining parts from the road accident 
location to the place of residence of the owner or authorised user who was driving 
the vehicle at the time of the road accident or to a place of repair in the territory of 
the Republic of Latvia. If in [Or.7] connection with a criminal investigation or for 
any other reason the vehicle or its remaining parts must remain in the car park, the 
damage covered by the claim shall also include the costs of evacuating the vehicle 
or its remaining parts to the appropriate car park and the fee for parking services. 
V. A statement of the reasons which prompted the referring court or 
tribunal to inquire about the interpretation or validity of certain provisions 
of EU law, and the relationship between those provisions and the national 
legislation applicable to the main proceedings 
V.1 In the case before the referring court, a doubt arose as to the extent to which 
Article 3 of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the 
Council […] imposes on the Member States an obligation to ensure that civil 
liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles is covered by insurance. 
Should this obligation be interpreted as meaning that, within the framework 
of ‘all appropriate measures’, each Member State should make insurance 
against civil liability cover the full extent of liability, including for towing 
the vehicle to its home country and the cost of parking of vehicles, and thus 
is not Article 28 of the Latvian Law on compulsory insurance against civil 
liability of owners of motor vehicles incompatible with Article 3 of 
Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of 
the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure 
against such liability? 
V.2 In the present case, the applicable law is determined by the Convention on 
the Law Applicable to Traffic Accidents concluded at The Hague on 4 May 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 2.9.2019 — CASE C-707/19 
 
6  
1971, according to which the applicable law is the internal law of the State 
in which the accident occurred, that is, the law of the Republic of Latvia in 
the present case. However, despite the fact that the case must be resolved 
under Latvian law, it is important that the relevant provisions of European 
Union law are taken into consideration. 
V.3 Article 3 of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 16 September 2009 requires Member States to introduce into 
their [Or.8] national legal systems a universal obligation to insure vehicles. 
It does not, however, specify the extent of insurance cover which each 
Member State should ensure in connection with civil liability in respect of 
the use of motor vehicles. The second sentence of Article 3 merely stipulates 
that the extent of the liability covered and the terms and conditions of the 
cover shall be determined on the basis of the measures (‘appropriate 
measures’) referred to in the first paragraph. 
V.4 The Court has repeatedly stressed in its case-law (see the judgment of 
11 July 2013 in Gábor Csonka and Others v Magyar Állam, C-409/11), that 
in interpreting a provision of EU law, it is necessary to consider not only its 
wording but also the context in which that provision arises and the 
objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part. Therefore, in view of the 
breadth of the wording of Article 3 of Directive 2009/103/EC of the 
European Parliament and of the Council, the scope of the obligation placed 
on the Member States must be interpreted in the light of the context and the 
objectives of that provision. 
V.5 Interpretative difficulties and doubts are exacerbated by the use of the words 
‘stosowne środki’ in Article 3 of the directive, which may be interpreted in 
different ways given their general meaning. The terminology used in the 
different language versions of the directive is also significant in this respect, 
since the English text stipulates: ‘Each Member State must take all 
appropriate measures to ensure that civil liability in respect of the use of 
vehicles normally based in its territory is covered by insurance’. Therefore, 
it appears that the wording of the English version (‘all appropriate 
measures’) is much stronger than the Polish wording. In the French version 
of Article 3 of the directive, a still stronger term appears to be used: ‘Chaque 
État membre prend toutes les mesures appropriées, sous réserve de 
l’application de l’article 5, pour que la responsabilité civile relative à la 
circulation des véhicules ayant leur stationnement habituel sur son territoire 
soit couverte par une assurance’. Therefore, it appears that in the French 
version the words ‘toutes les mesures appropriées’ refer to the need to 
determine what measures will be sufficient to achieve the purpose of the 
directive and to implement the principle of full compensation, and that all 
necessary measures should be taken by the Member State. When these texts 
are read in parallel, the Polish version contains the least forceful wording; in 
Polish law, the scope of insurance undertakings’ liability is extended by the 
K.S. 
 
7 
case-law of the ordinary courts and of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, 
Poland) [Or.9]. 
V.6 Recital 2 of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the 
Council […] stresses the importance of regulation and points out that the key 
objective of Community action is to reinforce and consolidate the internal 
market in motor insurance. Therefore, in the view of the referring court, the 
national legislation of the Member States must ensure that victims of 
accidents receive similar treatment irrespective of where in the European 
Union the accident occurred. It would appear that the EU legislature’s 
intention is to strengthen the free movement of vehicles and persons, which 
would argue in favour of an interpretation of EU laws that would oblige 
Member States to regulate insurance against civil liability to the fullest 
extent, that is to say, including with regard to the cost of towing vehicles to 
the victim’s home country. 
V.7 In Member States such as the Republic of Poland, it is emphasised that the 
insurer’s obligation to compensate for damage should be fulfilled in 
accordance with the principle of full compensation. Therefore, in accordance 
with the well-established case-law of the Polish courts and with Polish legal 
literature, the victim is entitled to claim compensation from the insurance 
undertaking. This compensation must cover all losses suffered in connection 
with the event giving rise to the claim as well as all benefits that the victim 
would have obtained if the event giving rise to the claim had not occurred. 
V.8 The referring court notes that in accordance with the fifth sentence of 
Article 3 of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the 
Council […], insurance against civil liability must cover any loss or injury 
suffered. There is no doubt that the costs of towing and necessary parking of 
vehicles incurred by the victim constitute a loss suffered in connection with 
the event giving rise to the claim. Therefore, the causal link appears to be 
beyond doubt. The current dispute before the court is limited to the 
interpretation of the law. In view of the above, it may be concluded that a 
literal interpretation of Article 28 of the Latvian Law […] may not be 
compatible with the wording and purpose of the fifth sentence of Article 3 of 
the directive, since it may result in a situation in which insurance against 
civil liability does not cover the loss suffered in connection with the event 
giving rise to the claim. Before making a request for a preliminary ruling, 
the referring court also consulted the information available on the practice of 
the Latvian courts and on their interpretation. To this end, a request was sent 
to the Latvian Ministry of Justice for information on the interpretation of law 
and an expert opinion of 7 June 2019 […] by G. L. was commissioned, 
which confirmed the restrictive interpretation of Article 28 of the Latvian 
Law […]. 
V.9 The wording of Article 5 of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European 
Parliament and of the Council […], which provides for derogations from the 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 2.9.2019 — CASE C-707/19 
 
8  
obligation to insure vehicles in respect of certain natural or legal persons, 
also supports the view that, within the framework of ‘all appropriate 
measures’, a Member State should make insurance against civil liability 
cover losses relating to towing vehicles to the home country and the cost of 
necessary parking. However, even in that case a Member State should take 
measures to ensure that compensation is paid in respect of any loss or injury 
caused in its territory and in the territory of other Member States by vehicles 
belonging to such persons. 
V.10 According to the referring court, the above considerations may lead to the 
conclusion that the interpretation given of Article 28 of the Latvian law, in 
so far as it limits the liability of insurance undertakings, is capable of 
producing effects which are incompatible with the objectives of Directive 
2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council […], since that 
interpretation would mean depriving a victim established in another Member 
State of the ability to obtain compensation for damage to property in the 
form of the costs of towing to its head office and the costs of necessary 
parking of vehicles in the territory of another Member State. Answers to the 
questions referred for preliminary ruling are relevant for the dispute pending 
before the referring court and will determine the legitimacy of further 
proceedings in the present case.