62024CJ0490_RES
Case C‑490/24
Stichting Koskea, as administrator of ED
v
Nationale Nederlanden Schadeverzekering Maatschappij NV, trading under the name of Reaal Schadeverzekering NV
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 February 2026
(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles – Directive 2009/103/EC – Article 12(1) – Obligation for personal injuries to all passengers, other than the driver, arising out of the use of a vehicle to be covered by civil liability insurance – Scope – Road traffic accident involving a single vehicle – Damage suffered by the driver of the vehicle as a result of the intervention of a passenger in the driving of the vehicle)
Approximation of laws – Insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles – Directive 2009/103 – Compulsory insurance of vehicles – Obligation to cover personal injuries to all passengers other than the driver – Concept – Obligation to cover damage suffered by the driver of a vehicle involved in a road traffic accident – Not included – Damage suffered as a result of a passenger interfering in the driving of the vehicle – Irrelevant
(European Parliament and Council Directive 2009/103, Art. 1, point 1, Art. 3, first, second and fourth paras, Art. 12(1) to (3) and Art. 13(1) and (3))
(see paragraphs 25-44, operative part)
Résumé
Ruling on a request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands), the Court of Justice clarifies the concept of ‘driver’ in the context of the compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles provided for by Directive 2009/103. (
1
) The Court rules that damage suffered by the driver of the only vehicle involved in a road traffic accident as a result of a passenger’s intervention in the driving of that vehicle does not have to be covered by that insurance.
At the end of 2016, ED was involved in a road traffic accident while driving a minibus, belonging to a football club, that was carrying a former coach of that club. While the minibus was travelling at a speed of approximately 70 km/h, the former coach, who was sitting behind and to the right of the driver, suddenly pulled the handbrake. The minibus skidded and hit several pillars. ED was seriously injured and suffers permanent and very serious lasting effects from the accident.
In order to obtain compensation for the damage suffered by ED as a result of that accident, the foundation that administers his assets and defends his interests claimed cover under the passenger and driver indemnity insurance taken out by the football club. The insurer did not grant that claim, arguing that ED was under the influence of alcohol when he got behind the wheel of the minibus. ED was informed that he was not covered under the compulsory civil liability insurance either, as it did not cover damage suffered by the driver.
Against that background, the foundation acting on behalf of ED brought an action before the court of first instance. That court held that ED should not have been excluded from the compulsory civil liability insurance cover provided for by Directive 2009/103 since, although he was at the wheel of the vehicle at the time of the accident, he could no longer be regarded as the driver because, by pulling the hand brake, the former coach had acted as the driver. As ED’s appeal was upheld by that court, the insurer brought an appeal against that decision before the court of appeal, which, taking the view that ED had not lost his status as driver as a result of the former coach pulling the handbrake, overturned the judgment of the court of first instance.
The foundation representing ED brought an appeal on a point of law before the referring court, which, in that context, has doubts regarding the interpretation of a provision of Directive 2009/103 which excludes drivers from the compulsory civil liability insurance cover. It notes that, first, the Court has always emphasised the importance of protecting passengers who are victims of a road traffic accident as well as the objective of ensuring that that insurance allows all passengers to be compensated for the damage which they have suffered. Second, Directive 2009/103 distinguishes the driver from other passengers, but does not define the concept of ‘driver’.
Findings of the Court
In the first place, the Court recalls that, under Article 12(1) of Directive 2009/103, compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles covers civil liability for personal injuries to all passengers other than the driver. The Court thus states that, first, in the absence of a definition of the concepts of ‘driver’ and ‘passenger’ in that directive, the scope of those terms must be determined by reference to their usual meaning in everyday language. Second, the term ‘driver’ usually refers to the person who is at the controls or the wheel of the vehicle and is responsible for driving it, whereas the term ‘passenger’ refers to a person who is elsewhere in the vehicle concerned and who is not driving it. In that respect, it observes that there may be, in a vehicle, several passengers other than the driver, but, in principle, only one driver at a time. Third, Article 12(1) of Directive 2009/103 does not include damage suffered by the driver of a vehicle in the cover provided by the compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles.
In the second place, as regards the context of which Article 12(1) of Directive 2009/103 forms part, the Court points out, in the light of the definition of the concept of ‘vehicle’ within the meaning of that directive, that every vehicle in use has, in principle, a driver and a driver’s seat, and that that driver is the person who, inside the vehicle, operates or is in a position to operate the mechanical power for the purposes of its movement, while at the wheel. Accordingly, like that provision, several other provisions of Directive 2009/103, (
2
) distinguish the driver of the vehicle from other persons who may have been in that vehicle and other road users who were not in the vehicle but who may have been affected by a road traffic accident involving a vehicle. Thus, the categories of victims of an accident are, in essence, determined as distinct from the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident.
In addition, the Court emphasises the distinction between, on the one hand, the obligation to cover, by compulsory insurance against civil liability under Directive 2009/103, damage caused to third parties, and, on the other hand, the extent of compensation for damage caused to third parties on the basis of civil liability for the accident, which is, in essence, governed by national law. Accordingly, the role that any occupant of the vehicle, such as, in the present case, the passenger who pulled the handbrake, may have played in the accident and, therefore, in the occurrence of damage, may, in accordance with the rules on civil liability in force in the Member State in which the accident occurred, determine who is civilly liable for the accident and influence the extent of compensation.
In the light of the foregoing, the Court notes that the intervention of a passenger in the driving of a vehicle, which causes an accident, cannot have the effect of depriving the person who is in the driving seat of that vehicle and is steering it of his or her status as driver of that vehicle. To conclude otherwise would undermine both the fundamental distinction between driver and third-party victim, which characterises the system of compulsory insurance against civil liability established by Directive 2009/103, and the distinction between the obligation to provide that insurance cover and the extent of compensation for damage on the basis of civil liability for the accident, which is governed by national law.
In the third and last place, the Court finds that that interpretation is supported by the objectives pursued by Directive 2009/103, in particular the objective of protecting the victims of accidents caused by motor vehicles, which has continuously been reinforced during the development of EU legislation in the field of compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles. That objective would be undermined if, depending on random factual circumstances, the person at the wheel of a vehicle could lose his or her status as driver because of a passenger’s intervention in the driving of that vehicle. The legal uncertainty which would result from such a possibility is, in itself, incompatible with that objective.
The Court also states that those legislative developments have been marked by the consistent and explicit exclusion of coverage, by compulsory civil liability insurance provided for by EU law, of damage suffered by the driver. Furthermore, nothing in that legislative development indicates any intention on the part of the EU legislature to harmonise the obligation to insure against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles beyond the coverage of damage caused to third parties. Therefore, under current EU law, the question of whether there may be an obligation to cover, by insurance, damage suffered by the driver of the only vehicle involved in a road traffic accident remains governed by the national laws of the Member States.
It follows that the damage suffered by the driver of the only vehicle involved in a road traffic accident does not have to be covered by the compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles provided for by Directive 2009/103, even where a passenger intervened in the driving of that vehicle and that intervention caused the accident.
(
1
)	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), first, second and fourth paragraphs of Article 3.
(
2
)	Article 12(2) and (3) and Article 13(3) of Directive 2009/103.