62023CJ0236_RES
Case C‑236/23
Mutuelle assurance des travailleurs mutualistes (Matmut)
v
TNandMAAF assurances SAandFonds de garantie des assurances obligatoires de dommages (FGAO)andPQ
(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France))
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2024
(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles – Directive 2009/103/EC – Articles 3 and 13 – Insurance contract concluded on the basis of an intentional false statement concerning the usual driver – National legislation providing that the nullity of an insurance contract may be invoked against a ‘passenger victim’, who is also the insurance policyholder, where that nullity results from an intentional false statement made by that person when the contract was concluded – Abuse of rights – Action brought against the policyholder seeking to establish his liability as a result of his intentional false statement)
Approximation of laws – Insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles – Extent of cover for third parties under compulsory insurance – National legislation providing that the nullity of an insurance contract concluded on the basis of false statements by the policyholder may be invoked against a passenger victim – National legislation providing that the insurer may bring an action against the policyholder to obtain reimbursement of all the sums which it has paid in performance of the insurance contract – Not permissible – Conditions – Exception – Abuse of rights
(European Parliament and Council Directive 2009/103, Art. 3, first para., and Art. 13(1))
(see paragraphs 32, 33, 35, 37-43, 46, 47, 50-66, operative part)
Résumé
Following a reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation, France), the Court clarifies the extent of the cover provided to third-party victims under compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles. Thus, it notes that Directive 2009/103 (
1
) precludes, except in the case of an abuse of rights, national legislation under which it is possible to invoke against a passenger of a vehicle who is a victim of a road accident, where he or she is also the policyholder, the nullity of a contract of insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles resulting from a false statement made by that policyholder in concluding that contract. Where such nullity cannot be invoked against such a passenger victim and where there is no abuse of rights, that directive precludes national legislation which allows the insurer to bring proceedings against that passenger in order to obtain reimbursement of the sums paid in performance of the insurance contract.
In October 2012, PQ took out a motor vehicle insurance contract with Matmut, stating that he was the only driver of the insured vehicle. In September 2013, that vehicle, while being driven by TN, who was under the influence of alcohol, was involved in a road traffic accident with another vehicle insured by another insurance company. PQ, who was a passenger in the first vehicle, was injured in that accident.
Criminal proceedings were brought against TN before a criminal court (France) and he was found guilty, inter alia, of causing unintentional physical injuries to PQ. That court declared the insurance contract in question null and void on account of an intentional false statement made by the policy holder concerning the identity of the usual driver of the vehicle concerned. That judgment was upheld by the Cour d’appel de Lyon (Court of Appeal, Lyon, France), which held, however, that the nullity of the insurance contract at issue could not be relied on against PQ because, under EU law, the nullity of an insurance contract on the ground of an intentional false statement by the insured person cannot be relied on against the victims of a road traffic accident or their successors in title.
Hearing the appeal brought against that judgment, the referring court questions whether the nullity of an insurance contract may be invoked against the passenger victim where he is also the policyholder and the person who made the intentional false statement which rendered that contract void. It also questions whether, in the event that that nullity is declared unenforceable against such a victim, the insurer can bring an action against that victim in order to obtain reimbursement of all the sums paid to him under the contract.
Findings of the Court
In the first place, the Court recalls that the objective of protecting victims of accidents caused by those vehicles has consistently been pursued and reinforced by the EU legislature. It points out that, under Directive 2009/103, (
2
) a civil liability motor insurance company may not refuse to compensate third party victims of an accident caused by an insured vehicle by relying on statutory provisions or contractual clauses contained in an insurance policy excluding from insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles damage or injury caused to third party victims as a result inter alia of the use or driving of the insured vehicle by persons who do not have authorisation to drive that vehicle.
As regards the status of a victim of a road traffic accident, the Court notes that the objective of protecting victims requires the legal position of the person who was insured to drive a vehicle but who was, at the time of an accident, a passenger in that vehicle, to be the same as that of any other passenger who is a victim of that accident. Thus, the fact that a passenger in a road traffic accident was the insurance policyholder does not allow that person to be excluded from the concept of ‘third parties who have been victims’. (
3
) The same is true if the policyholder is not the usual driver of the vehicle involved in a road traffic accident. Accordingly, the fact that, at the time when the road traffic accident occurred, PQ was the insurance policyholder and the passenger in the vehicle concerned has no bearing on his status as a ‘third party who has been a victim’.
In the second place, as to whether the nullity of the insurance contract in question resulting from PQ’s false statement made when concluding that contract as to the identity of the usual driver of the vehicle concerned may be relied on against PQ, the Court holds that the fact that an insurance company has concluded an insurance contract on the basis of omissions or false statements on the part of the policyholder does not enable that company to invoke that nullity against a third party victim so as to be released from its obligation to compensate that victim for damage or injury suffered as a result of an accident caused by the insured vehicle. Such a situation is not covered by the single derogation from the obligation of insurance companies to compensate third party victims of a road traffic accident laid down in Directive 2009/103. (
4
)
In view of the fact that PQ is not only the passenger victim of the road traffic accident in question seeking compensation but also the policyholder who made the intentional false statement which led to the nullity of the insurance contract, the Court emphasises that Directive 2009/103 does not contain any provisions governing any abuse of rights by the insured person. However, the general legal principle that EU law cannot be relied on for abusive or fraudulent ends must be complied with by individuals. It follows from that principle that a Member State must refuse to grant the benefit of the provisions of EU law where they are relied upon by a person not with a view to achieving the objectives of those provisions, but with the aim of benefiting from an advantage granted to that person by EU law when the objective conditions required for obtaining the advantage sought are met only formally. In the present case, first, as regards the question whether the objective pursued by Directive 2009/103 has been achieved, the Court notes that, subject to verification by the referring court, the objective of protecting victims of road traffic accidents appears to be achieved, as PQ is a victim of the accident at issue who is seeking compensation. As regards, secondly, the subjective element consisting of the intention to obtain an advantage from the EU rules by artificially creating the conditions laid down for obtaining it, it does not appear, subject to verification by the referring court, that PQ made false statements with the essential aim of relying himself on the provisions of Directive 2009/103 (
5
) and of circumventing a national provision relating to the legal conditions for nullity of an insurance contract. PQ’s false statement was made in order to have TN’s vehicle insured under more advantageous conditions than those which would have applied if the identity of the usual driver of that vehicle had been known to the insurer. In the light of the foregoing, it does not appear, subject to verification by the referring court, that PQ infringed the principle prohibiting abuse of rights. Accordingly, the nullity of the contract of insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles at issue in the main proceedings, resulting from PQ’s false statement made when that contract was concluded, cannot be relied on against him.
In the third place, as regards the possibility for the insurer to obtain from PQ reimbursement in full of the sums which it paid to him in performance of the insurance contract by means of an action based on PQ’s intentional wrongdoing when concluding that contract, the Court notes that the legal conditions of validity of an insurance contract and those relating to the policyholder’s liability for false statements made at the time of concluding the insurance contract are governed by the laws of the Member States. However, the national provisions governing those conditions cannot deprive Directive 2009/103 of its effectiveness. In circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, national legislation which allows the insurer, by means of an action brought against the passenger victim, who is also the policyholder and the person who made the false statement in concluding the insurance contract, to obtain reimbursement of all of the sums paid to that passenger victim in performance of that contract is liable to deprive that person, definitively and disproportionately, of the protection which Directive 2009/103 grants to the victims of such accidents. Such legislation is liable to limit disproportionately the right of that individual to obtain compensation by the compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles.
(
1
)	Article 3, first paragraph, and Article 13(1) 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).
(
2
)	Inter alia under the first subparagraph of Article 13(1) of Directive 2009/103.
(
3
)	As provided in the first subparagraph of Article 13(1) of Directive 2009/103.
(
4
)	Under the first and second subparagraphs of Article 13(1), an insurance company may refuse to compensate third-party victims of a road traffic accident only in cases where the vehicle which caused the damage or injury was used or driven by persons who did not have express or implied authorisation to do so and where the third party victims of the accident voluntarily entered that vehicle knowing that it had been stolen.
(
5
)	More specifically, Articles 3 and 13 of Directive 2009/103.