Case C‑514/16

Isabel Maria Pinheiro Vieira Rodrigues de Andrade and Fausto da Silva Rodrigues de Andrade

v

José Manuel Proença Salvador and Others

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directive 72/166/EEC — Article 3(1) — Concept of ‘use of vehicles’ — Accident on a farm — Accident involving an agricultural tractor that was stationary but with the engine running in order to drive a spray pump for applying herbicide)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 28 November 2017

Approximation of laws—Insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles—Directive 72/166—Concept of ‘use of vehicles’—93069 / Accident involving a tractor that was stationary with its engine running in order to drive a spray pump for applying herbicide—Not included—Verification by the national court

Approximation of laws—Insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles—Directive 72/166—Concept of ‘use of vehicles’—Use of a vehicle in accordance with its normal function—Vehicle stationary at the time of the accident—Fact not capable, in itself, of precluding use as a means of transport

See the text of the decision. (see paras 28, 29)

As regards the concept of ‘use of vehicles’ within the meaning of Article 3(1) of that directive, it should be noted that this cannot be left to the assessment of each Member State but is an autonomous concept of EU law, which must be interpreted in the light, in particular, of the context of that provision and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (see, to that effect, judgment of 4 September 2014, Vnuk, C‑162/13, EU:C:2014:2146, paragraphs 41 and 42). It is apparent from the preambles to that directive and 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 (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17) that the aim of those directives is, first, to ensure the free movement of vehicles normally based in the territory of the European Union and of persons travelling in those vehicles and, second, to guarantee that the victims of accidents caused by those vehicles receive comparable treatment irrespective of where in the European Union the accident occurred (see, to that effect, judgments of 9 June 2011, Ambrósio Lavrador and Olival Ferreira Bonifácio, C‑409/09, EU:C:2011:371, paragraph 23; of 23 October 2012, Marques Almeida, C‑300/10, EU:C:2012:656, paragraph 26; and of 4 September 2014, Vnuk, C‑162/13, EU:C:2014:2146, paragraph 50). In addition, the development of EU legislation concerning compulsory insurance shows that that objective of protecting the victims of accidents caused by those vehicles has continuously been pursued and reinforced by the EU legislature (see, to that effect, judgment of 4 September 2014, Vnuk, C‑162/13, EU:C:2014:2146, paragraphs 52 to 55). (see paras 31-33)

The Court has ruled in that context, in essence, that Article 3(1) of the First Directive must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘use of vehicles’ in that provision is not limited to road use, that is to say, to travel on public roads, but that that concept covers any use of a vehicle that is consistent with the normal function of that vehicle (see, to that effect, judgment of 4 September 2014, Vnuk, C‑162/13, EU:C:2014:2146, paragraph 59). It follows from the foregoing considerations, first, that the scope of the concept of ‘use of vehicles’ does not depend on the characteristics of the terrain on which the motor vehicle is used. Second, it must be pointed out that the motor vehicles referred to in Article 1(1) of the First Directive are, irrespective of their characteristics, intended normally to serve as means of transport. It follows that the concept of ‘use of vehicles’ within the meaning of Article 3(1) of that directive covers any use of a vehicle as a means of transport. In that regard, the fact that the vehicle involved in the accident was stationary when the accident occurred does not, in itself, preclude the use of that vehicle at that time from falling within the scope of its function as a means of transport and, therefore, within the scope of the concept of ‘use of vehicles’ within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the First Directive. Furthermore, whether or not its engine was running at the time when the accident occurred is not conclusive in that respect. However, in the case of vehicles which, like the tractor in question, are intended, apart from their normal use as a means of transport, to be used in certain circumstances as machines for carrying out work, it is necessary to determine whether, at the time of the accident involving such a vehicle, that vehicle was being used principally as a means of transport, in which case that use can be covered by the concept of ‘use of vehicles’ within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the First Directive, or as a machine for carrying out work, in which case the use in question cannot be covered by that concept. (see paras 34, 35, 37-40)