Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 88/357/EEC, 90/232/EEC and Directive 2000/26/EC on insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles" (COM(2002) 244 final — 2002/0124 (COD))
Date: 2003-02-26
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: civil liability, free movement of goods, free movement of persons, indemnification, motor vehicle insurance, transport accident

23.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/45

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the
European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 88/
357/EEC, 90/232/EEC and Directive 2000/26/EC on insurance against civil liability in respect of
the use of motor vehicles’

(COM(2002) 244 final — 2002/0124 (COD))

(2003/C 95/12)

On 16 September 2002 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 95 (1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned
proposal.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 19 December 2002. The rapporteur was
Mr Levaux.

At its 397th plenary session on 26 and 27 February 2003 (meeting of 26 February) the Committee
adopted the following opinion by 81 votes to 5 with 6 abstentions.

1.

Introduction

Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of
1.1.
motor vehicles was covered by an initial directive adopted in
1972, which was followed by four other directives adopted in
1984, 1988, 1990 and 2000 (1).

However,

intra-Community

1.2.
constantly
increasing, and certain provisions of the texts adopted earlier
(particularly those relating to minimum insurance cover
amounts) need to be updated.

traffic

is

— the need to obtain from one’s insurer a statement relating
to one’s claims record in order to negotiate a new contract
with another insurer.

As a result,

1.4.
in July 2001 the European Parliament
adopted a resolution recommending the adoption of a fifth
directive. The current proposal is the Commission’s response
to that resolution.

In addition, there is a perceived need to fill certain gaps

1.3.
or to find solutions to recurring problems, such as:

— the difficulty in finding insurance to cover a temporary

stay in another Member State;

— the difficulty in finding short-term insurance for the

purchase of a vehicle in another Member State;

— the demand for improved compensation for pedestrians

and cyclists within the scope of motor insurance;

( 1) Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approxi-
mation 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
(OJ L 103, 2.5.1972); 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 L 8, 11.1.1984); 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 vehicles (OJ L 129,
19.5.1990); Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 16 May 2000 on the approximation of the
laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil
liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and amending
Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (Fourth motor
insurance Directive) (OJ L 181, 20.7.2000).

2. General comments

2.1.
The Committee supports the approach of the Com-
mission, whose draft directive is intended to amend the earlier
directives in order to achieve ‘the following main objectives’:

— to update and improve the protection of victims of motor

vehicle accidents by compulsory insurance;

— to fill gaps and clarify certain provisions of the directives,
thereby ensuring increased convergence as regards their
interpretation and application;

— to provide solutions to frequently occurring problems in
order to create a more efficient single market in motor
insurance.

2.2.
The Committee notes that since 1972 — the year of
the first directive — several amendments have been made to
adapt the texts to the changing situation and to take account
of the various difficulties in their application.

C 95/46

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.4.2003

this

that

considers

The Committee

2.2.1.
legislative
approach runs counter to a number of Commission initiatives,
including the White Paper on European governance, the
Communication on European governance: better law-making
and the Communication on simplifying and improving the
regulatory environment. The Committee therefore regrets that
through these successive changes, this approach jeopardises
the consistency of, and access to, the body of regulatory
provisions governing vehicle insurance.

3.2.2.
The Committee realises that, at a time when the
reinsurance sector is in turmoil, it is not desirable to propose
higher minima. However, experience shows that a considerable
increase in guarantee minima automatically gives rise to an
equally considerable increase in the levels of compensation
awarded by the courts, in particular with regard to personal
injury. The ensuing raising of premiums by insurers could be
incompatible with the financial resources of clients, particu-
larly those in the candidate countries.

Once again the Committee notes that certain pro-
2.3.
visions have not been updated since they were first introduced.
For example, on minimum cover thresholds, the draft directive
proposes an increase of the order of 75 % of the amounts laid
down by Directive 84/5/EEC, which have not been revised for
18 years.

2.3.1.
The Committee takes the view that this method is
inconsistent, since it leads to periodic revisions on too large a
scale.

2.3.2. Moreover, over the years certain Member States have
set their own minimum thresholds higher than the Community
minimum thresholds. The gaps between Member States are
widening, making it very difficult to harmonise rates and apply
a balanced competition policy.

2.3.3.
The Committee notes with satisfaction that the
current draft directive provides, in its Article 2, for a revision
of the new minimum thresholds every five years.

3. Specific comments

The Committee examined point by point the articles of the
draft directive which seek to amend provisions in earlier
directives. These changes, mostly technical, are endorsed by
the Committee, except for the provisions on the guarantee
minima for damage to property and personal
injury. The
Committee would also make the following specific comments
and suggestions:

The Committee takes the view that the compensation
3.2.3.
per victim of personal injury (for which the directive sets no
ceiling) is equivalent in some cases to unlimited cover of the
risks. Bearing in mind that there are special rules for public
passenger transport, to which this directive does not apply,
at
that
the Committee proposes
EUR 10 000 000 per claim for personal injury whatever the
number of victims. This ceiling would apply for a period of
10 years, at the end of which the Commission would need to
reassess the situation.

ceiling be

the

set

3.2.4.
for automatic indexation.

The Committee endorses the proposed arrangements

3.2.5.
the following new point
Directive 84/5/EEC:

The Committee proposes that the Commission insert
into the amended Article 1 of

‘5a) Member States must take steps to set up a system for
settlement, within a maximum time-limit of four months,
of provisional compensation of traffic accident victims for
personal injury, pending the final establishment of the amount
of compensation, where the final amount is to be decided by a
court.’

that

believes

The Committee

3.2.6.
the proposed
Article 1(6) of Directive 84/5/EEC should be deleted. The
Committee does not in any case accept the restriction con-
tained in the second paragraph of point 6 to significant
personal injuries: under no circumstances should its definition
be left to the Member States, for the obvious reason that
schemes for victims would differ between Member States in an
area which should be harmonised.

3.1. Article 1

3.1.1.

The Committee approves the proposed changes.

3.3. Article 3

3.2. Article 2

It

is proposed to set guarantee minima
victim of personal

3.2.1.
at
and
EUR 1 000 000 per
EUR 500 000 per material damage claim, whatever the number
of victims.

injury

3.3.1.

The Committee approves the proposed change.

3.4. Article 4

3.4.1.
except for those in Article 4(2) and (4).

The Committee endorses the proposed changes,

23.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/47

3.4.2. A r t i c l e 4 ( 2 )

This contains a proposal to insert in Directive 90/
3.4.2.1.
232/EEC an Article ‘1a’ which would guarantee insurance of
personal
injuries sustained by pedestrians and cyclists in a
traffic accident, whether the driver of the vehicle concerned is
at fault or not.

3.4.2.2.
The Committee is aware of the fact that in the case
of compensation for weaker road users the present state of
affairs will inevitably have to change. Improving the situation
of ‘weaker road users’ should embrace not only cyclists and
pedestrians but also other non-motorised road users such as
inline skaters. However, an insurance directive should not be
used to bring about this improvement, since Member States’
provisions with regard to liability law still apply in this area. If
the EU’s competence for liability legislation to cover material
damage is accepted, weaker road users should be protected by
EU-wide liability provisions. Such legislation would also have
to cover a number of basic points such as a causality
requirement, the need to take account of force majeure and
the exclusion of intention in causing damage.

3.4.2.3.
The Committee therefore proposes that this pro-
vision be withdrawn from the present draft directive (known
as the ‘fifth directive’) and be reserved for a liability directive
which is designed to improve compensation and harmonise
the rules for ‘weaker road users’.

3.4.2.4.
Reference could be made in the forthcoming motor
vehicle insurance directive to the liability directive and a
uniform standard of compensation provided for all victims of
traffic accidents.

3.4.3. A r t i c l e 4 ( 4 )

3.4.3.1.
This includes a proposal to insert into Directive
90/232/EEC an Article ‘4b’ on the production of insurance
statements.

The Committee regards this provision as too
3.4.3.2.
limited, since it simply obliges the insurer to send a statement
relating to previous claims within the fifteen days following
the termination of the contract. In fact, policy holders need
this statement before the contract terminates in order to find a

Brussels, 26 February 2003.

new insurer: if they only receive it after termination, they will
be without cover for a certain period. Moreover, the statement
may be required by policy holders at any time, such as
when acquiring another vehicle they also wish to insure.
Consequently, the Committee would like the statement to be
provided within fifteen days of a request by the policy holder.
In addition, it would like the insurer to be obliged to reply by
e-mail and/or by post to each request from the policy holder.

3.5. Article 5

3.5.1.

The Committee endorses the proposed changes.

3.6. Article 6

3.6.1.
sition.

The Committee endorses the provisions on transpo-

4. Conclusions

The Committee notes a proliferation of European texts

4.1.
on motor insurance.

4.1.1.
a fifth directive, a future directive should be envisaged.

Even before the adoption of the current proposal for

Other amending or complementary texts will no
4.1.2.
doubt be drawn up. Access to the rules in force is thus
becoming particularly complex because of the accumulation
of texts amended on a piecemeal basis, with a growing risk of
confusion and inconsistency on the eve of enlargement.

4.1.3.
The Committee therefore calls upon the Commission
to propose that the 5th directive still under consideration
should consolidate the earlier directives (72/166/EEC, 84/5/
EEC, 88/357/EEC, 90/232/EEC, 2000/26/EC). At a later stage
it could be transformed into a ‘European motor insurance
code’ by adding to it all the existing rules in this field.

4.2.
Further amendments and developments would be
made by reference to this single document, which would
ensure that all the arrangements are consistent.

4.3.
This ‘European motor insurance code’ could be the
forerunner of a more general document: a ‘European insurance
code’.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH