WRITTEN QUESTION E-2405/03 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Motor-vehicle insurance.
Date: 2003-07-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: age discrimination, consumer protection, discriminatory price, insurance company, insurance contract, insurance law, insurance premium, motor vehicle insurance, third-party insurance

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/403

Is the Commission’s Rail Market Monitoring System (RMMS) taking note of the increase in and the
5.
disparities between average railway infrastructure charges? Is the Commission taking measures to correct
this trend?

Is the Commission prepared to take active steps to enable the railways to continue to provide
6.
existing night-train services and to create the conditions needed for the long-term provision and the
possible expansion of cross-border night services?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

The Commission is aware of the reduction in the number of international night and car-sleeper services
from Belgium as of December 2003. The Commission considers that a further opening of the market for
international passenger services by rail will allow new railway undertakings to offer new and competitive
services, which satisfy the requirements of the passengers, and would like to refer the Honourable Member
to the replies on his previous questions, notably E-1699/03 (1), E-1721/03 (2) and E-1722/03 (3).

Further to the requirements of Directive 2001/12/EC (4), the Commission has started to monitor market
developments in the railway sector. The monitor of the rail market shall be comprehensive, and shall
therefore include as many aspects as possible, one of them being the level of infrastructure charges. The
determination of the level of these charges does not belong to the competences of the Commission.
However, the verification of the compliance of national provisions adopted for the implementation of
Directive 2001/14/EC (5) -which determines the framework conditions for rail infrastructure access and
charges, as well as the creation of a Regulatory Body (6) (cid:1) is carried out by the Commission, bearing in
mind that the levels of these charges are set by the Infrastructure Managers.

(1) OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2004, p. 128.
(2) OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 158.
(3) OJ C 58 E, 6.3.2004, p. 88.
(4) Directive 2001/12/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive

91/440/EEC on the development of the Community’s railways, OJ L 75, 15.3.2001.

(5) Directive 2001/14/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway
infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification,
OJ L 75, 15.3.2001.

(6) Article 30 of Directive 2001/14/EC.

(2004/C 78 E/0425)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2405/03

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(21 July 2003)

Subject: Motor-vehicle insurance

On 19 June 2003, the Belgian Insurance Ombudsman presented her annual report. In the evaluation of
her report, the Ombudsman was reported in the newspaper ‘De Standaard’ to have noted that young
people, above all, as well as elderly drivers were being systematically refused insurance or that their
policies were being swiftly cancelled if they made a claim.

In its answer to Oral Question H-0525/02 (1), the Commission stated that free trade in insurance products
was in the interests of the vast majority of motorists who could choose the insurance company which
rewarded good drivers by charging lower premiums.

With a view to ensuring that drivers in general and young drivers in particular may secure affordable
third-party liability insurance cover, the new Belgian Government is proposing that insurance companies
should be required to offer new drivers policies valid for a period of five years or longer.

C 78 E/404

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Does the Commission acknowledge that this refusal of cover for principally young drivers but also for
elderly drivers is in breach of the spirit of Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European
Union and of the virtually identical Article II-21 of the Draft Treaty establishing a European Constitution?
If so, what measures will it take to prevent such discrimination? If not, what arguments can it put forward
in support of this manifest discrimination on the ground of age?

Does the Commission acknowledge that young and elderly drivers find it particularly difficult to secure
motor-vehicle insurance and that the free trade in insurance products does not, therefore, benefit this
considerable group of motorists? If so, what measures will it take on behalf of consumers? If not, what
arguments can it put forward to underpin its divergent point of view?

Is the Commission aware of the Belgian Government’s intention to require insurers to offer new drivers
policies valid for five years or more? Is that requirement in compliance with Community law? If not, what
alternatives will the Commission propose so that young drivers in particular may nevertheless secure
affordable (compulsory) third-party liability insurance?

(1) Oral answer given on 3 September 2002.

(2004/C 78 E/0426)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2406/03

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(21 July 2003)

Subject: Motor-vehicle insurance

On 19 June 2003, the Belgian Insurance Ombudsman presented her annual report. The report indicates
that, as from 1 January 2004, the no-claims bonus system will be replaced by a ‘claims history certificate’.

The annual report of the Joint Motor Vehicle Insurance Fund for 2001 shows that, between 1997 and
2001, the number of accidents involving uninsured vehicles increased by 70 % (cid:1) from about 4 950 to
about 8 450. The Joint Motor Vehicle Insurance Fund compensates the victims of uninsured drivers.
It makes such payments from funds contributed by the insurance companies, i.e. ‘inter alia’ by drivers who
properly insure themselves and their vehicles.

On a more general level, the number of uninsured drivers in Belgium is estimated at 100 000. A large
proportion of that number are drivers who can no longer secure cover with proper insurance companies
because of their history of making claims: either specific insurance companies are no longer willing to
insure them or else the premiums are so high as to be unaffordable. As from 1 November 2003, such
drivers in Belgium will be able to receive assistance from what is known as the ‘Rating Office’. Any losses
would then be borne by all the insurance companies combined, i.e. ‘inter alia’ by drivers who properly
insure themselves and their vehicles.

In its answer to Oral Question H-0525/02 (1), the Commission said that only those who caused damage
should be required to pay compensation for such damage. In its answer, the Commission also took the
view that obligatory no-claims bonus systems were prohibited. The Commission also stated that free trade
in insurance products was in the interests of the vast majority of motorists who could choose the
insurance company which rewarded good drivers by charging lower premiums.

Does the Commission share the view that the ‘claims history certificate’ is nothing more than a disguised
no-claims bonus system? If not, why not? If so, what alternative can it propose in this instance?

Does the Commission share the view that, by virtue of their contribution to the Joint Motor Vehicle
Insurance Fund or to the Rating Office, good drivers are in one way or another indirectly footing the bill
for damage caused by the ‘accident-prone’ persons referred to in the Commission’s answer of 3 September
2002? How does it justify that situation? What alternative can it propose?