WRITTEN QUESTION E-2406/03 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

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?

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/405

Although third-party liability insurance is compulsory, the number of uninsured drivers is increasing daily.
What measures is the Commission proposing which it or the Member States must take in order to
(a) significantly reduce that number and (b) simultaneously ensure that every driver may have access to
affordable third-party liability insurance?

(1) Oral answer given on 3 September 2002.

(2004/C 78 E/0427)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2407/03

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 states that
there were so many wholesale cancellations, which, in only very few cases, were obviously justified, that
the question arises whether an insurance company, which initially entices clients only to abandon them
subsequently without giving the slightest reason for so doing, is not abusing the law. After all, insurers
may cancel a policy every twelve months without further ado, provided that it gives due notice to the
policy-holder.

The information set out in the Ombudsman’s report shows that insurers are allowed to refuse to give to
clients who are involved in a liability claim any cover other than the obligatory third-party liability
insurance, even if the person involved was not at fault or if no third party was involved.

Does the Commission share my view that it should not be possible for insurers without further ado to
refuse cover for certain risks to drivers involved in an accident where they were not themselves at fault or
where no third party was involved, if only on the grounds that it is fairly pointless to insure oneself against
something if large numbers of insurers refuse to pay out claims for damages made in good faith? If not,
why not? If so, what measures will it take on behalf of the consumers involved?

Is it indeed an abuse of the law for insurers to entice clients and subsequently to abandon them without
reason? If, so what measures will the Commission take? If not, what arguments can the Commission put
forward to allay the suspicions of the Belgian Insurance Ombudsman?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-2405/03, E-2406/03 and E-2407/03
given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2003)

The Commission is following with some concern the situation in a number of Member States where
increases in the cost of compulsory insurance may have the perverse effect of impeding or actually
preventing freedom of choice for individuals (and, in particular, young people and the elderly) between the
different means of transport available to them (private vehicle or public transport). It would refer the
to Written Questions Nos 592/02 (1) and 1522/03 (2) by
Honourable Member
Marianne Thyssen and Armando Cossutta respectively.

to its answers

However, the Commission remains attached to the principle of freedom to set premiums advocated by the
Third Insurance Directives, particularly in the case of civil liability motor-vehicle insurance despite the fact
that the compulsory nature of such insurance has been recently confirmed by the Court of Justice (see in
particular the ruling of 25 February 2003 (3)). This is because competitive pressures benefit consumers.

The Honourable Member mentions the spirit of Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the
European Union and of Article II-21 of the Draft Treaty establishing a European Constitution. The
Commission would point out that differential treatment does not necessarily constitute discrimination
based on the age of the policyholder where such treatment can be justified by objective factors reflecting
objective underlying circumstances when it comes to determining the level of the policyholder’s premiums.
For instance, it must be borne in mind that companies set their premiums ‘inter alia’ on the basis of
average claims frequency. Depending on their assessment of the risk, they are free to decide to adjust their