Case C-300/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães (Portugal) lodged on 17 June 2010 — Vítor Hugo Marques Almeida v Companhia de Seguros Fidelidade-Mundial SA, Jorge Manuel da Cunha Carvalheira, Paulo Manuel Carvalheira, Fundo de Garantia Automóvel
Date: 2010-06-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, indemnification, interpretation of the law, motor vehicle insurance, third-party insurance, transport accident








C_2010234EN.01002601.xml










28.8.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 234/26





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães (Portugal) lodged on 17 June 2010 — Vítor Hugo Marques Almeida v Companhia de Seguros Fidelidade-Mundial SA, Jorge Manuel da Cunha Carvalheira, Paulo Manuel Carvalheira, Fundo de Garantia Automóvel
(Case C-300/10)
()
2010/C 234/42
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Vítor Hugo Marques Almeida

Defendants: Companhia de Seguros Fidelidade-Mundial SA, Jorge Manuel da Cunha Carvalheira, Paulo Manuel Carvalheira, Fundo de Garantia Automóvel

Questions referred







(a)


Must Articles 3(1) of the First Directive (72/166/EEC), (1) 2(1) of the Second Directive (84/5/EEC) (2) and 1 and 1a of the Third Directive (90/232/EEC) (3) be interpreted to the effect that they preclude national civil law, in particular through the rules laid down in Articles 503(1), 504, 505 and 570 of the Civil Code, from providing that if, when two vehicles collide, the event is not attributable to the fault of either driver, and it gives rise to personal injury to the passenger in one of the vehicles (the injured person seeking compensation), the compensation to which the latter is entitled is to be refused or limited, on the ground that that passenger has contributed to the occurrence of the injury, for he was travelling in the vehicle, in the front passenger seat, without fastening his seat-belt as required by national legislation?










(b)


having regard to the fact that it has been established that when the two vehicles involved collided, because of that collision and because he had not fastened his seat-belt, that passenger struck his head with force against the windscreen, breaking it, which resulted in deep cuts to his head and face?










(c)


and having regard to the fact that, one of the vehicles involved not being covered by valid and effective insurance with any insurer at the date of the accident, the defendants and respondents in the proceedings include, in addition to the insurer of the other vehicle involved, the owner of the uninsured vehicle, its driver and the Fundo de Garantia Automóvel, who and which may, in so far as strict liability is concerned, be jointly and severally liable to pay such compensation?






(1)  Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation 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, English Special Edition 1972 (II), p. 360).

(2)  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).

(3)  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 1990 L 129, p. 33).