Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to ensure against such liability
Date: 2018-05-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, compulsory insurance, financial solvency, insurance claim, insurance indemnity, insurance law, motor vehicle insurance, third-party insurance, transport accident

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 24.5.2018  COM(2018) 336 final 2018/0168 (COD)  Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to ensure against such liability  (Text with EEA relevance) {SEC(2018) 248 final} - {SWD(2018) 247 final} - {SWD(2018) 248 final}  
 
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1. 

• 

CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

Reasons for and objectives of the proposal 

The  Motor  Insurance  Directive  is  a  key  legal  instrument  that  underpins  the  smooth 
functioning of the Single Market. It enables seamless crossing of internal EU borders by EU 
residents with their vehicles for both business and leisure purposes. On the basis of a single 
premium, EU residents can travel anywhere without the need to buy additional insurance and 
by the same token the Directive seeks to accomplish a high degree of convergence in terms of 
protection of potential victims of motor vehicle accidents. The Directive is also instrumental 
for the functioning of the Schengen Zone. 
The first EU Directive on motor insurance1 was adopted in 1972, with the dual objectives of 
protecting  victims  of  motor  vehicle  accidents  (with  or  without  a  cross-border  element),  and 
facilitating the free movement of motor vehicles between Member States. The foundations of 
EU  motor  insurance  legislation  lie  in  the  International  Green  Card  System,  a  non-EU 
agreement involving 48 countries, but the EU legislation goes further. Five motor insurance 
Directives  since  1972  progressively  strengthened  the  Directive  and  enhanced  its  provisions; 
they were consolidated into Directive 2009/103/EC (hereafter the Directive). Key elements of 
the Directive include: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An  obligation  on  motor  vehicles  to  have  a  motor  third  party  liability  insurance 
policy, valid for all parts of the EU on the basis of a single premium. 

Obligatory minimum amounts of cover which such insurance policies must provide 
(Member States may require higher cover at national level). 

A prohibition on Member States from carrying out systematic checks of insurance of 
vehicles normally based in another Member State. 

An  obligation  on  Member  States  to  create  guarantee  funds  for  compensation  of 
victims of accidents caused by uninsured or unidentified vehicles. 

Protection for victims of motor vehicle accidents in a Member State other than their 
Member State of residence ("visiting victims"). 

A right for policyholders to obtain a statement of their claims history for the past five 
years from their insurer. 

To assess the effectiveness, efficiency and coherence of the motor insurance legislation, the 
Commission  Work  Programme  2016  announced  an  evaluation  of  the  Directive2.  The 
conclusion of the evaluation was that most elements of the Directive remain fit for purpose, 
while certain amendments in specific areas would be appropriate.  
Furthermore,  in  the  Consumer  Financial  Services  Action  Plan  of  March  20173,  the 
Commission announced that, following an evaluation, it would decide promptly on possible 

1 

2 

3 

EN 

Council Directive 72/166/EC of 24 April 1972 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  to  the 
enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability. 
See the Inception Impact Assessment of 24 July 2017, available here. The completion of the evaluation 
was  postponed  to  2017  in  order  to  await  the  "Andrade"  judgement  of  the  CJEU,  delivered  on  28 
November 2017 and the "Torreiro" judgment of the CJEU, delivered on 20 December 2017. 
COM(2017) 
23 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52017DC0139. 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

March 

2017, 

final 

139 

of 

1 

  EN 

 
                                                 
amendments to the Directive to enhance the protection of traffic accident victims where the 
insurer is insolvent, and to improve the recognition of claims history statements, especially in 
a cross-border context. The present proposal addresses those two issues, together with three 
others  identified  in  the  evaluation:  insurance  checks  to  combat  uninsured  driving, 
harmonisation of minimum amounts of cover, and the scope of the directive. 

1) Insolvency of the insurer 

According  to  the  Directive,  compensation  bodies  must  be  set  up  in  each  Member  State  to 
meet  costs  arising  from  accidents  caused  by  uninsured  or  unidentified  vehicles.  However, 
such  bodies  are  not  currently  required  to  meet  costs  arising  from  claims  where  the  motor 
insurer of the liable party is insolvent. This means that, if national law does not provide for 
any  specific  protection  scheme,  victims  of  accidents  caused  by  a  vehicle  insured  with  an 
insolvent insurer may be left without compensation.  

An accident which involves a liable party with an insolvent insurer poses two main issues. It 
is not always clear who, if anybody, is responsible for the initial compensation of the victim 
("front  office").  Second,  it  is  unclear  who  bears  the  ultimate  financial  responsibility  for  the 
claim  ("back  office").  These  issues  are  particularly  important  when  the  insurer  is  providing 
insurance cross-border via free provision of services. In a number of recent such insolvencies, 
victims of motor accidents caused by policyholders of the insolvent insurers suffered delays in 
payment  of  compensation,  while  national  legal  procedures  determined  the  responsibility  for 
and the level of compensation. 

2) Claims history 
The  Consumer  Financial  Services  Action  Plan4  described  a  possible  action  in  the  area  of 
claims  history  statements,  to  benefit  citizens  moving  across  borders.  In  order  to  facilitate 
switching  to  a  new  insurance  provider,  the  current  Directive  provides  that  Member  States 
must ensure the policyholder has the right to request a claims history statement covering the 
last  five  years.  However,  there  is  no  requirement  on  insurers  to  take  such  statements  into 
account  when  calculating  premiums.  The  evaluation  revealed  that  often  such  statements  are 
ignored by insurers, especially when they are issued by an insurer in another Member State, 
and  sometimes  their  authenticity  is  questioned.  To  facilitate  the  authentication  of  claims 
history statements by insurers it is beneficial that content and format are the same across the 
EU.  In  addition,  if  insurers  take  into  account  claims  history  for  the  purpose  of  determining 
premiums, there should be no differentiation based on nationality or solely on the basis of the 
previous Member State of residence of the policyholder. 

3) Risks due to uninsured driving 

According  to  the  Association  of  European  Vehicle  and  Driver  Registration  Authorities 
(EREG5),  uninsured  driving,  circulating  with  a  motor  vehicle  without  a  compulsory  motor 
third party liability insurance, is an increasing problem within the EU. The cost for the EU has 
been estimated at € 870 million in claims in 2011 for the EU as a whole.  

Uninsured  driving  negatively  affects  a  wide  range  of  stakeholders  including  victims  of 
accidents, insurers, guarantee funds and motor insurance policyholders. 

Uninsured driving is a problem both at national level and at the European level. Article 3 of 
the  Directive  obliges  Member  States  to  "take  all  appropriate  measures  to  ensure  that  civil 

4 
5 

See footnote 3. 
EREG,  Topic  Group  XI  on 
association.eu/media/1120/final-report-ereg-topic-group-xi-tackling-uninsured-driving.pdf 

tackling  uninsured  driving,  8  April  2013,  https://www.ereg-

EN 

2 

  EN 

 
                                                 
liability  in  respect  of  the  use  of  vehicles  normally  based  in  its  territory  is  covered  by 
insurance".  While  the  Directive  does  not  prescribe  which  actions  should  be  taken,  Member 
States have the obligation to take effective action to reduce risks of uninsured driving. They 
are  allowed  to  conduct  domestically  systematic  verification  of  motor  third  party  liability 
insurance of registered policies, establish roadside checks and effective penalties for owners 
of uninsured vehicles.  

Uninsured driving has an EU dimension as uninsured vehicles circulate not only in Member 
States where they are registered but also in other Member States. However, Article 4 of the 
Directive prohibits checks of insurance on vehicles normally based in another Member State, 
as a hindrance to free movement of vehicles in the internal market (and indirectly, of persons). 

Article  4  of  the  current  Directive  prohibits  all  systematic  checks  of  insurance  of  vehicles 
normally based in another Member State, including those where the vehicle does not need to 
be  stopped.  Certain  new  technological  developments  (number  plate  recognition  technology)  
allow however for checks without obstructing vehicles and would not  interfere with the free 
movement  of  persons  and  vehicles.  Therefore  the  proposal  would  allow  verification  of 
insurance of vehicles, if the checks form part  of a general  system of checks on the national 
territory, are not discriminatory and do not require stopping the vehicle and are necessary and 
proportionate to achieve the end pursued. 

In addition, such verification of insurance of vehicles entering the national territory requires 
the exchange of data between Member States; in this case it is necessary to safeguard the data 
subject's  rights,  freedoms  and  legitimate  interest.  The  provisions  of  the  EU  General  Data 
Protection Regulation6 apply to the processing of personal data for the purpose of combatting 
uninsured  driving.  Domestic  legislation  would  need  to  respect  the  conditions  and 
requirements  set  out  in  the  said  Regulation,  in  particular  to  ensure  that  personal  data  are 
processed lawfully fairly and in a transparent manner, be collected for specified explicit and 
legitimate  purposes,  refer  to  the  relevant  legal  basis  for  the  processing,  comply  with  the 
relevant  security  and  confidentiality  requirements  laid  down  in  the  EU  General  Data 
Protection  Regulation  and  respect  the  principles  of  necessity,  proportionality,  purpose 
limitation  and  proportionate  data  retention  period.  Also,  personal  data  protection  by  design 
and data protection by default should be embedded in all data processing systems developed 
and used  within the framework of the Member  States' legislation.  All  processing  operations 
including  those  related  to  administrative  cooperation  and  mutual  assistance  between  the 
competent authorities of the Member States should be carried out in compliance with the rules 
on the protection of personal data laid down in the EU General Data Protection Regulation, 
and in accordance with the relevant national legislation. 

4) Minimum amounts of cover 

Article  9  of  the  Directive  lays  down  minimum  obligatory  amounts  of  cover  up  to  which 
compensation  must  be  provided  under  a  motor  third  party  liability  policy.  These  minimum 
amounts  ensure  that  there  is  a  sufficient  level  of  minimum  protection  of  victims  of  motor 
vehicle accidents across the EU in case of personal injury and material damage, irrespective 
of  the  category  of  vehicle.  However,  while  the  Directive  aims  to  establish  equal  minimum 
amounts  of  cover  across  all  EU  Member  States,  currently  13  Member  States  are  subject  to 
lower minimum amounts than the higher amounts laid down in the Directive. This is due to 
transition periods in accordance with Article 1(2) of the Directive 84/5/ECC, as amended by 
Directive 2005/14/EC, and allowed some Member States to delay applying the full minimum 

6 

Regulation  (EU)  2016/679  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  27  April  2016  on  the 
protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of 
such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1). 

EN 

3 

  EN 

 
                                                 
amounts.  However,  due  to  different  reference  dates  for  different  Member  States  for 
periodically  recalculating  the  minimum  amounts.  there  remains  a  gap  between  those  13 
Member States which benefitted from transition periods and all other Member States. This is 
because, although the transition periods have meanwhile expired, the respective dates of the 
end  of  the  transition  periods  are  still  used  as  reference  dates  for  the  five-yearly  inflation 
updating. Therefore these minimum amounts are still not the same across all Member States. 
Member States are free to require domestically amounts of cover in motor third party liability 
policies higher than the minima imposed by the Directive, but most of the 13 Member States 
with lower obligatory amounts do not require higher amounts of cover. 

5) Scope of the Directive 

A number of judgments  of the Court  of Justice of the European Union,  mainly  those  in  the 
"Vnuk", "Andrade" and "Torreiro" cases7 have clarified the scope of the Directive. The Vnuk 
judgement of September 2014 clarified the scope of the motor third party liability insurance 
obligation in Article 3 of the Directive as covering any activities consistent with the "normal 
function" of a vehicle, regardless of the location where the vehicle is used. The Rodrigues de 
Andrade judgement of 28 November 2017 clarified that only the "normal use of the vehicle as 
a means of transport" and "irrespective of the terrain" should be covered by motor third party 
liability  insurance,  excluding  accidents  where  the  vehicle  was  used  for  exclusively 
agricultural  use.  These  rulings  have  clarified  that  motor  vehicles  are  intended  normally  to 
serve as means of transport, irrespective of such vehicles' characteristics, and that the use of 
such  vehicles covers any use  of a vehicle consistent  with  its normal function  as  a means of 
transport, irrespective of the terrain on which the motor vehicle is used and of whether it is 
stationary or in motion. The ruling makes it clear that accidents caused during the normal use 
of a vehicle for the purpose of transportation, including its use on private properties, remains 
within the scope of the Directive.  

Therefore,  to  ensure  legal  certainty  and  clarity,  the  present  proposal  codifies  the  Court 
jurisprudence in EU legislation. This ensures uniform implementation of the Court case law in 
national law.  

• 

Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area 

The  proposed  amendments  are  consistent  with  the  general  objectives  of  the  Directive  to 
ensure  a  high  level  of  protection  of  victims  of  traffic  accidents  and  facilitate  the  free 
movement of persons and vehicles across the EU. They will also improve confidence in the 
single  market for  motor insurance by increasing legal certainty connected with  cross-border 
selling of motor insurance under the freedom to provide services, reducing risk caused by the 
potential insolvency of the insurer of a motor vehicle. The internal market in motor insurance 
is  also  of  major  importance  for  insurance  undertakings  as  motor  insurance  constitutes  an 
important  part  of  non-life  insurance  business  in  the  Union.  It  should  therefore  be  a  key 
objective  of  Union  action  in  the  field  of  financial  services  to  reinforce  and  consolidate  the 
internal market in this area. 

In  particular,  the  proposed  amendment  on  insolvency  of  an  insurer  complements  Article  10 
which  covers  the  protection  of  victims  of  accidents  involving  uninsured  and  unidentified 
vehicles. The amendment of Article 4 of the Directive enhances the possibilities of Member 
States to ensure compliance with the insurance obligation of the Directive while maintaining 
the  free  circulation  of  persons  and  vehicles.  Furthermore,  the  amendment  of  Article  9  on 

7 

Vnuk  judgement  (C-162/13),  Rodrigues  de  Andrade  Judgement  (C-514/16),  Torreiro  Judgement  (C-
334/16) 

EN 

4 

  EN 

 
                                                 
minimum  amounts  of  cover  ensures  equal  minimum  protection  in  all  Member  States.  The 
amendment on claims history statements complements the existing requirements of Article 16 
and  ensures  easier  authentication  of  claims  history  statements  and  equal  treatment  of 
policyholders.  In  addition,  the  codification  of  the  CJEU  jurisprudence  clarifies  the  scope  of 
the Directive.  

• 

Consistency with other Union policies 

The  proposal  supports  the  free  movement  of  persons  and  goods,  which  are  fundamental 
freedoms  of  the  European  Union.  It  is  also  consistent  with  the  principles  of  the  internal 
market  ensuring  the  free  provision  of  services  and  free  establishment  by  insurers.    For 
example,  the  enhanced  right  as  regard  the  claims  history  statement  will  facilitate  the  free 
movement  of  persons  and  the  provisions  on  the  insolvency  of  insurers  will  increase  public 
confidence in cross-border selling of motor insurance. 

The proposal is also consistent with the EU General Data Protection Regulation 8 ensuring the 
appropriate collection and treatment of data for the purpose of law enforcement permissible 
within the framework of the Directive.  

2. 

• 

LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY 

Legal basis 

The legal basis of the proposal to amend the Directive is Article 114(1) of the Treaty on the 
Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which allows the adoption of measures for the 
approximation of national provisions having as their object the establishment and functioning 
of the internal market. The proposed amendments further eliminate certain direct and indirect 
obstacles  to  the  proper  functioning  and  completion  of  an  integrated  market  for  motor 
insurance,  facilitate  the  free  movement  of  vehicles  between  Member  States  and  guarantee 
comparable  treatment  irrespective  of  where  an  accident  occurs  within  the  EU.  They  will 
strengthen  the  single  market  for  motor  insurance,  by  providing  confidence  to  policyholders 
and potential victims of full compensation, even in case of insolvency of a cross-border motor 
insurer. 

• 

Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence)  

Under Article 4 of the TFEU, EU action for completing the internal market must be appraised 
in the light of the subsidiarity principle set out in Article 5(3) of the TEU.  
In  this  context,  it  is  recalled that  the  Directive  protects  victims  of  accidents  in  EU  Member 
States  other  than  that  of  their  residence,  and  domestic  victims  of  an  accident  caused  by  a 
driver  from  another  Member  State.  The  measures  envisaged  in  the  proposal  can  only  be 
enacted at EU-level, as they concern cross-border active insurers, cross-border mobile motor 
insurance policyholders and cross-border insurance checks of vehicles.  
Compensation of victims of traffic accidents in case of cross-border insolvency of an insurer 
is paramount to the smooth functioning of the single market. Uncoordinated action by means 
of  a  patchwork  of  voluntary  frameworks  and  agreements  between  national  motor  insurance 
bureaux cannot guarantee that victims are duly compensated and that risks are equally shared 
among Member States. A level playing field across all Member States in terms of minimum 
amounts of cover to ensure an equal minimum protection of victims of traffic accidents across 
the  EU  cannot  be  achieved  by  the  uncoordinated  efforts  of  Member  States.  Addressing 
uninsured  driving  in  case  of  cross-border  traffic  cannot  be  achieved  by  action  at  national 

8 

See footnote 6. 

EN 

5 

  EN 

 
                                                 
level.  Furthermore,  only  action  at  EU  level  can  ensure  the  protection  of  victims  in  case  of 
accidents  involving  an  insolvent  cross-border  insurer.  Only  action  at  EU  level  can  ensure  a 
uniform application of the scope of the Directive. Finally, ensuring equal treatment of claims 
history statements by insurers for prospective policyholders moving across borders cannot be 
achieved by uncoordinated action.  

• 

Proportionality 

The  proposal  takes  full  account  of  the  principle  of  proportionality,  namely  that  EU  action 
should  not  exceed  what  is  necessary  to  achieve  the  objectives  of  the  Treaties.  The  selected 
policy options have been carefully assessed and designed in order to strike the right balance 
between the public interest at stake (in particular, the need to reduce uninsured driving and to 
ensure  an  equal  minimum  level  of  protection  of  victims)  and  potential  costs  for  public 
authorities,  insurers  and  policy  holders,  to  ensure  the  cost-efficiency  of  the  proposed 
measures.  

• 

Choice of the instrument 

Article 114 of the TFEU allows the adoption of acts in the form of a regulation or directive. A 
directive was selected given that the legal act to which relate the proposed amendments is also 
a directive.  

3. 

• 

RESULTS 
CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS 

EX-POST 

EVALUATIONS, 

OF 

STAKEHOLDER 

Ex-post evaluations/fitness checks of existing legislation 

To  assess  the  effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  the  functioning  of  the  Directive  an  evaluation 
was  carried  out,  which  included  a  public  consultation  held  from  28  July  until  20  October 
20179. 

The  results  of  the  public  consultation  showed  broad  satisfaction  from  stakeholders  with  the 
functioning of most elements of the Directive. There was wide support from all categories of 
stakeholders  for  an  EU  initiative  to  ensure  rapid  payment  of  compensation  to  victims  of 
accidents  in  case  of  insolvency  of  a  motor  insurer,  especially  in  a  cross-border  context.  A 
majority  of  stakeholders  support  the  option  placing  ultimate  financial  responsibility  in  such 
cases with the home Member State of establishment of the motor insurer in question, with a 
first  responsibility  on  the  Member  State  of  residence  of  the  victim  to  ensure  rapid 
compensation. 

There  was  no  opposition  among  stakeholders  to  the  harmonisation  of  minimum  amounts  of 
cover  for  motor  insurance  to  the  higher  level  which  already  applies  in  15  Member  States. 
Some consumer organisations supported a differentiated higher level of obligatory cover for 
larger vehicles such as trucks and coaches, but this was opposed by the insurance sector and 
trucking  and  coaching  companies  as  not  justified  by  evidence  and  causing  higher  insurance 
costs which would be passed on to end consumers (especially as an accident affecting a coach 
with many passengers can also be caused by a smaller vehicle).  

Regarding  recognition  of  claims  history  statements  by  a  new  insurer,  especially  in  a  new 
Member  State,  a  number  of  individual  citizens  related  their  negative  experiences  in  this 
respect and called for intervention to ensure that cross-border mobile citizens are treated by 
insurers  no  differently  from  existing  residents  of  a  member  State,  as  regards  recognition  of 

9 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/2017-motor-insurance-consultation-document_en.pdf 

EN 

6 

  EN 

 
                                                 
 
their claims  history statements. The insurance sector was opposed  to binding  obligations on 
insurers in this regard, as being disproportionate. 

Regarding  uninsured  driving,  there  was  no  opposition  to  authorising  unobtrusive  insurance 
checks using number plate recognition technology which does not require stopping vehicles. 

Furthermore, there was a broad support to clarify the scope of the Directive in the light of the 
new Court jurisprudence. Stakeholders from the motor sports sector asked for an exclusion of 
that sector from the Directive. 

The proposal builds also on the results of: 

- a public consultation (from 30 September 2015 to 31 January 2016) in the framework of the 
Call  for  Evidence  on  the  EU  regulatory  framework  for  financial  services  inviting  feedback 
and empirical evidence on the benefits, unintended effects, consistency and coherence of the 
financial legislation10 and a public hearing on the Call for Evidence, held on 17 May 201611; 

-  a  roundtable  on  the  review  of  the  Directive    which  took  place  on  12  July  2017  including 
stakeholder  groups,  in  particular  insurers,  consumer  organisations,  Council  of  Bureaux  and 
Member States' Authorities; 

-  exchanges  of  views  with  experts  from  Member  States'  Authorities  (Expert  Group  on 
Banking, Payments and Insurance); 

-  statistics  and  reports  from  the  Council  of  motor  insurance  Bureaux  (private  law  bodies 
which are entrusted with certain tasks by the Directive). 

• 

Impact assessment 

In line with its 'Better Regulation' policy, the Commission conducted an impact assessment of 
policy alternatives12. The impact assessment is supported by a positive opinion issued by the 
Regulatory Scrutiny Board on 9 March 201813. In its comments, the Board suggested that the 
impact assessment should clarify the extent of the envisaged legislative change of the scope of 
the Directive and the reasons for not fully assessing its implications. Furthermore, the Board 
requested  to  link  the  impact  assessment  to  the  evaluation  and  requested  to  improve  the 
justification of the proposed legislative measures. The Board also requested to better explain 
why  the  Directive  is  considered  futureproof  in  the  light  of  new  technological  developments 
such  as  autonomous  vehicles  and  electric  bicycles.  The  proposal  is  in  line  with  the 
conclusions of the impact assessment.  

In response to the Board's comments, the revised impact assessment explains that, as regards 
the scope of the Directive, it is preferable to codify, in essence, insert the key provision of the 
consecutive  rulings  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  the  European  Union  on  the  scope  in  the 
Directive to ensure legal clarity. This would allow Member States to implement the changes 
implied  by  the  rulings  in  an  orderly  and  transparent  manner.  Furthermore,  it  would  provide 
more legal certainty for stakeholders on the scope of the Directive, as the court rulings would 
be directly transposed into national legislation. Codification also facilitates the enforcement of 
EU law in this domain, as it would be accompanied by a standard transposition exercise.  

Furthermore,  as  regards  future  technological  developments  the  impact  assessment  explains 
that the obligation of the Directive to obtain mandatory motor third-party liability insurance 
already  applies  to  autonomous  and  semi-autonomous  vehicles.  The  main  rationale  is  the 

10 
11 
12 
13 

http://ec.europa.eu/finance/consultations/2015/financial-regulatory-framework-review/index_en.htm 
http://ec.europa.eu/finance/events/2016/0517-call-for-evidence/index_en.htm 
TO BE ADDED before publication of the document. 
TO BE ADDED before publication of the document. 

EN 

7 

  EN 

 
                                                 
continuous  need  to  protect  and  compensate  victims  of  accidents  involving  autonomous 
vehicles circulating within the EU. A number of accidents caused by autonomous (and semi-
autonomous vehicles) have occurred, demonstrating the need to protect EU citizens in case of 
an  accident.  Furthermore,  the  impact  assessment  explains  that  new  types  of  motor  vehicles, 
such  as  electric  bicycles,  segways,  electric  scooters  already  fall  within  the  scope  of  the 
Directive.  The use of these new types of electric motor vehicles in traffic has the potential to 
cause  accidents  whose  victims  need  to  be  protected  and  reimbursed  swiftly.  However,  the 
current Directive also provides Member States with the power to exempt such vehicles from 
motor third party liability insurance if they would consider this necessary. During the public 
consultation a number of associations representing the electric bicycles industry called for an 
exclusion  of  such  vehicles  in  the  Directive  itself,  arguing  that  requiring  third  party  liability 
insurance could undermine the uptake of electric bicycles. This is not considered necessary in 
light  of  the  power  of  Member  States  to  exempt  electric  bicycles  or  any  other  new  electric 
motor vehicles. In that case, the national guarantee funds would bear the costs of reimbursing 
victims of accidents caused by these new types of vehicles.  This provides the highest level of 
protection of victims without the need for any additional EU action. 

The impact assessment analysed several policy options for each of the problems identified: 

As  the  Directive  already  exists,  the  baseline  option  in  all  cases  was  no  change  to  the 
Directive. In addition to the baseline scenario, the impact assessment also analysed a range of 
other possible policy options.  

Regarding insolvency of insurers, a subject not currently part of the Directive, a second option 
was  to  impose  a  responsibility  for  initial  compensation  of  victims  but  no  ultimate 
responsibility. A third option was to designate both responsibilities, with initial responsibility 
on  the  Member  State  of  residence  of  the  victim  and  ultimate  responsibility  on  the  Member 
State of establishment of the insolvent insurer. The impact assessment concluded that the third 
option  is  the  preferred  policy  choice,  as  it  would  not  only  ensure  a  swift  compensation  of 
victims, but would also provide insurers, national compensation bodies and policyholders of 
motor  insurance  with  more  legal  certainty  on  the  initial  and  ultimate  settlement  of  claims, 
reducing the need for legal proceedings. 

Regarding minimum amounts of cover, in addition to the baseline scenario, a second option 
was  to  harmonise  amounts  of  cover  to  the  highest  obligatory  minimum  level  currently 
applying in Member States. A third option considered was to impose higher obligatory cover 
amounts for larger vehicles such as trucks and buses. The impact assessment concluded that 
the  second  option  is  the  preferred  policy  choice  as  it  ensures  equal  minimum  protection  of 
victims across the EU, and there is insufficient evidence to support the third option.  

Regarding claims history, in addition to the baseline scenario, a second option was to issue a 
recommendation  to  Member  States  on  the  treatment  of  claims  history  statements.  A  third 
option  was  to  only  harmonise  the  template  for  claims  history  statements,  without  imposing 
any obligatory treatment of such statements by insurers, to facilitate anti-fraud authentication. 
A  fourth  option  was  to  further  impose  on  insurers  a  non-discrimination  requirement  for  the 
treatment  of  claims  history  statements  issued  by  insurers  in  other  Member  States  and  a 
transparency requirement on the use of the statement. The impact assessment concluded that 
this  latter  option  was  the  preferred  policy  choice,  as  it  would  not  only  facilitate 
standardisation of claims history statements, but would also ensure equal treatment of claims 
history between domestic policyholders and those moving across borders. 

Regarding  uninsured  driving,  in  addition  to  the  baseline  scenario,  a  second  option  was  to 
authorise unobtrusive checks (currently prohibited) on a voluntary basis for Member States. A 
third  option  was  to  make  unobtrusive  border  insurance  checks  obligatory.  The  third  option 

EN 

8 

  EN 

 
was  considered  to  have  higher  potential  to  reduce  uninsured  driving  as  compared  to  the 
second  option.  Nevertheless,  the  impact  assessment  considered  that  the  costs  linked  to  the 
third option might outweigh benefits in many Member States, as levels of uninsured driving 
are unequal across the EU. Therefore, the impact assessment concluded that the second option 
(voluntary unobtrusive checks) is the preferred policy choice. 

Regarding the scope of the Directive, an annex to the impact assessment explains that existing 
ECJ case law will be codified via a definition of "use of a vehicle", given that no evidence has 
been  provided  by  stakeholders  that  the  scope  as  defined  in  the  case  law  will  generate  any 
excessive  costs.  Indeed,  certain  Member  States  already  impose  a  motor  third  party  liability 
insurance  requirement  in  line  with  the  case  law,  without  excessively  high  insurance 
premiums, including for motor sports events.  

The  proposal  will  not  have  any  significant  environmental  impact,  as  the  proposed 
amendments will not have any impact on traffic volume.  

The proposal is not expected to have a significant social impact other than the benefits already 
described. The proposed amendments aim at reducing uninsured driving, potentially reducing 
motor  insurance  premiums,  and  at  improving  the  level  of  protection  of  victims  of  motor 
accidents,  potentially  benefitting  all  citizens  in  the  EU.  The  proposal  avoids  risking  large 
potential  increases  of  premiums  of  motor  insurance. In  particular  the  proposed  measures  on 
minimum cover only entail an alignment of the minimum amounts of cover to ensure equal 
minimum protection across Member States. 

The  proposal  does  not  entail  any  specific  impact  for  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises 
except  in  their  capacity  as  regular  policy  holders  of  motor  insurance.  SMEs  and  micro-
enterprises  will  be  affected  as  operators  of  vehicles  which  require  insurance.  In  Member 
States where the minimum amounts of cover will be revised slightly upwards, small increases 
in  insurance premiums  are possible for policyholders in  those  Member States,  including  for 
SMEs and micro-enterprises.  

• 

Fundamental rights 

The  proposal  respects  the  fundamental  rights  and  observes  the  principles  recognised  by  the 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular the right to the protection 
of  personal data (Article  8  of  the  Charter), the right  to  property  (Article  17  of  the Charter), 
and  the  principle  of  equality  between  men  and  women  (Article  23  of  the  Charter).  It  also 
contributes  to  the  objectives  of  Article  16  of  Charter  which  provides  freedom  to  conduct 
business,  to  the  objectives  of  Article  38  of  the  Charter  which  provides  for  a  high  level  of 
consumer  protection  and  to  the  objectives  of  Article  45  of  the  Charter  regarding  citizens' 
freedom of movement and residence. 

REFIT 

The proposal is consistent with the objectives of simplification and cost reduction.  Regarding 
insolvency  of  insurers,  there  will  be  less  costs  of  litigation  as  the  Directive  would  set  clear 
roles  on  initial  payment  of  the  victim  and  the  ultimate  responsibility  for  the  claim. 
Furthermore, reducing risk of uninsured driving via unobtrusive checks could reduce claims 
on  compensation  bodies  and  contributions  for  insurers.  In  addition,  more  standardisation  of 
claims  history  statements  would  simplify  verification  of  the  authenticity  of  claims  history 
statements  provided  by  foreign  insurers.  Finally,  the  proposal  does  not  entail  any  new 
reporting requirements to public authorities. 

EN 

9 

  EN 

 
4. 

BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS 

The proposal has no implications for the EU budget.  

The  proposal  might  have  an  impact  on  the  national  budgets  of  those  Member  States  that 
would take up the option for unobtrusive border insurance checks of vehicles normally based 
in  another  Member  State,  which  would  require  the  use  of  number  plate  recognition 
technology and exchange of information with other Member States on the insurance status of 
vehicles. 

In  addition,  Member  States  will  have  to  designate  a  body  responsible  for  compensation  of 
victims in cases of cross-border insolvency of insurers, but it is anticipated that this could be 
an  additional  task  for  an  existing  body  (either  a  general  insurance  guarantee  fund,  or  the 
national guarantee fund for accidents caused by uninsured or unidentified vehicles). Costs will 
be funded by contributions from insurance undertakings. 

5. 

• 

OTHER ELEMENTS 

Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements 

The Commission will monitor the implementation of the policy in cooperation with Member 
States. Five years after the transposition date, the Commission will produce an evaluation of 
this Directive. The evaluation will examine the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence 
and added value of the proposal, including any significant impacts on undertakings.  

• 

Explanatory documents (for directives) 

In order to fulfil the objective of this proposal and avoid potential loopholes and mismatches 
in  terms  of  Member  State  implementation  into  national  law,  explanatory  documents  will  be 
necessary  to  assist  with  transposition  and  to  allow  effective  verification.  This  justifies  the 
need  for  Member  States  to  accompany  the  notification  of  their  transposition  measures  with 
explanatory documents in the form of e.g. a correlation table. 

• 

Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal 

Article 1 of the proposal amends the Directive. References below refer to the amended or new 
articles in the Directive, unless otherwise specified. 

In  Article  1,  the  definition  of  "use  of  a  vehicle"  is  introduced  in  order  to  incorporate  the 
judgements of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Vnuk case C-162/13 of 14 
September  2014,  the  Rodrigues  de  Andrade  case  C-514/16  of  28  November  2017  and  the 
Torreiro case C-334/16 of 20 December 2017. The European Court of Justice has clarified in 
its  rulings  that  motor  vehicles  are  intended  normally  to  serve  as  means  of  transport, 
irrespective of such vehicles' characteristics. Furthermore, the Court has clarified that the use 
of such vehicles covers any use of a vehicle consistent with its normal function as a means of 
transport, irrespective of the terrain on which the motor vehicle is used and of whether it is 
stationary or in motion. 

As  regards  uninsured  driving,  Article  4  is  amended  in  order  to  authorise  Member  States  to 
carry  out  insurance  checks  of  vehicles  normally  based  in  the  territory  of  another  Member 
State and of vehicles normally based in the territory of a third country entering their territory 
from the territory of another Member state only if, they are non-discriminatory necessary and 
proportionate,  form  part  of  a  general  system  of  checks  on  the  national  territory  and  do  not 
require  stopping  of  the  vehicle  for  the  purpose  of  such  a  check.Those  checks  have  to  be 
conducted in accordance with  Regulation 2016/679 on the protection of natural persons with 
regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data. 

EN 

10 

  EN 

 
To ensure an equal level of minimum protection of victims of motor vehicle accidents at EU 
level: 

-  Article  9(1)  is  amended  to  harmonise  obligatory  minimum  amounts  of  cover  of  victims 
across  the  EU,  without  prejudice  to  any  higher  guarantees  which  Member  States  may 
prescribe; 

-  Article  9(2)  is  amended  in  order  to  empower  the  Commission    to  adopt  delegated  acts  to 
update for inflation every five years the harmonised minimum amounts of cover of victims. 

To ensure the protection of victims in case of insolvency or winding up or non-cooperation of 
an insurer, a new Article 10a provides in particular that: 

- each Member State shall set up or appoint a body with the task of providing compensation 
for material damage or personal injuries caused by a vehicle insured by an undertaking which 
is  subject  to  bankruptcy  or  winding  up  proceeding  or  where  the  insurer  has  not  provided  a 
reasoned reply within three months of the date when the injured party presented a claim for 
compensation for which the insurer has not provided a reasoned reply; 

- injured parties shall be compensated by such body of the Member State of their residence; 

- this body shall have the right to claim reimbursement of this compensation from the body of 
the Member State where the insurance undertaking which issued the policy is established (this 
latter body shall bear the ultimate responsibility); 

-  the  Commission  shall  be  empowered  to  adopt  delegated  acts  in  order  to  define  the 
procedural tasks and the procedural obligations of the bodies set up or authorised pursuant to 
Article 10a with regard to the reimbursement. 

As regards claims history statements, Article 16 is amended in order to: 

-  harmonise  the  statements  relating  to  successful  third  party  liability  claims  against  the 
policyholder in the last five years. Such statements shall be based on a standardised template, 
to be adopted by the European Commission by implementing act; 

-  ensure  non-discriminatory  treatment  of  the  claims  history  by  insurance  undertakings, 
irrespective of nationality or  previous Member State of residence of a citizen. 

EN 

11 

  EN 

 
2018/0168 (COD) 

Proposal for a 

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

amending Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 16 
September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor 
vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to ensure against such liability 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union,  and  in  particular 
Article 114 thereof, 

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission, 

After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments, 
Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee14,  

Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, 

Whereas: 

(1) 

(2) 

Insurance  against  civil  liability  in  respect  of  the  use  of  motor  vehicles  (motor 
insurance)  is  of  special  importance  for  European  citizens,  whether  they  are 
policyholders  or  potential  victims  of  an  accident.  It  is  also  a  major  concern  for 
insurance  undertakings,  as  it  constitutes  an  important  segment  of  non-life  insurance 
business  in  the  Union. Motor  insurance  also  has  an impact  on  the  free movement  of 
persons, goods and vehicles. It should therefore be a key objective of the Union action 
in  the  field  of  financial  services  to  reinforce  and  consolidate  the  internal  market  for 
motor insurance.  

The  Commission  has  carried  out  an  evaluation  of  the  functioning  of  Directive 
2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council15, including its efficiency 
effectiveness  and  coherence  with  other  Union  policies.  The  conclusion  of  the 
evaluation was that Directive 2009/103/EC functions well on the whole, and does not 
need amendment in most aspects. However, four areas were identified where targeted 
amendments  would  be  appropriate:  compensation  of  victims  of  accidents  in  cases  of 
insolvency  of  an  insurance  undertaking,  minimum  obligatory  amounts  of  insurance 
cover, insurance checks of vehicles by Member States, and the use of policyholders’ 
claims history statements by a new insurance undertaking.   

14 
15 

OJ C , , p. . 
Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to 
insurance  against  civil  liability  in  respect  of  the  use  of  motor  vehicles,  and  the  enforcement  of  the 
obligation to insure against such liability (OJ L 263, 7.10.2009, p. 11). 

EN 

12 

  EN 

 
 
                                                 
(3) 

Furthermore,  in  recent  decisions  of  the  European  Court  of  Justice  of  the  European 
Union, namely Vnuk16, Rodrigues de Andrade17 and Torreiro18, the Court has clarified 
the  meaning  of  the  words  ‘use  of  a  vehicle’.  In  particular,  the  European  Court  of 
Justice  has  clarified  that  motor  vehicles  are  intended  normally  to  serve  as  means  of 
transport, irrespective of such vehicle's characteristics, and it has clarified that the use 
of such vehicles covers any use of a vehicle consistent with its normal function as a 
means of transport, irrespective of the terrain on which the motor vehicle is used and 
of  whether  it  is  stationary  or  in  motion.  In  the  interest  of  legal  certainty,  it  is 
appropriate  to  reflect  that  case  law  in  Directive  2009/103/EC  by  introducing  a 
definition of ‘use of a vehicle’. 

(4)  Member  States  currently  should  refrain  from  performing  checks  of  insurance  on 
vehicles  normally  based  on  the  territory  of  another  Member  State  and  in  respect  of 
vehicles normally based in the territory of a third country entering their territory from 
the  territory  of  another  Member  State.  New  technological  developments  allow  for 
checking  insurance  of  vehicles  without  stopping  them  and  thus  without  interfering 
with  the  free  movement  of  persons.  It  is  therefore  appropriate  allow  those  checks of 
insurance  on  vehicles,  only 
they  are  non-discriminatory,  necessary  and 
proportionate, form part of a general system of checks on the national territory and do 
not require stopping of the vehicle. 

if 

(5)  Member  States  that  opt  to  set  up  a  system  that  processes  personal  data  which  may 
subsequently  be  shared  with  other  Member  States,  such  as  data  from  number  plate 
recognition technology, need to legislate to allow for the processing of personal data 
for  the  purposes  of  combatting  uninsured  driving,  whilst  establishing  suitable 
measures to safeguard the data subject's rights and freedoms and legitimate interests. 
The  provisions  of  Regulation  (EU)  2016/679  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council19  apply  to  the  processing  of  personal  data  for  the  purpose  of  combatting 
uninsured  driving.  The  Member  States'  legislation  should  in  particular  specify  the 
precise  purpose,  refer  to  the  relevant  legal  basis,  comply  with  the  relevant  security 
requirements  and  respect  the  principles  of  necessity,  proportionality,  and  purpose 
limitation,  and  should  set  a  proportionate  data  retention  period.  In  addition,  the 
principles of personal data protection by design and data protection by default should 
be applied to all data processing systems developed and used within the framework of 
the Member States' legislation.  

(6) 

16 
17 

18 
19 

Directive 2009/103/EC currently lays down different reference dates for the periodic 
recalculation  of  the  minimum  amounts  of  cover  in  different  Member  States,  which 
leads  to  diverging  minimum  amounts  of  cover  depending  on  the  Member  State.  To 
ensure equal minimum protection of injured parties across the Union, those minimum 
amounts  should  be  harmonised  and  a  uniform  review  clause  should  be  introduced, 
using  as  a  benchmark  the  harmonised  index  of  consumer  prices  as  published  by 
Eurostat, as well as procedural rules governing such a review and setting out a uniform 
timeframe. 

Judgement of the Court of Justice of 4 December 2014, Vnuk, C-162/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2146 
Judgement  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  28 November  2017,  Rodrigues  de  Andrade,  C-514/16, 
ECLI:EU:C:2017:908. 
Judgement of the Court of Justice of 20 December 2017, Torreiro, C-334/16, ECLI:EU:C:2017:1007. 
Regulation  (EU)  2016/679  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  27  April  2016  on  the 
protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of 
such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1). 

EN 

13 

  EN 

 
                                                 
(7) 

(8) 

Effective  and  efficient  protection  of  victims  of  traffic  accidents  requires  that  those 
victims  are  always  reimbursed  for  their  personal  injuries  or  for  damage  to  their 
property,  irrespective  of  whether  the  insurance  undertaking  of  the  party  liable  is 
solvent or not. Member States should therefore set up or appoint a body that provides 
initial  compensation  for  injured  parties  habitually  residing  within  their  territory,  and 
which has the right to reclaim that compensation from the body set up or appointed for 
the same purpose in the Member State of establishment of the insurance undertaking 
which issued the policy of the vehicle of the liable party. However, to avoid parallel 
claims being introduced, victims of traffic incidents should not be allowed to present a 
claim  for  compensation  with  that  body  if  they  have  already  presented  their  claim  or 
have taken legal action with the insurance undertaking concerned and that claim is still 
under consideration and that action is still pending. 

Previous  claims  histories  of  policyholders  who  seek  to  conclude  new  insurance 
contracts  with  insurance  undertakings  should  be  easily  authenticated  in  order  to 
facilitate  the  recognition  of  such  claims  history  when  concluding  a  new  insurance 
policy.  In  order  to  simplify  the  verification  and  authentication  of  claims  history 
statements, it is important that the content and format of the statement of such claims 
histories  are  the  same  across  all  Member  States.  In  addition,  insurance  undertakings 
that  take  into  account  claims  history  statements  to  determine  motor  insurance 
premiums should not discriminate on the basis of nationality or solely on the basis of 
the previous Member State of residence of the policyholder. To enable Member States 
to  verify  how  insurance  undertakings  treat  claims  history  statements,  insurance 
undertakings  should  publish  their  policies  in  respect  of  their  use  of  claims  history 
when calculating premiums. 

(9) 

In  order  to  ensure  uniform  conditions  for  the  implementation  of  this  Directive, 
implementing  powers  should  be  conferred  on  the  Commission  regarding  the  content 
and  the  form  of  the  claims  history  statement.  Those  implementing  powers  should  be 
exercised  in  accordance  with  Regulation  (EU)  No  182/2011  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council20. 

(10)  To ensure that the minimum amounts stay in line with the evolving economic reality 
(and are not eroded over time) the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 
of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union  should  be  delegated  to  the 
Commission in respect of the adaptation of those minimum amounts of cover of motor 
third  party  liability  insurance  to  reflect  the  evolving  economic  reality,  as  well  as  to 
define  the  procedural  tasks  and  the  procedural  obligations  of  the  bodies  set  up  to 
provide  compensation  or  entrusted  the  task  of  providing  compensation  pursuant  to 
Article  10a  with  regard  to  the  reimbursement.  It  is  of  particular  importance  that  the 
Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including 
at  expert  level,  and  that  those  consultations  be  conducted  in  accordance  with  the 
principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making of 13 
April 2016. In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated 
acts, the European Parliament and the Council receive all documents at the same time 
as Member States' experts, and their experts systematically have access to meetings of 
Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegated acts. 

20 

Regulation  (EU)  No  182/2011  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  16  February  2011 
laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of 
the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13). 

EN 

14 

  EN 

 
                                                 
(11)  As  part  of  the  evaluation  of  the  functioning  of  the  Directive,  the  European 
Commission  should  monitor  the  application  of  the  Directive,  taking  into  account  the 
number  of  victims,  the  amount  of  outstanding  claims  due  to  delays  in  payments 
following  cross-border  insolvency  cases,  the  level  of  minimum  amounts  of  cover  in 
Member States, the amount of claims due to uninsured driving relating to cross-border 
traffic and the number of complaints regarding claims history statements 

(12)  Since  the  objectives  of  this  Directive,  in  particular  to  ensure  an  equal  minimum 
protection of victims of traffic accidents across the Union and to ensure the protection 
of  victims  in  case  of  insolvency  of  insurance  undertakings,  cannot  be  sufficiently 
achieved  by  the  Member  States  but  can  rather,  by  reason  of  their  effects,  be  better 
achieved  at  Union  level,  the  Union  may  adopt  measures,  in  accordance  with  the 
principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty of the European Union. In 
accordance  with  the  principle  of  proportionality,  as  set  out  in  that  Article,  this 
Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives. 

(13) 

In  accordance  with  the Joint  Political  Declaration  of  28  September  2011  of  Member 
States  and  the  Commission  on  explanatory  documents21,  Member  States  have 
undertaken  to  accompany,  in  justified  cases,  the  notification  of  their  transposition 
measures  with  one  or  more  documents  explaining  the  relationship  between  the 
components  of  a  directive  and  the  corresponding  parts  of  national  transposition 
instruments. With regard to this Directive, the legislator considers the transmission of 
such documents to be justified. 

(14)  Directive 2009/103/EC should therefore be amended accordingly, 

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE: 

Directive 2009/103/EC is amended as follows: 

(1) 

In Article 1, the following point 1a is inserted: 

Article 1 

“1a.  ‘use of a vehicle’ means any use of such vehicle, intended normally to serve 
as  a  means  of transport, that  is  consistent  with  the normal  function of that 
vehicle,  irrespective  of  the  vehicle's  characteristics  and  irrespective  of  the 
terrain on which the motor vehicle is used and of whether it is stationary or 
in motion.";  

(2) 

Article 4 is replaced by the following: 

“Article 4 

Checks on insurance 

1.  Member  States  shall  refrain  from  making  checks  on  insurance  against  civil 
liability in respect of vehicles normally based in the territory of another Member 
State and in respect of vehicles normally based in the territory of a third country 
entering their territory from the territory of another Member State. 

However, they may carry out such checks on insurance provided that those checks 
are  non-discriminatory,necessary  and  proportionate  to  achieve  the  end  pursued, 
and 

21 

OJ C 369, 17.12.2011, p. 14. 

EN 

15 

  EN 

 
 
                                                 
a) are carried out as part of a control which is not aimed exclusively at insurance 
verification or 

b) they form part of a general system of checks on the national territory and do not 
require the vehicle to stop. 

2. On the basis of the law of the Member State to which the controller is subject, 
personal  data  may  be  processed  where  necessary  for  the  purpose  of  combatting 
uninsured driving of vehicles travelling in Member States other than where they 
are  normally  based  as  set  out  in  Article  1.  This  law  shall  be  in  accordance  with 
Regulation  (EU)  2016/679*  and  shall  also  lay  down  suitable  measures  to 
safeguard the data subject's rights and freedoms and legitimate interests. 

______________________________________________________________ 

*  
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 
2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the 
free  movement  of  such  data,  and  repealing  Directive  95/46/EC  (General  Data  Protection 
Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1).”; 

 (3)  Article 9 is replaced by the following: 

“1.  Without  prejudice  to  any  higher  guarantees  which  Member  States  may 
prescribe, each Member State shall require the insurance referred to in Article 3 to 
be compulsory in respect of the following minimum amounts: 

(a) 

(b) 

for  personal  injuries:  EUR 6 070 000  per  accident,  irrespective  of  the 
number of victims, or EUR 1 220 000 per victim; 

for  damages  to  property,  EUR 1 220 000  per  claim,  irrespective  of  the 
number of victims. 

For Member States that have not adopted the euro, the minimum amounts shall be 
converted  into  their  national  currency  by  applying  the  exchange  rate  as  at 
[Publications  Office  –  set  the  date  the  date  of  entry  in  force  of  this  Directive] 
published in the Official Journal of the European Union. 

2. 
Every  five  years  from  [date  of  entry  into  force  of  this  Directive],  the 
Commission shall review the amounts referred to in paragraph 1 in line with the 
harmonised index of consumer prices (HICP) established pursuant to Regulation 
(EU) 2016/792 of the European Parliament and of the Council **.  

The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with 
Article 28b  concerning  the  adaptation  of  those  amounts  to  the  HICP  within  six 
months after the end of each five year period. 

For Member States that have not adopted the euro, the amounts shall be converted 
into  their  national  currency  by  applying  the  exchange  rate  of  the  date  of  the 
calculation of the new minimum amounts and as published in the Official Journal 
of the European Union." 

** 
Regulation  (EU) 2016/792 of  the  European Parliament  and  of  the  Council of  11  May 
2016 on harmonised indices of consumer prices and the house price index, and repealing Council 
Regulation (EC) No 2494/95 (OJ L 135, 24.5.2016, p. 11). 

(4) 

the following Article 10a is inserted: 

EN 

“Article 10a 

16 

  EN 

 
 
Protection of injured parties in case of insolvency of an insurance 
undertaking or lack of cooperation of an insurance undertaking 

1.  Member  States  shall  set  up  or  authorise  a  body  to  compensate  injured 
parties  habitually  residing  within  their  territory,  at  least  up  to  the  limits  of  the 
insurance  obligation  referred  to  in  Article 9(1)  for  personal  injuries  or  material 
damage,  caused  by  a  vehicle  insured  by  an  insurance  undertaking  in  any  of  the 
following situations: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

the insurance undertaking is subject to bankruptcy proceedings; 

the insurance undertaking is subject to a winding up procedure as defined in 
Article 268(d) of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of 
the Council***; 

the  insurance  undertaking  or  its  claims  representative  has  not  provided  a 
reasoned reply to the points made in a claim for compensation within three 
months after the date on which the injured party presented his or her claim 
to that insurance undertaking.  

2. 
Injured  parties  may  not  present  a  claim  to  the  body  referred  to  in 
paragraph 1 if they have presented a claim directly to or taken legal action directly 
against the insurance undertaking and such claim or legal action is still pending.  

3. 
The  body  referred  to  in  paragraph  1  shall  give  a  reply  to  the  claim  within 
two  months  after  the  date  on  which  the  injured  party  has  presented  his  or  her 
claim for compensation.  

4.  Where  the  injured  party  is  resident  in  another  Member  State  than  the 
Member  State  in  which  the  insurance  undertaking  referred  to  in  paragraph  1  is 
established, the body referred to in paragraph 1 and which has compensated that 
injured  party  in  his  or  her  Member  State  of  residence,  shall  be  entitled  to  claim 
reimbursement of the sum paid by way of compensation from the body referred to 
in  paragraph  1  in  the  Member  State  in  which  the  insurance  undertaking  which 
issued the policy of the liable party is established. 

5. 

(a) 

(b) 

Paragraphs 1 to 4 are without prejudice to: 

the right of Member States to regard compensation paid by the body referred 
to in paragraph 1 as subsidiary or non-subsidiary;  

the right of Member States to make provision for the settlement of claims in 
respect of the same accident between: 

(i) 

the body referred to in paragraph 1; 

(ii) 

the person or persons liable for the accident;  

(iii)  other  insurance  undertakings  or  social  security  bodies  required  to 

compensate the injured party. 

6.  Member States shall  not allow the body referred to in paragraph 1 to make 
the  payment  of  compensation  subject  to  any  requirements  other  than  those  laid 
down in this Directive and in particular not the requirement that the injured party 
should establish that the party liable is unable or refuses to pay. 

7. 
The  Commission  shall  be  empowered  to  adopt  delegated  acts  in  accordance 
with the procedure referred to in Article 28b in order to define the procedural tasks and 

EN 

17 

  EN 

 
the procedural obligations of the bodies set up or authorised pursuant to Article 10a with 
regard to the reimbursement." 

***  Directive  2009/138/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  25  November 
2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II) (OJ 
L 335 17.12.2009, p. 1)."; 

 (5)  Article 16 is amended as follows: 

(a) 

the following sentence is added at the end of the second subparagraph: 

“They shall do so using the form of the claims history statement”; 

(b) 

the following subparagraphs are added: 

“Member  States  shall  ensure  that  insurance  undertakings  or  the  bodies  as 
referred  to  in  the  second  subparagraph,  when  taking  account  of  claims 
history statements issued by other insurance undertakings or other bodies as 
referred  to  in  the  second  subparagraph,  do  not  treat  policyholders  in  a 
discriminatory  manner  or  surcharge  their  premiums  because  of  their 
nationality  or  solely  on  the  basis  of  their  previous  Member  State  of 
residence. 

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  insurance  undertakings  publish  their 
policies in respect of their use of claims history statements when calculating 
premiums.  

The  Commission  shall  be  empowered  to  adopt  implementing  acts  in 
accordance  with  Article  28a(2)  specifying  the  contents  and  form  of  the 
claims  history  statement  referred  to  in  the  second  subparagraph.  That 
statement shall contain information about all of the following: 

the  identity  of  the  insurance  undertaking  issuing  the  claims  history 

(a) 
statement; 

(b) 

the identity of the policyholder; 

(c) 

the vehicle insured; 

(d) 

the period of cover of the vehicle insured: 

(e) 

the  number  and  value  of  the  declared  third  party  liability  claims 
during the period covered by the claims history statement." 

(6) 

the following Articles 28a, 28b and 28c are inserted: 

"Article 28a 

Committee procedure  

1. The Commission  shall  be assisted by the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions 
Committee established by Commission Decision 2004/9/EC ****.That committee shall be a 
committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament 
and of the Council*****. 

2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall 
apply. 

Article 28b 

Exercise of delegated powers 

EN 

18 

  EN 

 
 
1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions 
laid down in this Article. 

2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Articles 9(2) and 10a(7) shall be conferred 
on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time from the date referred to in Article 30. 

3. The delegation of power referred to in Articles 9(2) and 10a(7) may be revoked at any time 
by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the 
delegation  of  the  power  specified  in  that  decision.  It  shall  take  effect  the  day  following  the 
publication  of  that  decision  in  the  Official  Journal  of  the  European  Union  or  at  a  later  date 
specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force. 

4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the 
European Parliament and to the Council. 

5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Articles 9(2) and 10a(7) shall enter into force only if 
no  objection  has  been  expressed  either  by  the  European  Parliament  or  the  Council  within  a 
period of two months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or 
if,  before  the  expiry  of  that  period,  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  have  both 
informed  the  Commission  that  they  will  not  object.  That  period  shall  be  extended  by  two 
months at the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council. 

Article 28c 

Evaluation 

No later than seven years after the date of transposition of this Directive, an evaluation of this 
Directive  shall  be  carried  out.   The  Commission  shall  communicate  the  conclusions  of  the 
evaluation accompanied by its observations to the European Parliament, the Council and the 
European Economic and Social Committee. 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

****  Commission  Decision  2004/9/EC  of  5  November  2003  establishing  the  European  Insurance  and 

Occupational Pensions Committee (OJ L3, 7.1.2004, p.34). 

***** Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying 
down  the  rules  and  general  principles  concerning  the  mechanisms  for  control  by  Member  States  of  the 
Commission's exercise of implementing powers (OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p.13).”. 

Article 2 

Transposition 

Member States shall adopt and publish, by [PO: Please insert date 12 months after the date of 
entry into force ] at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to 
comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of 
those provisions. 

They  shall  apply  those  provisions  from  [PO:  Please  insert  date  12  months  after  the  date  of 
entry into force ]. 

When Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive 
or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member 
States shall determine how such reference is to be made. 

EN 

19 

  EN 

 
 
2.  Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of 
national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive. 

Article 3 

Entry into force 

This Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in 
the Official Journal of the European Union. 

Article 4 

Addressees 

This Directive is addressed to the Member States. 

Done at Brussels, 

For the European Parliament 
The President 

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

20 

  EN