Case C-323/25, Vinkers: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 12 May 2025 – KBC Verzekeringen NV v HC, Baloise Belgium NV
Date: 2025-05-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: camping, camping vehicle, compulsory insurance, consumer protection, fire, indemnity insurance, insurance contract, motor vehicle insurance, third-party insurance, unfair terms of contract








C_202504734EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4734


8.9.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 12 May 2025 – KBC Verzekeringen NV v HC, Baloise Belgium NV


(Case C-323/25, Vinkers
                (1)
)

(C/2025/4734)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: KBC Verzekeringen NV

Respondents: HC, Baloise Belgium NV

Questions referred









1.


Does the requirement of plain, intelligible language, which is intended to enable a consumer to assess the economic and legal consequences of concluding a contract, require the company to inform the consumer that the cover offered does not exceed the minimum cover which is required for driving, with the consequence that significant risks associated with a motor caravan, and which may occur at a campsite, will not be covered, and that, had that consumer been aware of this, he or she might have opted for a different contract by taking out an additional policy or a contract with an insurer which offers more comprehensive cover?












2.


Is it be inferred from the fact that an insurance contract corresponds to a model contract drawn up by the State that the requirement of plain, intelligible language, within the meaning of Directive 93/13/EEC, (2) is ipso facto satisfied, so that the consumer can be presumed to be able to assess the economic and legal consequences of the contractual terms relating to the subject matter and extent of the cover?












3.


Is it relevant that the model policy is compulsory under law and that an insurer can offer more comprehensive cover?












4.


Is it relevant whether the consumer has specific needs in view of the subject matter to be insured (fire insurance, civil liability insurance, etc.) and whether the insurer was aware of them before taking out the policy?












5.


Is the fact relevant that neither the WAM-Wet (Law on compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles) nor the model policy clearly specify the type of risk or extent of cover, in particular the fact that only risks relating to the use of a vehicle (in traffic) are covered, with the result that even a careful linguistic reading of the WAM-Wet and the model policy do not make it possible to determine under what circumstances a motor caravan catching fire at a campsite is covered by the policy?












6.


Is it relevant that the insurance contract is automatically amended in line with changes in the law, which may subsequently limit the extent of the statutory minimum cover which the consumer initially considered to have been agreed, so that certain risks which, in the consumer’s view, were covered when the contract was taken out may no longer be covered?






(1)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

(2)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4734/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)