C 95/8
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
28.2.2022
Parties to the main proceedings Applicants: AR and Others
Defendants: PK SA and Others
Questions referred 1.
Must Article 18 of 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, (1) in conjunction with Article 3 thereof, be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which an injured party who exercises a direct right of action for repair of the damage to his/her vehicle in connection with the use of motor vehicles against an insurance undertaking covering the person responsible for the accident, as regards civil liability, can obtain from the insurance undertaking only compensation for the real and actual loss to his/her property, that it is to say, the difference between the value of the vehicle in its state before the accident and the value of the damaged vehicle, plus the reasonable costs actually incurred in repairing the vehicle and any other reasonable costs actually incurred as a result of the accident, whereas if he/she sought a remedy directly from the person responsible, he/she could opt to require the latter to restore the vehicle to its state before the damage occurred (repair of the damage by the person responsible or by a garage paid by that person), instead of claiming compensation?
2.
If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, must Article 18 of 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, in conjunction with Article 3 thereof, be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which an injured party who exercises a direct right of action for repair of the damage to his/her vehicle in connection with the use of motor vehicles against an insurance undertaking covering the person responsible for the accident, as regards civil liability, can obtain from the insurance undertaking, instead of compensation for the real and actual loss to his/her property, that is to say, the difference between the value of the vehicle in its state before the accident and the value of the damaged vehicle, plus the reasonable costs actually incurred of repairing the vehicle and any other reasonable costs actually incurred as a result of the accident, only an amount corresponding to the costs of restoring the vehicle to its state before the damage, whereas if he/she sought a remedy directly from the person responsible, he/she could opt to require the latter to restore the vehicle to its state before the damage occurred (and not merely provide funds for that purpose), instead of claiming compensation?
3.
If the answer to Question [1] is in the affirmative and the answer to Question [2] is in the negative, must Article 18 of 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, in conjunction with Article 3 thereof, be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which an insurance undertaking, to which the owner of a car damaged in motor vehicle traffic applied for payment of hypothetical costs which he/she has not incurred but would have had to incur if he/she had decided to restore the vehicle to its state before the accident, can:
a. make that payment conditional on the injured party proving that he/she genuinely intends to have the vehicle repaired in a specific way, by a specific mechanic, at a specific price for parts and services, and to transfer the funds for that repair directly to that mechanic (or to the seller of the parts necessary for the repair), subject to reimbursement, if the purpose for which the funds were paid should not be fulfilled, and if not:
b. make that payment conditional on the consumer undertaking to show, within an agreed period, that he/she has used the funds paid to repair the vehicle or to reimburse them to the insurance undertaking, and if not:
c. after the payment of those funds and indication of the purpose of the payment (the manner in which they are used) and expiry of the necessary period during which the injured party was able to have the car repaired), require him/her to show that those funds have been spent on the repair or refunded
— so as to rule out the possibility of the injured party enriching himself/herself as a result of the damage?