Gábor Csonka and Others v Magyar Állam.
Date: 2013-07-11
23. According to the Court’s settled case-law, in interpreting a provision of European Union law, it is necessary to consider not only its wording but also the context in which that provision arises and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (see, inter alia, Case C‑219/11 Brain Products  [2012] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 13 and the case-law cited).
24. In that regard, it must be stated that Article 3(1) of the First Directive is framed in ver y general terms, in so far as they require each Member State to take ‘all appropriate measures to ensure that civil liability in respect of the use of vehicles normally based in its territory is covered by insurance’. As the Advocate General stated in point 26 of his Opinion, it is clear from that provision that Member States are required to establish, in their domestic legal systems, a general obligation to insure vehicles.
26. In that regard, it must be pointed out that the First Directive is part of a series of directives which came progressively to define the obligations of Member States concerning civil liability in respect of the use of vehicles. According to the recitals to the First and Second Directives, the aim of those directives is, first, to ensure the free movement of vehicles normally based on European Union territory and of persons travelling in those vehicles and, secondly, to guarantee that the victims of accidents caused by those vehicles receive comparable treatment irrespective of where in the European Union the accident occurred (see, inter alia, Case C‑300/10 Marques Almeida  [2012] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 26 and the case-law cited).
27. It is against that background that the First Directive, as supplemented by the Second Directive and a number of later directives, requires the Member States to ensure that civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles normally based in their territory is covered by insurance, and specifies, inter alia, the types of damage and the third-party victims to be covered by that insurance (see, inter alia, Marques Almeida , paragraph 27 and the case-law cited).
28. Article 3(1) of the First Directive, read in the light of the later directives, accordingly requires each Member State to ensure, subject to the derogations allowed under Article 4 of that directive, that every owner or keeper of a vehicle normally based in its territory takes out a policy with an insurance company for the purpose of covering, at least up to the limits established by European Union law, his civil liability arising as a result of that vehicle.
29. The importance attached by the European Union legislature to the protection of victims moved it to supplement those arrangements by requiring Member States, under Article 1(4) of the Second Directive, to establish a body with the task of providing compensation, at least up to the limits laid down by European Union law, for damage to property or personal injuries caused by an unidentified vehicle or a vehicle for which the insurance obligation under Article 1(1) of the Second Directive, which refers to Article 3(1) of the First Directive, has not been satisfied. In order to alleviate the financial burden to be borne by that body, Member States were free to exclude the payment of compensation by it in certain cases or to provide for excesses.
30. The payment of compensation by such a body was therefore considered to be a measure of last resort, envisaged only for cases in which the vehicle that caused the injury or damage is uninsured or unidentified or has not satisfied the insurance requirements referred to in Article 3(1) of the First Directive (Case C‑442/10 Churchill Insurance Company and Evans  [2011] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 41).
31. As regards the determination of the actual circumstances in which the insurance obligation laid down in Article 3(1) of the First Directive may be regarded as not having been satisfied, it is significant – as the Advocate General stated in point 32 of his Opinion – that the European Union legislature did not confine itself to providing that the body must pay compensation in the event of damage caused by a vehicle for which the insurance obligation has not been satisfied in general, but made it clear that that was to be the case only in relation to damage caused by a vehicle for which the insurance obligation provided for in Article 3(1) of the First Directive has not been satisfied, that is to say, a vehicle in respect of which no insurance policy exists. Such a restriction is explained by the fact that Article 3(1) of the First Directive – as has been pointed out in paragraph 28 above – requires each Member State, subject to the derogations allowed under Article 4 of that directive, to ensure that every owner or keeper of a vehicle normally based in its territory takes out a policy with an insurance company for the purpose of covering, up to the limits established by European Union law, his civil liability arising as a result of that vehicle. Viewed in that light, the very fact that damage has been caused by an uninsured vehicle attests to a breakdown in the system which the Member State was required to establish and justifies the payment of compensation by a national body providing compensation.
32. It follows from the foregoing that, contrary to the line of argument put forward by the applicants in the main proceedings, the payment of compensation by such a national body, as provided for under the First and Second Directives, cannot be regarded as the implementation of a guarantee scheme in respect of insurance against civil liability relating to the use of motor vehicles; rather, it is intended to take effect only in specific, clearly identified, sets of circumstances.