Luís Isidro Delgado Mendes v Crédito Agrícola Seguros - Companhia de Seguros de Ramos Reais, SA.
Date: 2017-09-14
35


In that regard, first, it must be borne in mind that EU rules relating to compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles are designed to ensure the free movement of vehicles normally based on EU territory and of persons travelling in those vehicles and to guarantee that the victims of accidents caused by those vehicles receive comparable treatment, irrespective of where in the European Union the accident has occurred (judgment of 1 December 2011, Churchill Insurance Company Limited and Evans, C‑442/10, EU:C:2011:799, paragraph 27).
36


Accordingly, the First Directive, as amplified and supplemented by the Second and Third Directives, requires the Member States to ensure that civil liability in respect of the use of 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 (judgment of 23 October 2012, Marques Almeida, C‑300/10, EU:C:2012:656, paragraph 27 and the case-law cited).
37


In that regard, the Court has already held that the aim of Article 3(1) of the First Directive, Article 2(1) of the Second Directive and Article 1 of the Third Directive is to ensure that compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles allows all passengers who are victims of an accident caused by a motor vehicle to be compensated for the injury or loss they have suffered (judgment of 1 December 2011, Churchill Insurance Company Limited and Evans, C‑442/10, EU:C:2011:799, paragraph 29).
38


The development of the EU legislation concerning compulsory insurance shows that that objective of protecting the victims of accidents caused by vehicles has continuously been pursued and reinforced by the EU legislature (judgment of 4 September 2014, Vnuk, C‑162/13, EU:C:2014:2146, paragraph 52).
39


In particular, Directive 2005/14, by inserting Article 1a in the Third Directive, extended the insurance coverage provided for in Article 3(1) of the First Directive to personal injuries and damage to property suffered by pedestrians, cyclists and other non-motorised users of the roads (see, to that effect, judgment of 4 September 2014, Vnuk, C‑162/13, EU:C:2014:2146, paragraph 55).
41


As regards more specifically the circumstance of a victim of a motor vehicle accident being the insurance policy-holder and owner of the vehicle involved in that accident, it must be recalled that the Court has held that the aim of protecting victims pursued by the First, Second and Third Directives requires the legal position of the owner of the vehicle, present in the vehicle at the time of an accident as a passenger, to be the same as that of any other passenger who is a victim of that accident (judgment of 1 December 2011, Churchill Insurance Company Limited and Evans, C‑442/10, EU:C:2011:799, paragraph 30).
42


Likewise, the Court has held that that aim also precludes national rules from restricting unduly the concept of passenger covered by compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, by excluding from that concept persons who were within a part of a vehicle not designed for their carriage and not fitted out for that purpose (judgment of 1 December 2011, Churchill Insurance Company Limited and Evans, C‑442/10, EU:C:2011:799, paragraph 30).
43


The Court concluded that the same aim of protecting victims also requires the legal position of the person who was insured to drive a vehicle but who was, at the time of an accident, a passenger in that vehicle, to be the same as that of any other passenger who is a victim of the accident and that, consequently, the fact that a person was insured to drive the vehicle which caused the accident does not mean that that person should be excluded from the concept of ‘third parties who have been victims’ within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the Second Directive, in so far as he was a passenger in that vehicle (judgment of 1 December 2011, Churchill Insurance Company Limited and Evans, C‑442/10, EU:C:2011:799, paragraphs 31 and 32).
46


Secondly, as regards the recognised rights of third parties who have been victims of an accident, it must be borne in mind that the obligation to provide insurance cover against civil liability for damage caused to third parties by motor vehicles is distinct from the extent of the compensation for that harm to be provided to them on the basis of the civil liability of the insured person. Whereas the former is defined and guaranteed by EU legislation, the latter is, essentially, governed by national law (judgment of 23 October 2012, Marques Almeida, C‑300/10, EU:C:2012:656, paragraph 28 and the case-law cited).
47


Thus, the Court has held that it is apparent from the aim of the First, Second and Third Directives, and from their wording, that they do not seek to harmonise the rules of the Member States governing civil liability and that, as EU law stands at present, the Member States are free to determine the rules of civil liability applicable to accidents arising from the use of motor vehicles (judgment of 23 October 2012, Marques Almeida, C‑300/10, EU:C:2012:656, paragraph 29 and the case-law cited).
48


However, the Court has stated that the Member States must exercise their powers in that field in compliance with EU law and that provisions of national law which govern compensation for accidents arising from the use of motor vehicles may not deprive the First, Second and Third Directives of their effectiveness (judgment of 23 October 2012, Marques Almeida, C‑300/10, EU:C:2012:656, paragraph 31 and the case-law cited).
49


As the Court has also stated, those directives would be deprived of that effectiveness if, on the basis of the victim’s contribution to the occurrence of harm, national rules, established on the basis of general and abstract criteria, either denied the victim the right to be compensated by the compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles or restricted such a right disproportionately. It is, therefore, only in exceptional circumstances that, on the basis of an individual assessment, that right may be limited (judgment of 23 October 2012, Marques Almeida, C‑300/10, EU:C:2012:656, paragraph 32 and the case-law cited).
50


Accordingly, it follows from the case-law that those directives preclude national rules which allow a refusal of or disproportionate restriction on the right of a passenger to obtain compensation by means of compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, solely on the basis of that passenger’s contribution to the occurrence of the harm suffered by him (see, to that effect, judgment of 23 October 2012, Marques Almeida, C‑300/10, EU:C:2012:656, paragraph 33 and the case-law cited).
52


The Court has held that Article 3(1) of the First Directive precludes an insurer against civil liability with respect to the use of motor vehicles from relying on statutory provisions or contractual terms in order to refuse to compensate the victims of an accident caused by the insured vehicle (judgment of 1 December 2011, Churchill Insurance Company Limited and Evans, C‑442/10, EU:C:2011:799, paragraph 33).
53


The Court has also held that the first subparagraph of Article 2(1) of the Second Directive simply renews that obligation with respect to provisions or terms in an insurance policy referred to in that article that exclude, from the cover provided by insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, damage or injury suffered by third parties who have been victims of an accident caused by the use or driving of an insured vehicle by persons not authorised to drive the vehicle, persons not holding a driving licence, or persons in breach of the statutory technical requirements concerning the condition and safety of the vehicle (judgment of 1 December 2011, Churchill Insurance Company Limited and Evans, C‑442/10, EU:C:2011:799, paragraph 34).
54


It is true that by way of derogation from that obligation, the second subparagraph of Article 2(1) provides that certain persons may be excluded from compensation by the insurer, having regard to a situation they have themselves brought about, that is to say, persons who voluntarily entered the vehicle which caused the damage or injury, when the insurer can prove that they knew the vehicle had been stolen. However, and as the Court has already held, derogations from the first subparagraph of Article 2(1) of the Second Directive may only be made in that single, specific case (judgment of 1 December 2011, Churchill Insurance Company Limited and Evans, C‑442/10, EU:C:2011:799, paragraph 35).