Fidelidade-Companhia de Seguros SA v Caisse Suisse de Compensation and Others.
Date: 2017-07-20
22


It should be borne in mind that, according to the preambles to the First and Second Directives, the aim of those directives is, first, to ensure the free movement of vehicles normally based in the territory of the European Union and of persons travelling in those vehicles and, second, to guarantee that the victims of accidents caused by those vehicles receive comparable treatment irrespective of where in the European Union the accident occurred (judgment of 23 October 2012, Marques Almeida, C‑300/10, EU:C:2012:656, paragraph 26 and the case-law cited).
23


To those ends, Article 3(1) of 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 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 (judgment of 1 December 2011, Churchill Insurance Company Limited and Evans, C‑442/10, EU:C:2011:799, paragraph 28).
24


As regards the rights granted to third-party victims, Article 3(1) of the First Directive precludes a company insuring against civil liability in respect of the use motor vehicles from relying on statutory provisions or contractual clauses in order to refuse to compensate those victims for 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 and the case-law cited).
25


The Court has also held that the first subparagraph of Article 2(1) of the Second Directive simply repeats that obligation, with respect to statutory provisions or contractual clauses in an insurance policy referred to in that article which exclude from the cover provided by motor vehicle insurance against civil liability damage or injury suffered by third-party victims as a result of 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 that vehicle (judgment of 1 December 2011, Churchill Insurance Company Limited and Evans, C‑442/10, EU:C:2011:799, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited).
26


It is true that, by way of derogation from that obligation, the second subparagraph of Article 2(1) of the Second Directive provides that certain victims may be excluded from compensation by the insurance company, having regard to the situation they have themselves brought about, that is to say, persons who voluntarily entered the vehicle which caused the damage or injury, when that company 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 be made only 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).
29


Indeed, the Court has held that the fact that a vehicle is driven by a person not named in the insurance policy relating to that vehicle cannot, in view, in particular, of the aim pursued by the First, Second and Third Directives of protecting victims of road traffic accidents, support the conclusion that that vehicle is uninsured for the purposes of the third subparagraph of Article 1(4) of the Second Directive (judgment of 1 December 2011, Churchill Insurance Company Limited and Evans, C‑442/10, EU:C:2011:799, paragraph 40).
32


Those States are nonetheless obliged to ensure that the civil liability arising under their domestic law is covered by insurance which complies with the provisions of the three abovementioned directives. It is also apparent from the Court’s case-law that the Member States must exercise their powers in that field in a way that is consistent with EU law and that the provisions of national legislation which govern compensation for road accidents 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, paragraphs 30 and 31 and the case-law cited).
35


That finding is not called in question by the fact that it is possible for the victim to receive compensation from the Fundo de Garantia Automóvel. The payment of compensation by the body referred to in Article 1(4) of the Second Directive was, in fact, designed to be a measure of last resort, envisaged only for cases in which the vehicle that caused the injury or damage has not satisfied the requirement for insurance referred to in Article 3(1) of the First Directive, that is to say, it is a vehicle in respect of which no insurance contract is in place. Such a restriction is explained by the fact that that provision, as recalled in paragraph 23 of the present judgment, requires each Member State to ensure, subject to the derogations allowed under Article 4 of the First Directive, that every owner or keeper of a vehicle normally based in its territory concludes a contract with an insurance company in order to guarantee, up to the limits established by EU law, his civil liability arising as a result of the use of that vehicle (see, to that effect, judgment of 11 July 2013, Csonka and Others, C‑409/11, EU:C:2013:512, paragraphs 30 and 31).