Manuel Carvalho Ferreira Santos v Companhia Europeia de Seguros SA.
Date: 2011-03-17
24. In that regard, it should be noted that the preambles to the First and Second Directives show that their aim is, first, to ensure the free movement of vehicles normally based on EU territory 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 (see Case C‑129/94 Ruiz Bernáldez  [1996] ECR I‑1829, paragraph 13, and Case C‑348/98 Mendes Ferreira and Delgado Correia Ferreira  [2000] ECR I‑6711, paragraph 24).
25. For that purpose, according to the eighth recital in its preamble, the First Directive established a system based on the presumption that vehicles normally based on EU territory are covered by insurance. Article 3(1) of that directive thus provides that Member States are to take all appropriate measures to ensure that civil liability in respect of the use of vehicles normally based in their territory is covered by insurance ( Mendes Ferreira and Delgado Correia Ferreira , paragraph 25).
26. The original version of that article however left it to the Member States to determine the extent of the liability covered and the terms and conditions of the compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles. In order to reduce the disparities which continued to exist between the laws of the Member States as regards the extent of the obligation to insure, as stated in the third recital in the preamble to the Second Directive, Article 1 of the Second Directive required civil liability for damage to property and personal injuries to be compulsorily covered up to specified sums, and Article 1 of the Third Directive extended that obligation to provide cover for personal injuries to passengers other than the driver ( Mendes Ferreira and Delgado Correia Ferreira , paragraph 26).
27. Article 3(1) of the First Directive, as amplified and supplemented by the Second and Third Directives, thus 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 ( Mendes Ferreira and Delgado Correia Ferreira , paragaph 27).
29. Thus, in view of the aim of protecting victims, which is restated many times in the directives at issue, the Court has held that Article 3(1) of the First Directive precludes an insurer against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles from relying on statutory provisions or contractual clauses in order to refuse to compensate third-party victims of an accident caused by the insured vehicle ( Ruiz Bernáldez , paragraph 20, and Candolin and Others , paragraph 18).
30. The Court has also held that the first subparagraph of Article 2(1) of the Second Directive simply repeats that obligation with respect to provisions or clauses in an insurance policy excluding from insurance cover against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles damage caused to third parties as a result of the use or driving of the 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 ( Ruiz Bernáldez , paragraph 21, and Candolin and Others , paragraph 19).
31. It should however be noted that the obligation to provide insurance cover against civil liability for damage caused to third parties by motor vehicles is separate from the extent of the compensation to be afforded 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 (see, to that effect, Case C‑356/05 Farrell  [2007] ECR I‑3067, paragraph 32).
32. In that regard, the Court has already 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 road accidents ( Candolin and Others , paragraph 24, and Farrell , paragraph 33).
34. However, Member States are 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 ( Farrell , paragraph 33).
35. Furthermore, with regard to the law concerning civil liability, the Court has also held that the Member States must exercise their powers in that field in compliance with EU law and, in particular, with Article 3(1) of the First Directive, Article 2(1) of the Second Directive and Article 1 of the Third Directive ( Candolin and Others , paragraph 27, and Farrell , paragraph 34).
36. The national provisions regarding the law on civil liability which govern compensation for road accidents cannot, therefore, deprive those provisions of their effectiveness ( Candolin and Others , paragraph 28, and Farrell , paragraph 34).
38. In that regard, the Court has held that national rules, formulated in terms of general and abstract criteria, cannot refuse or restrict to a disproportionate extent the compensation to be made available to a passenger by means of compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles solely on the basis of his contribution to the occurrence of that damage. It is only in exceptional circumstances that, on the basis of an individual assessment and in compliance with EU law, the extent of such a right may be limited in a proportionate manner ( Candolin and Others , paragraph 30, and Farrell , paragraph 35).
43. Contrary to the respective legal contexts which led to the judgments in Candolin and Others , and in Farrell , Article 506 of the Portuguese Civil Code does not automatically exclude or limit disproportionately the right of the victim, in the present case that of the driver of a motor vehicle who suffered personal injury in a collision with another motor vehicle, to compensation by means of compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles. That provision confines itself to providing that civil liability is apportioned in accordance with the contribution of each of the vehicles to the occurrence of the damage which, consequently, influences the amount of compensation.
44. Thus, it must be held that that provision does not affect the obligation under EU law to ensure that civil liability arising under national law is covered by insurance which complies with the provisions of the three abovementioned directives.