Case C‑80/17

Fundo de Garantia Automóvel

v

Alina Antónia Destapado Pão Mole Juliana
and
Cristiana Micaela Caetano Juliana

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directive 72/166/EEC — Article 3(1) — Second Directive 84/5/EEC — Article 1(4) — Obligation to take out a contract of insurance — Vehicle parked on private land — Right of the compensation body to bring an action against the owner of the uninsured vehicle)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 September 2018

1. Approximation of laws—Insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles—Obligations of the Member States—General obligation to insure vehicles normally based in their territory—Scope—Whether applicable to a vehicle parked on private land, but capable of being driven

   (Council Directive 72/166, as amended by Directive 2005/14, Art. 1(1), 3(1) and 4)

2. Approximation of laws—Insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles—Directive 84/5—Intervention of the body ensuring that victims of road traffic accidents are compensated—Conditions—Limits

   (Council Directive 84/5, as amended by Directive 2005/14, Art. 1(4))

3. Approximation of laws—Insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles—Directive 84/5—Intervention of the body ensuring that victims of road traffic accidents are compensated—National legislation providing that the body may bring an action against the person subject to the obligation to take out insurance against civil liability—Whether applicable even if that person does not have civil liability for the accident—Lawfulness

   (Council Directive 84/5, as amended by Directive 2005/14, Art. 1(4))

1.  Article 3(1) of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, as amended by Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that the conclusion of a contract of insurance against civil liability relating to the use of a motor vehicle is obligatory when the vehicle concerned is still registered in a Member State and is capable of being driven but is parked on private land, solely by the choice of the owner, who no longer intends to drive it.

   Article 3(1) of the First Directive, worded in very general terms, therefore requires Member States to establish, in their domestic legal systems, a general obligation to insure vehicles (see, to that effect, judgment of 11 July 2013, Csonka and Others, C‑409/11, EU:C:2013:512, paragraph 24). Accordingly, each Member State must ensure, subject to the derogations provided for in Article 4 of that directive, that every vehicle normally based in its territory is covered by a contract concluded with an insurance company in order to cover, up to the limits established by EU law, 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, paragraph 28). The concept of ‘vehicle’ is defined in Article 1(1) of the First Directive as ‘any motor vehicle intended for travel on land’. That definition is unconnected with the use which is made or may be made of the vehicle in question (judgments of 4 September 2014, Vnuk, C‑162/13, EU: C:2014:2146, paragraph 38, and of 28 November 2017, Rodrigues de Andrade, C‑514/16, EU: C:2017:908, paragraph 29). As the Advocate General stated in points 63 to 65 of his Opinion, such a definition is conducive to the concept of ‘vehicle’ being given an objective sense that is independent of the intention of the owner of the vehicle or of another person actually to use it.

   It is important, moreover, to point out that, unlike, in particular, the cases which gave rise to the judgments of 4 September 2014, Vnuk (C‑162/13, EU:C:2014:2146), of 28 November 2017, Rodrigues de Andrade (C‑514/16, EU:C:2017:908), and of 20 December 2017, Núñez Torreiro (C‑334/16, EU:C:2017:1007), in which, as regards motor vehicles for which civil liability insurance had been taken out in respect of their use, the Court of Justice was called upon to specify the situations in which use of the insured vehicle falls within the scope of the insurance cover thus taken out, the main proceedings concern the separate issue of the scope of the obligation to take out such insurance which must, for reasons of legal certainty, be determined in advance, that is, before any involvement of the vehicle concerned in an accident. As the Advocate General states in point 34 of his Opinion, the scope of obligatory intervention of the compensation body referred to in Article 1(4) of the Second Directive is therefore, as regards the damage or injuries caused by an identified vehicle, coextensive with the scope of the general insurance obligation laid down in Article 3(1) of the First Directive. The obligatory intervention of that body in such a situation cannot therefore extend to situations in which the vehicle involved in an accident was not covered by the insurance obligation.

   (see paras 36-40, 46, 52, operative part 1)

2.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 44, 45)

3.  Article 1(4) of Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, as amended by Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides that the body referred to in that provision has the right to bring an action, in addition to an action against the person or persons responsible for the accident, against the person who was subject to the obligation to take out insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of the vehicle which caused the damage or injuries for which compensation was provided by that body, but who had not concluded a contract for that purpose, even if that person has no civil liability for the accident in which the damage or injuries occurred.

   While the EU legislature sought to preserve the right of the Member States to make provision for the settlement of the claims of the compensation body referred to in Article 1(4) of the Second Directive, in particular, against ‘the person or persons responsible for the accident’, it did not however harmonise the various matters relating to the actions brought by such a body, in particular the determination of the other persons against whom such actions might be brought, so that, as the Commission pointed out, those matters fall within the scope of the national law of each Member State. Accordingly, national legislation may provide that, when the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident has failed to comply with his or her obligation to insure that vehicle, as in the present case, under national law, that compensation body can bring an action, in addition to an action against the person or persons responsible for the accident, against that owner, irrespective of the civil liability of the latter in the occurrence of the accident.

   (see paras 55-57, operative part 2)