Case C‑648/17

‘BTA Baltic Insurance Company’ AS

v

‘Baltijas Apdrošināšanas Nams’ AS

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa)

(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) — Concept of ‘use of vehicles’ — Accident involving two vehicles parked in a car park — Material damage to a vehicle caused by a passenger from a neighbouring vehicle opening the vehicle door)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 15 November 2018

  1. Approximation of laws — Insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles — Directive 72/166 — Concept of ‘use of vehicles’ — Independent interpretation

    (Council Directive 72/166, Art. 3(1))

  2. Approximation of laws — Insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles — Directive 72/166 — Concept of ‘use of vehicles’ — Use of a vehicle in accordance with its normal function — Vehicle stationary at the time of the accident — Fact not capable, in itself, of precluding use as a means of transport

    (Council Directive 72/166, Art. 1(1) and 3(1))

  3. Approximation of laws — Insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles — Directive 72/166 — Concept of ‘use of vehicles’ — Accident involving two vehicles parked in a car park — Material damage to a vehicle caused by a passenger from a neighbouring vehicle opening the vehicle door — Included

    (Council Directive 72/166, Art. 3(1))

  1.  See the text of the decision.

    (see para. 31)

  2.  See the text of the decision.

    (see paras 34-37)

  3.  Article 3(1) of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of 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, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘use of vehicles’, set out in that provision, covers a situation in which the passenger of a vehicle parked in a car park, in opening the door of that vehicle, scraped against and damaged the vehicle parked next to it.

    It must be recalled, first, that the fact that the vehicle involved in the accident was stationary when the accident occurred does not, in itself, preclude the use of that vehicle at that time from falling within the scope of its function as a means of transport and, therefore, within the scope of the concept of ‘use of vehicles’ within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the First Directive (judgment of 28 November 2017, Rodrigues de Andrade, C‑514/16, EU:C:2017:908, paragraph 39). The opening of doors is usually only done when vehicles are stationary. Next, it is apparent from the case-law cited in paragraphs 34 and 35 of the present judgment that the concept of ‘use of vehicles’, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the First Directive, covers ‘any’ use of a vehicle that is consistent with its normal function, namely its function as a means of transport. It is important to point out in this regard that the use of vehicles is not limited to the driving of vehicles, but also includes actions which, like the action mentioned in paragraph 36 of the present judgment, are also normally carried out by passengers.

    (see paras 38, 44, 45, 48, operative part)