Damijan Vnuk v Zavarovalnica Triglav d.d.
| Jurisdiction | European Union |
| Court | Court of Justice (European Union) |
| Writing for the Court | Jarašiūnas |
| ECLI | ECLI:EU:C:2014:2146 |
| Date | 04 September 2014 |
| Docket Number | C‑162/13 |
| Procedure Type | Reference for a preliminary ruling |
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber)
4 September 2014 ( *1 )
‛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 caused in the courtyard of a farm by a tractor to which a trailer was attached’
In Case C‑162/13,
REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Vrhovno sodišče (Slovenia), made by decision of 11 March 2013, received at the Court on 29 March 2013, in the proceedings
Damijan Vnuk
v
Zavarovalnica Triglav d.d.,
THE COURT (Third Chamber),
composed of M. Ilešič, President of the Chamber, C.G. Fernlund, A. Ó Caoimh, C. Toader and E. Jarašiūnas (Rapporteur), Judges,
Advocate General: P. Mengozzi,
Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,
having regard to the written procedure,
after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
|
— |
the German Government, by T. Henze, J. Kemper and J. Möller, acting as Agents, |
|
— |
Ireland, by A. Joyce, E. Creedon and L. Williams, acting as Agents, and by C. Toland, Barrister at Law, |
|
— |
the European Commission, by B. Rous Demiri and K.-Ph. Wojcik, acting as Agents, |
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 26 February 2014
gives the following
Judgment
|
1 |
This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of 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 (OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (II), p. 360; ‘the First Directive’). |
|
2 |
The request has been made in proceedings between Mr Vnuk and Zavarovalnica Triglav d.d. (‘Zavarovalnica Triglav’) concerning the payment of compensation on the basis of compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (‘the compulsory insurance’). |
Legal context
European Union law
|
3 |
The fifth to seventh recitals in the preamble to the First Directive state: ‘Whereas it is desirable that … measures should be taken further to liberalise the rules regarding the movement of persons and motor vehicles travelling between Member States; … Whereas such relaxation of the rules relating to the movement of travellers constitutes another step towards the mutual opening of their markets by Member States and the creation of conditions similar to those of a domestic market; Whereas the abolition of checks on green cards for vehicles normally based in a Member State entering the territory of another Member State can be effected … ;’ |
|
4 |
Article 1 of the First Directive states: ‘For the purposes of this Directive:
…’ |
|
5 |
Article 3(1) of that directive states: ‘Each Member State shall, subject to Article 4, take all appropriate measures to ensure that civil liability in respect of the use of vehicles normally based in its territory is covered by insurance. The extent of the liability covered and the terms and conditions of the cover shall be determined on the basis of these measures.’ |
|
6 |
Article 4 of that directive provides: ‘A Member State may act in derogation of Article 3 in respect of: …
…’ |
|
7 |
Article 1(1) 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 (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17; ‘the Second Directive’) provides: ‘The insurance referred to in Article 3(1) of [the First Directive] shall cover compulsorily both damage to property and personal injuries.’ |
|
8 |
Article 1(2) of the Second Directive established the minimum amounts which have to be guaranteed by that compulsory insurance. Those amounts were reassessed by Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 amending Council Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 88/357/EEC and 90/232/EEC and Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 14), which also inserted in the Second Directive a provision to ensure that those amounts are reviewed regularly in line with the European Index of Consumer Prices. |
|
9 |
The first subparagraph of Article 1(4) of the Second Directive provides that ‘[e]ach Member State shall set up or authorise a body with the task of providing compensation, at least up to the limits of the insurance obligation for damage to property or personal injuries caused by an unidentified vehicle or a vehicle for which the insurance obligation … has not been satisfied’. Furthermore, the fourth subparagraph of Article 1(4) of the Second Directive provided that ‘Member States may limit or exclude the payment of compensation by that body in the event of damage to property by an unidentified vehicle’. That possibility was, however, subsequently excluded by Directive 2005/14 ‘where the body has paid compensation for significant personal injuries to any victim of the same accident in which damage to property was caused by an unidentified vehicle’. |
|
10 |
Article 2(1) of the Second Directive provides: ‘Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that any statutory provision or any contractual clause contained in an insurance policy issued in accordance with Article 3(1) of [the First Directive], which excludes from insurance the use or driving of vehicles by:
shall, for the purposes of Article 3(1) of [the First Directive], be deemed to be void in respect of claims by third parties who have been victims of an accident. …’ |
|
11 |
Article 3 of the Second Directive provides: ‘The members of the family of the insured person, driver or any other person who is liable under civil law in the event of an accident, and whose liability is covered by the insurance referred to in Article 1(1) shall not be excluded from insurance in respect of their personal injuries by virtue of that relationship.’ |
|
12 |
Article 1 of Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33), as amended by Directive 2005/14 (‘the Third Directive’), states: ‘… the insurance referred to in Article 3(1) of [the First Directive] shall cover liability for personal injuries to all passengers, other than the driver, arising out of the use of a vehicle. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that any statutory provision or any contractual clause contained in an insurance policy which excludes a passenger from such cover on the basis that he knew or should have known that the driver of the vehicle was under the influence of alcohol or of any other intoxicating agent at the time of an accident, shall be deemed to be void in respect of the claims of such passenger. …’ |
|
13 |
Article 1a of the Third Directive provides: ‘The insurance referred to in Article 3(1) of [the First Directive] shall cover personal injuries and damage to property suffered by pedestrians, cyclists and other non-motorised users of the roads who, as a consequence of an accident in which a motor vehicle is involved, are entitled to compensation in accordance with national civil law. …’ |
|
14 |
Article 4c of that directive provides: ‘Insurance undertakings shall not rely on excesses against the injured party to an accident as far as the insurance referred to in Article 3(1) of [the First Directive] is concerned.’ |
|
15 |
Article 3 of Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 May 2000 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 amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (Fourth motor insurance Directive) (OJ 2000 L 181, p. 65), headed ‘Direct right of action’, states: ‘Each Member State shall ensure that injured parties … enjoy a direct right of action against the insurance undertaking covering the responsible person against civil liability.’ |
|
16 |
Furthermore, Article 1 of First Council Directive 73/239/EEC of 24 July 1973 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other than life assurance (OJ 1973 L 228, p. 3), as amended by Council Directive 84/641/EEC of 10 December 1984 (OJ 1984 L 339, p. 21), provides: ‘1. This Directive concerns the taking-up and pursuit of the self-employed activity of direct insurance … carried on by undertakings which are established in the territory of a Member State or... |
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Public.Resource.Org, Inc. and Right to Know CLG v European Commission.
...constituye en sí mismo un motivo que justifique la reapertura de la fase oral del procedimiento (sentencia de 4 de septiembre de 2014, Vnuk, C‑162/13, EU:C:2014:2146, apartado 31 y jurisprudencia 49 Habida cuenta de las consideraciones anteriores, el Tribunal de Justicia estima que no proce......
-
Opinion of Advocate General Biondi delivered on 25 September 2025.
...Churchill Insurance Company and Evans (C‑442/10, EU:C:2011:799, paragraph 30). 5 See, for example, judgments of 4 September 2014, Vnuk (C‑162/13, EU:C:2014:2146); of 20 December 2017, Núñez Torreiro (C‑334/16, EU:C:2017:1007); and of 20 June 2019, Línea Directa Aseguradora (C‑100/18, 6 It i......
-
Opinion of Advocate General Bobek delivered on 23 February 2021.
...así como al control de la obligación de asegurar esta responsabilidad (DO 2009, L 263, p. 11). 3 Sentencia de 4 de septiembre de 2014, Vnuk (C‑162/13, EU:C:2014:2146), apartado 59 y 4 Sentencia de 28 de noviembre de 2017, Rodrigues de Andrade (C‑514/16, EU:C:2017:908), apartado 42 y fallo. ......
-
Opinion of Advocate General Bobek delivered on 8 December 2020.
...(C‑80/17, EU:C:2018:661, Rn. 38 und die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung). Vgl. in diesem Sinne auch Urteile vom 4. September 2014, Vnuk (C‑162/13, EU:C:2014:2146, Rn. 33), und vom 28. November 2017, Rodrigues de Andrade (C‑514/16, EU:C:2017:908, Rn. 19 Urteil vom 4. September 2018, Juliana (......