Judgment of the Court of Justice Fifth Chamber of 12 October 2023, KBC Verzekeringen, C-286/22

• Date: 12 October 2023
• Year: 2023

15

whether the rights of the undertakings and natural persons involved in an investigation were fully

respected.

As regards the meetings which took place from 2010 to 2013, before the statement of objections was

adopted, the Commission included in the file only brief notes of those meetings whereas the detailed

minutes remained confidential. In that regard, the Court states that those brief notes are manifestly

insufficient to provide an account of the content of the discussions that actually took place between

the Commission and Overgas and, in particular, to provide an account of the nature of the

information provided by Overgas on the topics covered. Nothing in the wording of Article 19(1) of

Regulation No 1/2003, or the objective which it pursues, supports the inference that the legislature

intended to draw a distinction between, on the one hand, ‘brief notes’, made for the purposes of

access to the file, and ‘detailed minutes’ intended to remain confidential, on the other. Such an

interpretation would be tantamount to depriving the right of access to the file and the principle of

equality of arms of all practical effect.

As regards the access to the documents made available in the data room, the Court stated that the

applicants’ external representatives had been authorised by the Commission to communicate only

the non-confidential version of their data room report to their clients, and that that version did not

contain any information that was additional to the brief notes to which the applicants had already had

access during the administrative procedure. Redactions made to a data room report to the extent of

making it practically equivalent to brief notes risk, according to the Court, compromising the very aim

of the data room procedure, which is to protect the confidential information whilst giving access to

evidence which a party needs in order to substantiate its position. That is all the more so since the

data room procedure, as it took place in the present case, was capable of affecting the rights of

defence of the applicants, which were able to exercise those rights only indirectly, through their

external representatives.

As the applicants also demonstrated that, had the Commission not committed the errors by refusing

the applicants a sufficient degree of access to the file, they would have had access to information that

could have enabled them to better ensure their defence during the administrative procedure, the

Court finds that the applicants’ rights of defence were infringed.

In view of all of the foregoing considerations, the Court annuls the contested decision in its entirety.

IV. APPROXIMATION OF LAWS

1. MOTOR INSURANCE

Judgment of the Court of Justice (Fifth Chamber) of 12 October 2023, KBC Verzekeringen,

C-286/22

Link to the full text of the judgment

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles –

Directive 2009/103/EC – Point 1 of Article 1 – Concept of a ‘vehicle’ – National legislation providing for the

automatic compensation of certain road users who are the victims of a road accident – Person not driving

a ‘motor vehicle’ within the meaning of that legislation – Concept equivalent to that of ‘vehicle’ within the

meaning of Directive 2009/103 – Bicycle equipped with an electric motor providing pedal assistance,

equipped with a boost function which can be activated only after the use of muscular power

On 14 October 2017, BV (‘the victim’), who was riding an electric bicycle on a public road, was struck by

a car insured by KBC Verzekeringen NV (‘KBC’). The victim subsequently died. Since that accident was

considered to be a ‘commuting accident’, P&V Verzekeringen CVBA (‘P&V’), the occupational accident