Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T15:00:07.773Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is 142 Euro Equal to 350 000 Euro? The CJEU Interpretation of “Personal Injury” and “Injured Party” in EU Motor Insurance Law

Case C-277/12, Vitālijs Drozdovs v Baltikums AAS, Judgment of 24 October 2013, nyr.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Vadim Mantrov
Vadim Mantrov*
Affiliation:
University of Latvia, Riga Graduate School of Law, vadim.mantrov@ltk.lv
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In reviewing two similar cases, the CJEU clarified several essential elements of EU motor insurance law. First, the CJEU clarified the concept of “personal injury” as an insurable risk (another is damage to property) by holding that it also covers non–material damage and the concept of “injured party” by establishing that it also covers the next of kin of a person who died as a result of a road traffic accident. Second, the CJEU affirmed its previous case law that EU Member States are precluded from lowering the minimum insurance coverage as set in the amount of 350 000 euro by EU motor insurance law. In particular, the CJEU found that a Latvian national legal provision which provides fixed insurance redress in the amount of 142 (now 150) euro for non–material damage for the next of kin of a person who died in an accident is incompatible with EU motor insurance law (author's summary).

Type
Case Notes
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 5 , Issue 3 , September 2014 , pp. 399 - 406
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, OJ 2009 L 263/11 [Codifying Motor Insurance Directive].

2 Case C-537/03, Katja Candolin, Jari–Antero Viljaniemi and Veli–Matti Paananen v Vahinkovakuutusosakeyhtio Pohjola and Jarno Ruokoranta [2005] ECR I-05745. This conclusion was affirmed in subsequent case law (see Case C-442/10, Churchill Insurance Company Limited v Benjamin Wilkinson and Tracy Evans v Equity Claims Limited [2011] ECR I-12639, at para. 29). For comment on the latter case, see Mantrov, Vadim, “Clarifying the Concept of Victim in the Motor Vehicle Drivers’ Liability Insurance: The ECJ's Judgment in Case C-442/10”, 3 European Journal of Risk Regulation (2012), pp. 257–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 The Vítor Hugo Marques Almeida case was the last of these cases (Case C-300/10, Vitor Hugo Marques Almeida v Companhia de Seguros Fidelidade–Mundial SA, Jorge Manuel da Cunha Carvalheira, Paulo Manuel Carvalheira, Fundo de Garantia Automovel, unreported 23 October 2012. For comment, see Mantrov, Vadim, “A victim of a road traffic accident not fastened by the seat belt and contributory negligence in the EU motor insurance law: CJEU judgment in Vitor Hugo Marques Almeida”, 5 European Journal of Risk Regulation (2014), pp. 115–123).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Ibid.

5 From the point of view of insurance terminology, the term “insurance sum” or “sum insured” (see J. Birds, Birds’ Modern Insurance Law, 9th edn (London: Thomson Reuters, 2013), at p. 308) would be more precise. However, the term “insurance coverage” is also used in other texts relating to insurance within the framework of the EU, namely in Principles of European Insurance Contract Law (PEICL) (see Art. 1:201 of Principles of European Insurance Contract Law (PEICL) in Principles of European Insurance Contract Law (PEICL), prepared by the Project Group “Restatement of European Insurance Contract Law” (Munich: sellier.european law publishers, 2009), p. 8, at pp. 49 - 52.

6 Now Art. 9 (1) of the Codifying Motor Insurance Directive.

7 Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC 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 8/17 [Second Motor Insurance Directive].

8 Case C-348/98, Vitor Manuel Mendes Ferreira and Maria Clara Delgado Correia Ferreira v Companhia de Seguros Mundial Confianca SA [2000] ECR I-06711; Case C-166/02, Daniel Fernando Messejana Viegas v Companhia de Seguros Zurich SA and Mitsubishi Motors de Portugal SA [2003] ECR I-07871.

9 That conclusion was established and later confirmed by the CJEU in numerous judgments (most recently it was confirmed in Case 371/12, Enrico Petillo and Carlo Petillo v Unipol Assicurazioni SpA [2014] ECR I-00000, at para. 29).

10 Ibid.

11 Now Art. 3 (4) of the Codifying Motor Insurance Directive.

12 However, this concept is under discussion by academic commentators (see, for instance, Cees van Dam, European Tort Law, 2nd ed. (Oxford: University Press, 2013), at p. 360 -372).

13 Case C-277/12, Vitālijs Drozdovs v Baltikums AAS, Unreported 24 October 2013.

14 Case C-22/12, Katarina Haasova v Rastislav Petrik, Blanka Holingova, Unreported 24 October 2013.

15 They are supplemented by facts mentioned in Opinion of Advocate General (Opinion of Advocate General Jääskinen in Case C-22/12, Katarina Haasova v Rastislav Petrik, Blanka Holingova, Unreported 24 October 2013, and in Case C-277/12, Vitālijs Drozdovs v Baltikums AAS, Unreported 24 October 2013, paras 37 - 45) and the national court decision which was the basis for the application to the CJEU (see Latvijas Republikas Augstākās tiesas Senāta Civillietu departamenta 2012. gada 16. maija lēmums lietā nr. SKC-154/2012 [Decision of the Civil cases department of the Senate of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia of 16 May 2012 in case No SKC-154/2012]. Available in Latvian at http://at.gov.lv/lv/judikatura/judikaturas-nolemumu-arhivs/senata-civillietu-departaments/hronologiska-seciba_1/2012-hronologiska-seciba/).

16 Case C-277/12, at para. 15.

17 Point 7 of Regulations of the Cabinet No 331 of 17 May 2005 ‘Regulations on the amount of insurance redress and calculation procedure for non-material damage caused to a person’ [Noteikumi par apdrošināšanas atlīdzības apmēru un aprēķināšanas kārtību par personai nodarītajiem nemateriālajiem zaudējumiem]. Available in Latvian at http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=108625. Now, after replacing the Latvian national currency – the lat – with the euro, this fixed insurance redress is fixed at 150 euro.

18 The facts were summarised in paras 18 – 30 of the judgment in Case C-22/12; Opinion of Advocate General Jääskinen in Case C-22/12 and in Case C-277/12, paras 28 - 36.

19 Opinion of Advocate General Jääskinen in Case C-22/12 and in Case C-277/12, para. 32.

20 Opinion of Advocate General Jääskinen in Case C-22/12 and in Case C-277/12, at para. 1.

21 Now Art. 9 (1) of the Codifying Motor Insurance Directive.

22 For the concept “insured risks” / “insurable risk”, see generally J. Birds, Birds’ Modern Insurance Law, at p. 232 et seq.

23 For both types of damage, see generally van Dam, European Tort Law, supra note 11, at pp. 346 – 360.

24 See, for instance, Birds, Birds’ Modern Insurance Law, at p. 405. But cf. with PEICL using different terminology depending on the type of insurance (Art. 1:202 of Principles of European Insurance Contract Law (PEICL) in Principles of European Insurance Contract Law (PEICL), at p. 53).

25 Art. 1 (2) of the First Motor Insurance Directive (now Art. 1 (2) of the Codifying Motor Insurance Directive).

26 As explicitly provided by Art. 1 (1) of the Second Motor Insurance Directive (now Art. 3 (4) of the Codifying Motor Insurance Directive).

27 As interpreted by the CJEU in the cases discussed, EU motor insurance law provides broad coverage of the concept ‘injured party’ without specifying a particular list of victims (see Art. 1 (2) of the First Motor Insurance Directive (now Art. 1 (2) of the Codifying Motor Insurance Directive); Case C-277/12, at para. 46).

28 As stated above, EU motor insurance law uses a different concept, namely an injured party (Art. 1 (2) of the First Motor Insurance Directive (now Art. 1 (2) of the Codifying Motor Insurance Directive)).

29 Vorschlag einer Richtlinie betreffend die Angleichung der Gesetze der Mitgliedstaaten bezüglich der Kraftfahrzeugpflichtversicherung und der Grenzkontrolle der entsprechenden Versicherungspflicht. Amtsblatt, 15.08.1970., C 105/14. Though the officially published proposal did not contain any explanation, it is included in the communication sent to EU Member States at that time (see der Begleitbrief dem Bundeskanzler den 21. Juli 1970 ‘Unterrichtung der gesetzgebenden Körperschaften gemäß Artikel 2 des Gesetzes zu den Gründungsverträgen der Europäischen Gemeinschaften, hier: Verkehrspolitik in der Europäischen Wirtschaftsgemeinschaften, Drucksache VI/1049).

30 Art. 1 (2) of the First Motor Insurance Directive (now Art. 1 (2) of the Codifying Motor Insurance Directive.

31 Amendment of the proposal for a second Council Directive 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 1982 C 78/17.

32 Proposal for a second Council Directive 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 1980 C 214/9. Amendment of the proposal for a second Council Directive 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 1982 C 78/17.

33 Proposal for a Third Council Directive of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, COM/88/644FINAL, OJ 1989 C 16/12.

34 Yet such interpretation technique was used previously by the CJEU, for instance, in the intellectual property field by interpreting the concept “a trade mark with reputation” (Case C-375/97, General Motors Corporation v Yplon SA [1999] ECR I-05421, paras 20-21).

35 See part I of this note above.

36 Case C-348/98; Case C-166/02 (see above).

37 See the information provided by the European Commission regarding minimum third-party liability insurance cover in EU countries (Minimum amounts of cover, available at http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/insurance/docs/motor/min_amounts_en.pdf).

38 § 4 Abs. 2 und Anlage zu § 4 Abs. 2 des Gesetz über die Pflichtversicherung für Kraftfahrzeughalter (Pflichtversicherungsgesetz).

39 Austria: http://www.jusline.at/9._Versicherungssumme_KHVG.html

40 Art. 145 (4) (b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

41 In accordance with Act No LXII of 2009 on Compulsory Third- Party Motor Vehicle Insurance the statutory limit is provided for each damaging event for compensation for material losses approximately EUR 1 800 000 and EUR 2 100 000 for personal injuries ( Menyhard, A., Chapter “Hungary” in H. Koziol, B. C. Steininger (eds), European Tort Law 2009, Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, 2010, pp. 293–294).Google Scholar

42 Art. 15 (1) of the Latvian Compulsory Civil Liability Insurance of Owners of Motor Vehicles Law. Available in English at http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=87547.

43 Art. 26 (2) of the Croatian Act on Compulsory Insurance Within the Transport Sector. Available at http://www.hanfa.hr/getfile/40080/Act%20on%20compulsory%20insurance.pdf.

44 The Lithuanian Act ‘On Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles’. Available in English at http://www.cab.lt/index.php/en/pages/view/?item_id=23.

45 Constitutional court of the Republic of Lithuania ruling of 3 February 2010 in case No. 36/2006-8/2009-49/2009 “On the compliance of paragraph 1 of Article 11 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Compulsory Insurance Against Civil Liability of Holders of Vehicles (wording of 5 March 2014) with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania”. Translation in English available at http://www.lrkt.lt/dokumentai/2010/r100203.doc or at http://www.codices.coe.int/NXT/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm.

46 Case 6-64, Flaminio Costa v E.N.E.L. [1964] ECR 01141.

47 Art. 19 (2) of the Croatian Act on Compulsory Insurance Within the Transport Sector. Available at http://www.hanfa.hr/getfile/40080/Act%20on%20compulsory%20insurance.pdf.

48 C-166/02, at para. 13.

49 Ibid., at para. 8.

50 Case 371/12, at para. 36.

51 Ibid., at paras 43 and 46.

52 Case 371/12, at paras 15 – 18.

53 The Fatal Accidents Act 1976, 1976 CHAPTER 30. Available at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/30/contents.

54 Art. 1A (3) of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976; last amended by: The Damages for Bereavement (Variation of Sum) (England and Wales) Order 2007, 2007 No. 3489. Cf. van Dam, European Tort Law, supra note 11, at p. 371.

55 Case C-22/12, at para. 16.

56 Case C-277/12, at para. 33; Case 22/12, at para. 42.

57 Principles of European Insurance Contract Law (PEICL), at p. 51.

58 van Dam, European Tort Law, supra note 11, at p. 363.

59 Ibid., at pp. 370 – 372. See also: Andrea Renda and Lorna Schrefler, Compensation of Victims of Cross-border Road Traffic Accidents in the EU: Assessment of Selected Options, March - April 2007, prepared by request of the European Parliament, at pp. 3 – Available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2007/378292/IPOL-JURI_ET(2007)378292_EN.pdf.

60 Case C-63/01, Samuel Sidney Evans v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and The Motor Insurers’ Bureau [2003] ECR I-14447, at para. 25.

61 CEPS, The Future of Insurance Regulation and Supervision in the EU: New Developments, New Challenges (Brussels: CEPS, 2006), at pp. 60 – 65. For a discussion of Solvency I from the economic point of view, see Barrieu, Pauline and Albertini, Luca (eds), The Handbook of Insurance–Linked Securities (John Wiley & Sons, 2010), Chapter 26.2.Google Scholar

62 Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking–up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II), OJ 2009 L 335/ 1 [Solvency II Directive].

63 Latvijas Republikas Augstākā tiesa, Prasības lietā par morālā kaitējuma atlīdzinājumu Senāts iesniedz pieteikumu Satversmes tiesā, 2013. gada 18. decembris. Available in Latvian at http://www.at.gov.lv.

64 Art. 19.1 (1) (1) of the Latvian Constitutional Court Act (Satversmes tiesas likums in Latvian). Available in English at http://www.vvc.gov.lv/export/sites/default/docs/LRTA/Likumi/Constitutional_Court_Law.doc.

65 Case C-277/12, at para. 18.

66 For the concepts “indemnity insurance” and “insurance of fixed sums”, see Principles of European Insurance Contract Law (PEICL), at p. 50 – 51.