CJUE C-409/11, Csonka și alții, 11.07.2013

Extrasele exacte din hotărâre la care trimit ghidurile.

1. Punctul 22 până la dispozitiv (text primar consecutiv) · limba originalului: en

   22 By those questions, the national court asks, in essence, whether Article  3(1) of the First Directive is to be interpreted as including, among the obligations which it imposes on Member States, that of establishing a body to ensure that compensation is provided to victims of road accidents in situations where, although the persons responsible for the damage had taken out insurance covering their civil liability in respect of the use of vehicles, the insurer has become insolvent. 23 According to the Court’s settled case-law, in interpreting a provision of European Union law, it is necessary to consider not only its wording but also the context in which that provision arises and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (see, inter alia, Case C-219/11 Brain Products [2012] ECR, paragraph  13 and the case-law cited). 24 In that regard, it must be stated that Article  3(1) of the First Directive is framed in very general terms, in so far as they require each Member State to 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’. As the Advocate General stated in point  26 of his Opinion, it is clear from that provision that Member States are required to establish, in their domestic legal systems, a general obligation to insure vehicles. 6 ECLI:EU:C:2013:512 JUDGMENT OF 11. 7. 2013 – CASE C-409/11 CSONKA AND OTHERS 25 In view of the breadth of the wording of Article  3(1) of the First Directive, the scope of the obligation thus placed on the Member States must therefore be defined with a view to the context and the objectives of that provision. 26 In that regard, it must be pointed out that the First Directive is part of a series of directives which came progressively to define the obligations of Member States concerning civil liability in respect of the use of vehicles. According to the recitals to the First and Second Directives, the aim of those directives is, first, to ensure the free movement of vehicles normally based on European Union territory and of persons travelling in those vehicles and, secondly, to guarantee that the victims of accidents caused by those vehicles receive comparable treatment irrespective of where in the European Union the accident occurred (see, inter alia, Case C-300/10 Marques Almeida [2012] ECR, paragraph  26 and the case-law cited). 27 It is against that background that the First Directive, as supplemented by the Second Directive and a number of later directives, requires the Member States to ensure that civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles normally based in their territory is covered by insurance, and specifies, inter alia, the types of damage and the third-party victims to be covered by that insurance (see, inter alia, Marques Almeida, paragraph  27 and the case-law cited). 28 Article  3(1) of the First Directive, read in the light of the later directives, accordingly requires each Member State to ensure, subject to the derogations allowed under Article  4 of that directive, that every owner or keeper of a vehicle normally based in its territory takes out a policy with an insurance company for the purpose of covering, at least up to the limits established by European Union law, his civil liability arising as a result of that vehicle. 29 The importance attached by the European Union legislature to the protection of victims moved it to supplement those arrangements by requiring Member States, under Article  1(4) of the Second Directive, to establish a body with the task of providing compensation, at least up to the limits laid down by European Union law, for damage to property or personal injuries caused by an unidentified vehicle or a vehicle for which the insurance obligation under Article  1(1) of the Second Directive, which refers to Article  3(1) of the First Directive, has not been satisfied. In order to alleviate the financial burden to be borne by that body, Member States were free to exclude the payment of compensation by it in certain cases or to provide for excesses. 30 The payment of compensation by such a body was therefore considered to be a measure of last resort, envisaged only for cases in which the vehicle that caused the injury or damage is uninsured or unidentified or has not satisfied the insurance requirements referred to in Article  3(1) of the First Directive (Case C-442/10 Churchill Insurance Company and Evans [2011] ECR I-12639, paragraph  41). 31 As regards the determination of the actual circumstances in which the insurance obligation laid down in Article  3(1) of the First Directive may be regarded as not having been satisfied, it is significant – as the Advocate General stated in point  32 of his Opinion – that the European Union legislature did not confine itself to providing that the body must pay compensation in the event of damage caused by a vehicle for which the insurance obligation has not been satisfied in general, but made it clear that that was to be the case only in relation to damage caused by a vehicle for which the insurance obligation provided for in Article  3(1) of the First Directive has not been satisfied, that is to say, a vehicle in respect of which no insurance policy exists. Such a restriction is explained by the fact that Article  3(1) of the First Directive – as has been pointed out in paragraph  28 above – requires each Member State, subject to the derogations allowed under Article  4 of that directive, to ensure that every owner or keeper of a vehicle normally based in its territory takes out a policy with an insurance company for the purpose of covering, up to the limits established by European Union law, his civil liability arising ECLI:EU:C:2013:512 7 JUDGMENT OF 11. 7. 2013 – CASE C-409/11 CSONKA AND OTHERS as a result of that vehicle. Viewed in that light, the very fact that damage has been caused by an uninsured vehicle attests to a breakdown in the system which the Member State was required to establish and justifies the payment of compensation by a national body providing compensation. 32 It follows from the foregoing that, contrary to the line of argument put forward by the applicants in the main proceedings, the payment of compensation by such a national body, as provided for under the First and Second Directives, cannot be regarded as the implementation of a guarantee scheme in respect of insurance against civil liability relating to the use of motor vehicles; rather, it is intended to take effect only in specific, clearly identified, sets of circumstances. 33 The insolvency of an insurer does not constitute a case which can be identified as one of those sets of circumstances. In such a situation, the insurance obligation has been satisfied. 34 However, as is apparent from Article  1(7) of the Second Directive, Member States may, as regards the conditions for the payment of compensation from the national compensation fund, adopt measures more favourable to the victims than those provided for under the directives on insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles. In that regard, it must be pointed out that, according to the information provided by the Hungarian Government, measures designed to remedy the situation brought about by MAV’s insolvency were, during the proceedings before the Court, in course of preparation before the competent Hungarian bodies. 35 In view of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first part of Question 1 and to Question 6 is that Article  3(1) of the First Directive, read in the light of Article  1(4) of the Second Directive, must be interpreted as not including, among the obligations which that provision imposes on Member States, that of establishing a body to ensure that compensation is provided to victims of road accidents in situations where, although the persons responsible for the damage had taken out insurance covering their civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, the insurer has become insolvent. The second part of Question 1 and Questions 2, 3, 4 and 5 36 By those questions, the national court asks, first, whether Article  3 of the First Directive may be regarded as having direct effect and, secondly, under what circumstances individuals may cause Hungary to incur liability on account of damage which they have suffered as a result of the incorrect transposition of the First Directive into Hungarian law. 37 In view of the interpretation of the First Directive given in answer to the first part of Question 1 and to Question 6, the Member State concerned does not appear to have infringed European Union law. 38 In those circumstances, there is no need to reply to the second part of Question 1 or to Questions 2, 3, 4 or  5. Costs 39 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable. 8 ECLI:EU:C:2013:512 JUDGMENT OF 11. 7. 2013 – CASE C-409/11 CSONKA AND OTHERS On those grounds, the Court (First Chamber) hereby rules: 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, as amended by Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11  May 2005, read in the light of 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, must be interpreted as not including, among the obligations which that provision imposes on Member States, that of establishing a body to ensure that compensation is provided to victims of road accidents in situations where, although the persons responsible for the damage had taken out insurance covering their civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, the insurer has become insolvent. [Signatures]

   Textul în documentul-sursă ↗