This page is part of the overview of Court of Justice insurance case law. It collects 8 judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union on this topic, in chronological order, with a short synthesis. The summaries are written in our own words. Citation conventions, links and temporal application are explained on the overview page.
Synthesis
Compulsory insurance covers the loss that the applicable liability law recognises, including non-material damage of close relatives where national law provides for it (Haasová, Drozdovs). Member States may shape the conditions and a separate regime for non-material damage (Petillo, HUK-COBURG), but may not limit cover below the Directive's minimum amounts or by territorial criteria (Drozdovs, K.S.). In a direct claim, compensation may be in money, but calculation rules may not reduce the insurer's duty to cover the full loss for which the liable person is responsible (AR and Others). In Estonia see § 24 LKindlS (extent of recoverable loss), § 25 (sum insured) and § 34 (the injured party's right of claim).
Judgments
CJEU 24.10.2013, C-22/12, Haasová
Preliminary ruling, Second Chamber · ECLI:EU:C:2013:692 · para 59 · Directive 72/166/EEC Art 3(1); Directive 84/5/EEC Art 1(1) and (2); relatives' non-material damage
In Slovakia a man was killed in a road accident; his widow and minor child claimed non-material damage. The Court held that compulsory MTPL must cover the non-material damage of a deceased victim's close relatives where the applicable national civil liability law provides for compensation of such damage. The Directive does not itself create the claim; cover follows liability. In Estonia the basis and extent of compensation derive from liability law and LKindlS.
CJEU 24.10.2013, C-277/12, Drozdovs
Preliminary ruling, Second Chamber · ECLI:EU:C:2013:685 · paras 48, 58 · Directive 72/166/EEC Art 3(1); Directive 84/5/EEC Art 1(1) and (2); minimum amounts
In Latvia a child lost both parents in a road accident; national law capped cover for relatives' non-material damage at a small amount. The Court held that compulsory insurance must cover such damage where national liability law provides for it (para 48) and that Member States may not limit cover to amounts below the Directive's minimum amounts (para 58). Relevant for assessing caps on compensation; in Estonia see § 25 LKindlS.
CJEU 23.01.2014, C-371/12, Petillo
Preliminary ruling, Second Chamber · ECLI:EU:C:2014:26 · para 47 · Directive 72/166/EEC Art 3(1); Directive 84/5/EEC Art 1; minor injuries; non-material damage
Italian law laid down a special regime for non-material damage from minor injuries caused by road accidents, granting less compensation than for the same damage from other causes. The Court held that the Directives do not preclude such a regime, because the extent of compensation for non-material damage belongs to civil liability law. Member States may therefore have separate rules for non-material damage in road traffic cases, provided they do not deprive cover of its effectiveness.
CJEU 20.05.2021, C-707/19, K.S. (towing costs)
Preliminary ruling, Fifth Chamber · ECLI:EU:C:2021:405 · para 36 · Directive 2009/103/EC Art 3; towing costs; territorial limitation
In a Polish reference, the question was whether MTPL may be required to cover the costs of towing a damaged vehicle only insofar as the towing takes place within that Member State. The Court held that such a territorial limitation is incompatible with the Directive; a Member State may restrict the reimbursement of towing costs only by criteria unrelated to its territory. Relevant for cross-border motor claims, including damage abroad to vehicles registered in Estonia.
CJEU 21.12.2021, C-428/20, Skarb Państwa (minimum amounts)
Preliminary ruling, Second Chamber · ECLI:EU:C:2021:1043 · para 47 · Directive 84/5/EEC Art 1(2); Directive 2009/103/EC Art 9(1); minimum amounts; transitional period
In a Polish reference, the question was whether a Member State using the transitional period for raising minimum amounts of cover had to apply the new amounts to contracts concluded before, but still in force at, the relevant date. The Court held that from 11.12.2009 contracts concluded before that date and still in force had to comply with the minimum amount rule laid down in the Directive. Increases in minimum amounts thus also affect existing contracts.
CJEU 15.12.2022, C-577/21, HUK-COBURG
Preliminary ruling, Tenth Chamber · ECLI:EU:C:2022:992 · para 51 · Directive 2009/103/EC Art 3, fourth paragraph; relatives' non-material damage; pathology requirement
The question was whether a Member State may make compensation for the non-material damage of a road accident victim's close relatives conditional on that damage having caused a pathology. The Court held that the Directive does not preclude such a condition, since cover follows national liability law. The ruling confirms Haasová and Drozdovs: EU law requires cover, but the conditions of compensation are set by national law.
CJEU 30.03.2023, C-618/21, AR and Others (direct action against the insurer)
Preliminary ruling, Fifth Chamber · ECLI:EU:C:2023:278 · para 48 · Directive 2009/103/EC Arts 18 and 3; direct claim; monetary compensation; calculation rules
In Poland owners of damaged vehicles brought direct claims against the liable person's insurer. The Court held that the Directive does not preclude national law under which a direct claim may only be for monetary compensation, but it does preclude calculation rules that would limit the insurer's duty to cover the full loss for which the liable person is responsible under the applicable liability law. In Estonia see §§ 24 and 26 LKindlS.
CJEU 25.06.2026, C-277/25, Helpfind Funding and Others
Preliminary ruling, Ninth Chamber · ECLI:EU:C:2026:525 · para 45 · Directive 2009/103/EC Art 1(2), Arts 3, 18 and 28; assignment of claims; claims purchasers
In Poland persons who had suffered property damage assigned, for consideration, the part of their claim between full compensation and the amount paid by the insurer to an undertaking, which pursued it in its own name. The Court held that the Directive does not preclude national law permitting such assignment and the assignee's claim against the insurer. Relevant to the growing claims-purchasing business; the assignee still cannot rely on the injured party's home-forum privilege (see C-106/17 Hofsoe).