This page is part of the overview of Court of Justice insurance case law. It collects 10 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
The Court of Justice has defined the scope of compulsory motor third party liability (MTPL) insurance mainly through the concept of 'use of vehicles'. Since Vnuk, it covers any use of a vehicle consistent with its normal function as a means of transport, irrespective of the terrain and whether the vehicle is moving or stationary. The line is crossed where, at the time of the accident, the vehicle was used principally as a machine (Rodrigues de Andrade) or where the device is not a 'vehicle' at all (KBC Verzekeringen). Juliana and Powiat Ostrowski concern the insurance obligation for registered vehicles under the EU law then applicable: the duty to insure follows registration and continues until the vehicle is lawfully withdrawn from use. Current Estonian insurance obligations and exceptions must be assessed under §§ 4–6 of the Motor Insurance Act (LKindlS); withdrawal from the register is not the only exception in every situation. Directive (EU) 2021/2118 codified this case law; in Estonia see §§ 3¹, 4 and 8 of the Motor Third Party Liability Insurance Act (liikluskindlustuse seadus, LKindlS). Pre-2021 judgments must be read in the light of the amended Directive and the 2024 version of LKindlS.
Judgments
CJEU 04.09.2014, C-162/13, Vnuk
Preliminary ruling, Third Chamber · ECLI:EU:C:2014:2146 · para 59 · Directive 72/166/EEC Art 3(1); use of vehicles; tractor in a farmyard
On a Slovenian farm a tractor with a trailer reversed in the courtyard to position the trailer in a barn and knocked over the ladder on which the victim stood. The Court held that 'use of vehicles' is not confined to road traffic but covers any use of a vehicle consistent with its normal function; manoeuvring a tractor in a farmyard may fall within it, the facts being for the national court. Vnuk is the starting point for the broad scope of MTPL cover and explains why, under Estonian law, it does not matter for the insured event whether the accident occurred on a road or on private land.
CJEU 28.11.2017, C-514/16, Rodrigues de Andrade
Preliminary ruling, Grand Chamber · ECLI:EU:C:2017:908 · para 42 · Directive 72/166/EEC Art 3(1); use of vehicles; vehicle used as a machine
In Portugal a stationary tractor with its engine running powered the pump of a herbicide sprayer; it slid down a slope and killed a worker. The Grand Chamber held that there is no 'use of vehicles' where, at the time of the accident, the vehicle's principal function was to generate motive power for equipment rather than to serve as a means of transport. The judgment limits Vnuk: machinery risks belong to general liability insurance, not MTPL. The same idea is reflected in the definition of the insured event in § 8 LKindlS.
CJEU 20.12.2017, C-334/16, Núñez Torreiro
Preliminary ruling, Sixth Chamber · ECLI:EU:C:2017:1007 · para 36 · Directive 2009/103/EC Art 3; terrain unsuitable for traffic
In Spain a military all-terrain vehicle overturned on a training ground; national law excluded from cover driving on roads and terrain 'unsuitable' for traffic. The Court held that such an exclusion is incompatible with the Directive, because MTPL cover does not depend on the characteristics of the terrain. The ruling supports Estonian practice under which MTPL applies off-road and on private land, which is relevant for claims involving off-road vehicles, motorcycles and agricultural vehicles.
CJEU 04.09.2018, C-80/17, Juliana
Preliminary ruling, Grand Chamber · ECLI:EU:C:2018:661 · paras 52, 57 · Directive 72/166/EEC Art 3(1); Directive 84/5/EEC Art 1(4); duty to insure; guarantee fund recourse
In Portugal an owner who could no longer drive left her registered, roadworthy car parked in her yard without insurance; her son took it without permission and caused a fatal accident. The Grand Chamber held that insurance is compulsory where the vehicle is registered and capable of being driven, even if the owner has parked it on private land and has no intention of driving it (para 52). The guarantee fund may, where national law so provides, seek reimbursement from the person who failed to insure even if that person is not civilly liable for the accident (para 57). In Estonia see § 55 LKindlS (recourse against the person responsible for compliance with the duty to insure).
CJEU 15.11.2018, C-648/17, BTA Baltic Insurance Company
Preliminary ruling, Sixth Chamber · ECLI:EU:C:2018:917 · para 48 · Directive 72/166/EEC Art 3(1); car park damage; opening a door
In a Latvian reference, a passenger opened the door of a car parked at a shop car park and damaged the vehicle next to it. The Court held that opening a door is a use of the vehicle consistent with its function as a means of transport, since doors allow persons to get in and out and goods to be loaded; it does not matter that both vehicles were stationary or that the damage was caused by a passenger. A typical Baltic car park claim, relevant to the allocation between MTPL and motor own damage (casco) cover.
CJEU 20.06.2019, C-100/18, Línea Directa Aseguradora
Preliminary ruling, Second Chamber · ECLI:EU:C:2019:517 · para 48 · Directive 2009/103/EC Art 3; fire of a parked vehicle; private garage
In Spain a car parked in the private garage of a house for more than 24 hours caught fire from its electrical system and damaged the building. The Court held that parking between journeys is a natural part of using a vehicle as a means of transport, so the situation falls within 'use of vehicles' even though the car had not moved for some time. For Estonian practice the ruling bears on overlaps between property and MTPL cover and on the property insurer's subrogated claim (VÕS § 492) against the MTPL insurer of the vehicle.
CJEU 29.04.2021, C-383/19, Powiat Ostrowski
Preliminary ruling, Fifth Chamber · ECLI:EU:C:2021:337 · para 62 · Directive 2009/103/EC Art 3; duty to insure; withdrawal from use
A registered but unroadworthy car stood on private land in Poland, and the guarantee fund imposed a charge for lack of insurance. The Court held that an MTPL contract is compulsory where the vehicle is registered in a Member State, unless it has been lawfully withdrawn from use under the applicable national rules; the vehicle's technical condition does not end the duty to insure. The judgment concerned the insurance obligation for a registered vehicle under the EU law then applicable. The current Estonian obligation and its exceptions must be assessed under §§ 4–6 of the Motor Insurance Act (LKindlS). In particular, after a contract expires, the conditional exception in § 6 may apply for up to 12 calendar months if the vehicle is neither used in traffic nor otherwise used in a way that could cause an insured event. The exceptions and grounds on which the obligation arises earlier under that section must also be considered.
CJEU 10.06.2021, C-923/19, Van Ameyde España
Preliminary ruling, Fifth Chamber · ECLI:EU:C:2021:475 · para 46 · Directive 2009/103/EC Arts 1 and 3; tractor unit and semi-trailer; property damage
In Spain an articulated vehicle was involved in an accident; the tractor unit and the semi-trailer each had separate compulsory cover, and the tractor unit damaged its own coupled semi-trailer. The Court held that the Directive does not preclude an interpretation of national law under which the tractor unit's MTPL cover excludes property damage caused by it to the semi-trailer coupled to it. In Estonia see § 47 LKindlS (insured events caused by a trailer) and § 33 (damage not compensated).
CJEU 12.10.2023, C-286/22, KBC Verzekeringen
Preliminary ruling, Fifth Chamber · ECLI:EU:C:2023:767 · para 41 · Directive 2009/103/EC Art 1(1); concept of vehicle; pedal-assisted e-bike
In Belgium the victim rode a pedal-assisted bicycle whose motor only assisted pedalling but which could briefly accelerate to 20 km/h without pedalling; it started by muscular power. The Court held that such a device is not a 'vehicle' within the Directive because it is not propelled exclusively by mechanical power. The ruling helps to delimit MTPL obligations for e-bikes and light mobility devices; in Estonia the definition of vehicle in § 3¹ LKindlS applies.
CJEU 12.02.2026, C-490/24, Stichting Koskea
Preliminary ruling, Fourth Chamber · ECLI:EU:C:2026:89 · para 44 · Directive 2009/103/EC Art 12(1); single-vehicle accident; driver's own injury
In a Dutch reference, only one vehicle was involved in the accident; a passenger who interfered with the driving caused it and the driver was injured. The Court held that the Directive does not require compulsory MTPL to cover personal injury suffered by the driver of the only vehicle involved, even where the accident was caused by a passenger who intervened in the driving. This conclusion defines the limits of the minimum obligation imposed by the EU Directive. National law may impose an additional obligation to insure the driver's injury. The applicable national law and the policy must therefore be examined separately in each case, including any voluntary additional cover.