# CJEU: victim protection and insurer defences in motor insurance

URL: https://insurancelawestonia.ee/court-of-justice-eu/mtpl-victim-protection-and-insurer-defences/
Author: Dr Olavi-Jüri Luik, Partner, Head of Insurance Law, attorney at law (Advokaadibüroo WIDEN OÜ)
Last updated: 2026-11-12

> 12 judgments of the Court of Justice of the EU on victim protection and insurer defences in motor insurance: summaries, paragraphs and links.

This page is part of the [overview of Court of Justice insurance case law](https://insurancelawestonia.ee/court-of-justice-eu). It collects 12 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](https://insurancelawestonia.ee/court-of-justice-eu#how-to-use-this-overview).

## Synthesis

The Court has consistently held that compulsory MTPL must protect the victim even where the insurer has contractual defences against the policyholder or the driver. The insurer cannot rely on nullity of the contract, exclusions or the insured driver's intoxication against the victim (Ruiz Bernáldez, Fidelidade, Churchill, Matmut). Contractual defences generally do not remove the victim's protection; the insurer's remedy remains recourse, but any recourse requires a separate legal basis and consideration of its limits: under Matmut, the insurer generally cannot recover all compensation from an injured passenger who is also the policyholder solely because of intentional misrepresentation about the vehicle's usual driver when concluding the contract; the judgment preserves the abuse-of-rights exception. At the same time, the Directives do not harmonise civil liability: the victim's contributory fault and the conditions of liability remain matters of national law, provided they do not deprive the insurance of its effectiveness (Ambrósio Lavrador, Marques Almeida, Neto de Sousa). In Estonia see § 16 LKindlS (restrictions on contract terms) and §§ 52 to 59 (recourse).

## Judgments

### CJEU 28.03.1996, C-129/94, Ruiz Bernáldez

*Preliminary ruling, Fifth Chamber* · ECLI:EU:C:1996:143 · para 24 · Directive 72/166/EEC Art 3(1); intoxicated driver; defence against the victim

In Spain an intoxicated driver drove into a shop; national law allowed the insurer to refuse compensation to third parties in cases of intoxication. The Court held that a compulsory insurance contract may not provide that the insurer is not liable to compensate third-party victims in certain cases, in particular intoxication of the driver, although the contract may give the insurer a right of recourse against the insured. This is the foundation of the 'pay the victim, then recover' principle; in Estonia see § 53 LKindlS (recourse against the driver).

[Judgment on EUR-Lex](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:61994CJ0129) · [CURIA](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-129/94&language=en)

### CJEU 30.06.2005, C-537/03, Candolin and Others

*Preliminary ruling, First Chamber* · ECLI:EU:C:2005:417 · para 35 · Directive 84/5/EEC Art 2(1); Directive 90/232/EEC Art 1; passenger contribution; intoxicated driver

In Finland passengers travelled in a car driven by an intoxicated person; one of them owned the car. National law allowed compensation to be refused or reduced where the passenger knew of the intoxication. The Court held that a passenger may not be denied compensation, or have it reduced disproportionately, on the ground of his own contribution to the damage, and that being the owner of the vehicle makes no difference. Any reduction must be exceptional, proportionate and based on an individual assessment.

[Judgment on EUR-Lex](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62003CJ0537) · [CURIA](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-537/03&language=en)

### CJEU 19.04.2007, C-356/05, Farrell

*Preliminary ruling, First Chamber* · ECLI:EU:C:2007:229 · paras 36, 44 · Directive 90/232/EEC Art 1; part of a vehicle without seats; direct effect

In Ireland the victim was injured while travelling in a part of a van not designed or constructed with seats for passengers; national law excluded such passengers from cover. The Court held that Article 1 of the Third Directive precludes such an exclusion (para 36) and is sufficiently clear and unconditional to have direct effect (para 44); the national court had to determine whether it could be relied on against a body performing a State task. Follow-up: C-413/15 Farrell II and C-122/17 Smith.

[Judgment on EUR-Lex](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62005CJ0356) · [CURIA](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-356/05&language=en)

### CJEU 09.06.2011, C-409/09, Ambrósio Lavrador

*Preliminary ruling, Third Chamber* · ECLI:EU:C:2011:371 · para 35 · Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 90/232/EEC; victim's contribution; national liability law

In a Portuguese reference, the victim had contributed to the damage. The Court held that the Directives do not preclude national civil liability rules allowing the victim's claim to be excluded or limited on the basis of an individual assessment of the victim's sole or partial contribution. The Court took the same line on 17.03.2011 in C-484/09 Carvalho Ferreira Santos (para 46): in a collision of two vehicles where neither driver is at fault, liability may be apportioned according to each vehicle's contribution to the damage. In Estonia the victim's contribution is assessed under general liability law (§ 23 LKindlS).

[Judgment on EUR-Lex](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62009CJ0409) · [CURIA](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-409/09&language=en)

### CJEU 01.12.2011, C-442/10, Churchill Insurance Company and Evans

*Preliminary ruling, Fourth Chamber* · ECLI:EU:C:2011:799 · paras 44, 50 · Directive 84/5/EEC Art 2(1); Directive 90/232/EEC Art 1; uninsured driver; passenger

In the United Kingdom an insured policyholder allowed a person not insured under the policy to drive his car and was injured as a passenger; national law excluded the insurer's liability in such a case. The Court held that the Directives preclude national rules which automatically exclude compensation for a passenger victim who was insured to drive the vehicle himself and permitted an uninsured person to drive it (para 44), irrespective of whether the victim knew that the driver was uninsured (para 50).

[Judgment on EUR-Lex](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62010CJ0442) · [CURIA](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-442/10&language=en)

### CJEU 23.10.2012, C-300/10, Marques Almeida

*Preliminary ruling, Grand Chamber* · ECLI:EU:C:2012:656 · para 39 · Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 90/232/EEC; passenger; limitation of liability

In Portugal a passenger was injured in a collision between two vehicles for which neither driver was liable, and his compensation was reduced because of his own conduct. The Grand Chamber held that the Directives do not preclude national rules which, in such a situation, allow the civil liability of the insured persons to be limited or excluded. The judgment confirms the Court's distinction: the existence and extent of liability are matters of national law, while the effectiveness of insurance cover is a matter of EU law.

[Judgment on EUR-Lex](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62010CJ0300) · [CURIA](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-300/10&language=en)

### CJEU 20.07.2017, C-287/16, Fidelidade-Companhia de Seguros

*Preliminary ruling, Sixth Chamber* · ECLI:EU:C:2017:575 · para 37 · Directive 72/166/EEC Art 3(1); Directive 84/5/EEC Art 2(1); false statements; nullity of the contract

In Portugal an MTPL contract had been concluded on the basis of false statements about the owner and main driver of the vehicle, and the policyholder had no economic interest in concluding it; a passenger was killed. The Court held that the insurer cannot rely against third-party victims on nullity of the contract arising from the policyholder's false statements about the owner and main driver, or from lack of insurable interest. Under Estonian law this means that the consequences of breach of the pre-contractual duty of disclosure (VÕS §§ 440 to 442) do not pass to the injured party; the insurer keeps its right of recourse.

[Judgment on EUR-Lex](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62016CJ0287) · [CURIA](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-287/16&language=en)

### CJEU 07.09.2017, C-506/16, Neto de Sousa

*Preliminary ruling, Sixth Chamber* · ECLI:EU:C:2017:642 · para 38 · Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 90/232/EEC; driver at fault; death of a spouse

In Portugal a driver caused an accident in which his wife, a passenger, was killed; he claimed compensation for the pecuniary loss he suffered through her death. The Court held that the Directives do not preclude national law excluding a right to such compensation for a driver who is liable for the accident through his own fault. The ruling confirms that the Directives do not harmonise civil liability: whether and to whom liability arises remains a matter of national law.

[Judgment on EUR-Lex](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62016CJ0506) · [CURIA](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-506/16&language=en)

### CJEU 14.09.2017, C-503/16, Delgado Mendes

*Preliminary ruling, Sixth Chamber* · ECLI:EU:C:2017:681 · para 61 · Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 90/232/EEC; stolen vehicle; owner as pedestrian

In Portugal an insured vehicle was stolen and the thieves ran over its owner, who was also the policyholder, while he was a pedestrian. National law excluded compensation for his personal injury and property damage solely because he was the policyholder and owner. The Court held that such an exclusion is incompatible with the Directives. Being the policyholder or owner does not deprive a person of MTPL protection when he is the injured party.

[Judgment on EUR-Lex](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62016CJ0503) · [CURIA](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-503/16&language=en)

### CJEU 10.10.2017, C-413/15, Farrell II

*Preliminary ruling, Grand Chamber* · ECLI:EU:C:2017:745 · paras 29, 42 · Article 288 TFEU; Directive 84/5/EEC Art 1(4); direct effect; guarantee body

In the follow-up to Farrell, the question was whether the Directive could be relied on against the private guarantee body (MIBI). The Grand Chamber held that directly effective provisions may be relied on against an entity that does not meet all the Foster criteria (para 29), including a private body entrusted by a Member State with a public-interest task inherently linked to the Member State's obligation and with powers beyond ordinary rules (para 42). Relevant for assessing guarantee bodies, in Estonia the Motor Insurance Fund (§ 10 LKindlS).

[Judgment on EUR-Lex](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62015CJ0413) · [CURIA](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-413/15&language=en)

### CJEU 19.09.2024, C-236/23, Matmut

*Preliminary ruling, First Chamber* · ECLI:EU:C:2024:761 · para 66 · Directive 2009/103/EC Arts 3 and 13; intentional misrepresentation; passenger who is the policyholder

In France the policyholder had intentionally given false information about the usual driver and was later injured as a passenger; national law allowed the insurer to rely on nullity against her and to recover what it had paid. The Court held that, save where the national court finds an abuse of rights, the Directive precludes rules allowing nullity to be relied on against an injured passenger who is also the policyholder and allowing recovery of all the compensation paid to her. The judgment narrows the insurer's recourse against a policyholder who is herself a victim.

[Judgment on EUR-Lex](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62023CJ0236) · [CURIA](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-236/23&language=en)

### CJEU 30.04.2025, C-370/24, Nastolo

*Preliminary ruling, Ninth Chamber* · ECLI:EU:C:2025:300 · para 49 · Directive 2009/103/EC Art 13(2), read with Arts 13(1) and 10(1); guarantee body; stolen vehicle; burden of proof

In Italy a passenger was injured in a stolen vehicle and claimed against the guarantee body; under national practice the victim had to prove that she did not know the vehicle was stolen. The Court held that the guarantee body may be released only if it proves that the victim voluntarily entered the vehicle knowing it was stolen; reversing the burden of proof is incompatible with the Directive. In Estonia see § 43 LKindlS (claims against the Motor Insurance Fund).

[Judgment on EUR-Lex](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62024CJ0370) · [CURIA](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-370/24&language=en)