On 30 March 2023, the Court of Justice handed down its judgment in Case C‑618/21, AR and Others (Action directe contre l’assureur), on the interpretation of Article 18 of Directive 2009/103/EC read in conjunction with its Article 3. The request has been made in the context of six proceedings between motor vehicle owners and the undertakings insuring the civil liability of the persons responsible for the damage caused to those vehicles regarding the related claim for compensation.

Before the Sąd Rejonowy dla m.st. Warszawy w Warszawie (District Court for the Capital City of Warsaw; the “referring court”) there were six cases pending, in which the applicants assessed their loss on the basis of repair costs corresponding to the estimated market value of the original parts and labour required to repair the damaged vehicle, while the defendants argued that the compensation could not exceed the amount of the damage actually suffered, corresponding to the difference between what would have been the value of the damaged vehicle if the accident had not occurred and its current one.

In light of the need to interpret the relevant European legislation, therefore, the referring court decided to stay the proceedings and to ask the Court of Justice whether Article 18 of Directive 2009/103, read in conjunction with its Article 3, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in the event of a direct action, by the person whose vehicle has suffered damage as a result of a road traffic accident, against the insurer of the person responsible for that accident, lays down as the sole means of obtaining redress from that insurer the payment of monetary compensation and, where applicable, what obligations arise from those provisions as regards the rules for the calculation of that compensation and the conditions relating to its payment.

According to the Court, the injured parties’ direct right of action against the insurer consists of allowing them to invoke the insurance contract and to claim against the insurance undertaking directly, so that the purpose of such an action may relate only to the provision, by the insurer of the person responsible for the damage, directly to the injured party, of the benefit which that insurer would have been required to provide to the latter, within the limits of the insurance contract. Thus, where the benefit provided by an insurer, as defined in the insurance contract, is exclusively monetary in nature, Article 18 of Directive 2009/103 does not preclude the direct action brought by the injured party against the insurer from being required to concern the payment of monetary compensation. So that they do not undermine the effectiveness of the direct right of action, however, the conditions relating to the compensation’s calculation cannot have the effect of excluding or limiting the insurer’s obligation, under Article 3 of that directive, to cover in full the compensation which the person responsible for the damage must provide to the injured party in respect of the damage suffered by the latter.

Marco Stillo