On 20 May 2021, the Court of Justice handed down its judgment in Case C‑707/19, K.S. v A.B, on the interpretation of Article 3 of Directive 2009/103/EC. The request has been made in proceedings between K.S. and A.B. concerning a claim for reimbursement of parking costs in Latvia and towing costs to Poland of a vehicle and a semi-trailer damaged following a motor vehicle accident in Latvia.

Following a motor vehicle accident occurred in Latvia, in the course of which a vehicle and its semi-trailer were damaged and subsequently removed to a car park for parking and towing to Poland, K.S. submitted a claim for reimbursement to A.B., the insurance company with which the party responsible for the accident was insured against civil liability. Despite paying a compensation in respect of the towing costs in Latvia, however, A.B. refused to pay any compensation for the costs of parking and towing outside Latvian territory.

Therefore, K.S. brought an action before the Sąd Rejonowy dla Łodzi-Śródmieścia w Łodzi (District Court for the central district of Łódź; the “referring court”) which, in light of the need to interpret the relevant European legislation, decided to stay the proceedings and to ask to the Court of Justice whether Article 3 of Directive 2009/103 must be interpreted as precluding a national provision under which compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles covers compulsorily damage consisting of the costs of towing the damaged vehicle and the costs of necessary parking of that vehicle only in so far as that towing takes place within that Member State and that parking is necessary in connection with a criminal investigation or for any other reason, and, if so, whether that article must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may limit that liability in any way.

According to the Court, a law such as le Latvian one, according to which the obligation requiring the civil liability insurer to cover the costs of towing the damaged vehicle or its remaining parts from the accident location to the place of residence of the owner or authorised user who was driving the vehicle at the time of the motor vehicle accident, or to the place of repair of that vehicle, applies only when the towing takes place in Latvian territory, discriminates between injured parties by virtue of their Member State of residence. In so far as it provides for the costs incurred in respect of parking to be covered where that parking is necessary in connection with a criminal investigation or for any other reason, however, such a law makes no distinction between persons who have their place of residence in Latvia and those who have their place of residence in another Member State. 

Marco Stillo