On 12 October 2023, the Court of Justice handed down its judgment in Case C‑286/22, KBC Verzekeringen NV v P&V Verzekeringen CVBA, on the interpretation of point 1 of Article 1 of Directive 2009/103/EC. The request has been made in proceedings between KBC Verzekeringen NV (“KBC”) and P&V Verzekeringen CVBA (“P&V”) concerning the potential right of an occupational accident insurer, which is subrogated to the rights of a cyclist who was riding an electric bicycle, to receive compensation from the civil liability insurer of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident which led to the death of that cyclist.

On 12 October 2023, the Court of Justice handed down its judgment in Case C‑286/22, KBC Verzekeringen NV v P&V Verzekeringen CVBA, on the interpretation of point 1 of Article 1 of Directive 2009/103/EC. The request has been made in proceedings between KBC Verzekeringen NV (“KBC”) and P&V Verzekeringen CVBA (“P&V”) concerning the potential right of an occupational accident insurer, which is subrogated to the rights of a cyclist who was riding an electric bicycle, to receive compensation from the civil liability insurer of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident which led to the death of that cyclist.

On 14 October 2017 BV, who was riding an electric bicycle on a public road, was struck by a car insured by KBC and died due to the accident. Since the latter constituted, for BV, a “commuting accident”, P&V paid compensation and was subrogated to his rights and those of his successors in title. At a later time, the latter brought an action against KBC seeking the reimbursement of its expenses before the politierechtbank West-Vlaanderen, afdeling Brugge (Police Court of West Flanders, Bruges Division), which on 24 October 2019 found that despite the driver of the car concerned was not responsible for the accident in question, KBC was nevertheless required to compensate the victim on the ground that he was not riding a motor vehicle and was therefore entitled to compensation.

Since its appeal before the rechtbank van eerste aanleg West-Vlaanderen, afdeling Brugge (Court of First Instance of Western Flanders, Bruges Division) was dismissed, KBC brought an appeal in cassation before the Hof van Cassatie(Belgian Court of Cassation; 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 point 1 of Article 1 of Directive 2009/103 must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of a “vehicle”, within the meaning of that provision, encompasses a bicycle whose electric motor provides pedal assistance only and which is equipped with a function allowing the bicycle to accelerate to a speed of 20 km/h without pedalling, a function which may however be activated only after the use of muscular power.

According to the Court, devices which are not propelled exclusively by mechanical power, and which therefore cannot travel on land without the use of muscular power such as the electric bicycle at issue in the main proceedings, which may accelerate to 20 km/h without pedalling, do not appear to be capable of causing bodily or material damages to third parties comparable, as regards gravity or scale, to those that may be caused by motorcycles, cars, trucks or other vehicles, travelling on land, propelled exclusively by mechanical power, which can reach speeds significantly higher than those that can be achieved by such devices, and which, at present, predominate on the road. 

Marco Stillo