On 19 September 2024, the Court of Justice handed down its judgment in Case C‑236/23, Mutuelle assurance des travailleurs mutualistes (Matmut) v TN and others, on the interpretation of Articles 3 and 13 of Directive 2009/103/EC. The request has been made in proceedings between, on the one hand, the Mutuelle assurance des travailleurs mutualistes (Matmut) and, on the other, TN, MAAF assurances SA, the Fonds de garantie des assurances obligatoires de dommages (FGAO) and PQ concerning the enforceability against the latter of the nullity of a contract of insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles concluded between him and Matmut.

On 5 October 2012, PQ entered into a motor insurance contract with Matmut stating, in doing so, that he was the only driver of the insured vehicle. On 28 September 2013, however, that vehicle, while being driven by TN who was under the influence of alcohol, was involved in a road traffic accident with another vehicle insured by MAAF assurances, and PQ, who was a passenger in the first vehicle, was injured. At the hearing before the tribunal correctionnel (criminal court), where criminal proceedings were brought against TN, Matmut raised an objection alleging that the insurance contract was null and void on the ground of an intentional false statement by the insured person as to the identity of the usual driver of the vehicle concerned, requesting to be absolved from liability and that liability for the payment of compensation to PQ to be assumed by the FGAO, which is the body responsible for paying compensation to victims of road traffic accidents where the person responsible is not insured. Since the tribunal correctionnel accepted Matmut’s requests, FGAO, MAAF assurances and TN appealed to the Cour d’appel de Lyon (Court of Appeal of Lyon), which upheld the first judgment in so far as it annulled the insurance contract between PQ and Matmut but refused to absolve the latter from liability. 

Matmut, therefore, brought an appeal before the Cour de cassation (French Court of Cassation; the “referring court”) which, in light of the need to interpret the relevant European legislation, decided to stay proceedings and to ask to the Court of Justice  whether the first paragraph of Article 3 and Article 13(1) of Directive 2009/103 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which (i) it is possible to invoke against a passenger of a vehicle involved in a road traffic accident, who is a victim, and where he or she is also the policyholder, the nullity of the contract of insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles resulting from a his/her false statement made in concluding that contract as regards the identity of the usual driver of the vehicle concerned and (ii) the insurer, in the event that such nullity cannot in fact be invoked against that passenger victim, may obtain reimbursement of all the sums which it has paid to that passenger in performance of the insurance contract by means of an action brought against that passenger on the basis of that passenger’s intentional wrongdoing when concluding that contract.

According to the Court, the fact that a passenger in a road traffic accident was the insurance policy-holder does not allow that person to be excluded from the concept of “third parties who have been victims” within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 13(1) of Directive 2009/103, inasmuch as such circumstance, having regard to the same objective of protection pursued by that directive, cannot justify different treatment, which is true as well in case the policyholder is not the usual driver of the vehicle involved in a road traffic accident. The fact that an insurance company has concluded a contract on the basis of omissions or false statements on the part of the policyholder, furthermore, does not enable that company to rely on statutory provisions or a contractual clause providing for the nullity of that contract in order to invoke it against a third party victim so as to be released from its obligation under the first paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 2009/103 to compensate that victim for damage or injury suffered as a result of an accident caused by the insured vehicle.

Marco Stillo