- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-370/24, Nastolo: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 30 April 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Lodi – Italy) – AT v CT (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles – Directive 2009/103/EC – Article 13(2) – Compensation scheme – Road traffic accident involving a stolen vehicle – Burden of proof in relation to the injured party’s knowledge of the theft of that vehicle – Body responsible for compensation – National legislation interpreted in such a way as to place the burden of proof on the injured party – Obligation to interpret national law in conformity with EU law)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024CA0370
62024CA0370
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
C series
—
C/2025/3254
(Case C-370/24,
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directive 2009/103/EC - Article 13(2) - Compensation scheme - Road traffic accident involving a stolen vehicle - Burden of proof in relation to the injured party’s knowledge of the theft of that vehicle - Body responsible for compensation - National legislation interpreted in such a way as to place the burden of proof on the injured party - Obligation to interpret national law in conformity with EU law)
(C/2025/3254)
Language of the case: Italian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: AT
Defendant: CT
Operative part of the judgment
Article 13(2) of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability
must be interpreted as meaning that, first, it is for the body specified in Article 10(1) of that directive to prove, in order to discharge itself from its obligation to pay compensation, that, in the event of a road traffic accident, the injured party who voluntarily entered the vehicle which caused the damage or injury knew that it was stolen and, second, it precludes national case-law which interprets national legislation as meaning that, in such a situation, it is for that person to prove that he or she did not know that that vehicle had been stolen in order to obtain compensation for the harm he or she suffered.
—
(1) OJ C C/2024/4846.
(2) The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.
—
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3254/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—