26.2.2011

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/15

(Case C-102/10) (<span class="super">1</span>)

(Rules of Procedure - Articles 92(1) and 103(1) and 104(3), first and second subparagraphs - Approximation of laws - Compulsory motor civil liability insurance system - Optional insurance contract - Inapplicability)

2011/C 63/28

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Frăsina Bejan

Defendant: Tudorel Mușat

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judecătoria Focșani — Interpretation of Articles 49, 56, 57 and 59, first subparagraph, 169 TFEU and the Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1983 L 8, p. 17), Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance (OJ 1992 L 228, p. 1), Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29), Directive 2005/14/EC of 11 May 2005 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 14) and Directive 2009/103/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 (OJ 2009 L 263, p. 11) — Motor vehicle liability insurance — Damage caused by insured vehicles — National legislation laying down exclusionary clauses against the interests of consumers — Conditions for exclusion going beyond those provided for by the directives — Possibility for the national court to plead that the risk insurance exclusion clause contract is void

Operative part of the order

1.The compulsory civil liability insurance system in respect of the use of motor vehicles established by Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, the Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, the Third Council Directive (90/232/EEC) of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 May 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (Fourth Motor Insurance Directive); and Directive 2005/14/EEC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 amending Council Directives 72/166/ECC, 84/5/ECC, 88/357/EEC and 90/232/EEC and Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, does not preclude national legislation which provides that the insurer excludes from the cover of the optional insurance contract of a motor vehicle damage caused when that vehicle is driven by a person under the influence of alcohol.

2.The compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles established by the Directives 72/166, 84/5, 90/232, 2000/26 and 2005/14 does not preclude national legislation which does not impose any obligation upon the insurer to compensate immediately, under an optional insurance contract of a motor vehicle, the person insured who suffered harm following an accident and to secure repayment of the amount of the compensation paid to that insured person from the person responsible for the accident, under circumstances in which the insurance does not cover the risk because of an exclusion clause.

3.National legislation which provides that the insurer excludes from the cover of an optional motor vehicle insurance contract the damage caused when that vehicle is driven by a person under the influence of alcohol constitutes both a restriction on the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services. It is for the national court to consider to what extent that restriction is nevertheless permissible under the exceptions expressly provided for by the Treaty on European Union or is justified, in accordance with the case-law of the Court, by overriding reasons relating to the public interest.

(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.