Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 October 2010 – Frăsina Bejan v Tudorel Muşat

(Case C‑102/10)

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

1. European Union – Conferred powers – Consequences as regards the influence of Union law on the result of proceedings before national courts (Art. 5(2) TEU) (see para. 29)

2. Approximation of laws – Insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles – Directives 72/166, 84/5, 90/232, 2000/26 and 2005/14 ‑ Determining the rules of civil liability applicable to road traffic accidents – Optional insurance contract (European Parliament and Council Directives 2000/26 and 2005/14; Council Directives 72/166, 84/5 and 90/232) (see para. 36, operative part 1)

3. Approximation of laws – Insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles – Directives 72/166, 84/5, 90/232, 2000/26 and 2005/14 – Determining the rules of civil liability applicable to road traffic accidents – Optional insurance contract (European Parliament and Council Directives 2000/26 and 2005/14; Council Directives 72/166, 84/5 and 90/232) (see para. 37, operative part 2)

4. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Freedom to provide services – Restrictions – Insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles – Optional insurance contract (Arts 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU) (see para 46, operative part 3)

Re:

Operative part:

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,

– 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,

– 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/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 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 that provides that the insurer excludes from the cover of the contract of optional insurance 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 that does not oblige an insurer to compensate immediately, under a contract of optional insurance 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, in circumstances in which the insurance does not cover the risk because of an exclusion clause.

3.National legislation providing for the insurer to exclude 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 a restriction both of freedom of establishment and of freedom to provide services. It is for the national court to consider to what extent that restriction may, nevertheless, be permissible under the exceptions expressly provided for by the Treaty on European Union or justified, in accordance with the case-law of the Court, by overriding reasons relating to the public interest.