Coverage of the liability insurance required in special cases. New ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union regulations affecting domestic Spanish legislation on compulsory insurance, mainly covering industrial or agricultural motor vehicles.

The sentence 4 September 2014 the Court of Justice of the European Union, in Case C-162/13, on a controversial issue is resolved, as the interpretation of the concept Indeed circulation, in determining whether a claim is covered by the liability insurance required. In this sense, discusses the problems that exist in disparate legislative interpretation of European countries

ECJ Ruling

To define the problem that we need in the context of legal proceedings mentioned: On a farm in Slovenia occurred an accident caused by a tractor trailer. While the tractor was maneuvering backwards to place the trailer in the era of the farm, it collided with a ladder where a person was, he fell and was injured. This person sued the insurer of the tractor. Both first and second instance dismissed the demand of the injured to understand that the insurance does not cover damage caused by tractor used as a workstation or via trailer.

This interpretation is given to understand by the fact that the tractor was not in circulation; insurance policy covered the damage caused by the use of a tractor as a means of transport, but not caused by the use of a tractor as a workstation or as a means of towing. Ultimately, not considered and left with a Indeed circulation, being excluded from insurance coverage.

Because the duty to ensure civil liability of vehicle has its origin in various European Union directives, the body superior to that decision raised a resort cuestió ruling before the Court of Justice of the European Union, so pronounced that if the accident in question had been interpreted as Indeed circulation.

Doncs bé, the judgment of the ECJ resolves saying that the term "vehicle" contained in the European Directive must be interpreted to include the use of a vehicle that is in accordance with its usual role and, therefore, Slovenian maneuver the tractor had to be included in this concept covered by insurance.

Source of controversy

This statement analyzes the European legislation on liability insurance in vehicle, that historically comes from the first Directiva 72/166/CEE de 24 April 1972 to the Directiva 2009/103 / EC of 16 September 2009.

The sentence reflects the European interpretations in different states of the European Union on the concept "Indeed circulation”, in some states it has a very broad sense and in others, more restrictive. These differences are mainly due to two factors: in) the imprecision in the definition of the concept in different directives that have addressed the issue, i b) linguistic differences in the different versions of the same directive.

In this sense,Article 3 of Directiva 2009/103 / EC of 16 September 2009 in his version Spain says "Each Member State shall take all appropriate measures, without prejudice to the application of Article 5, for civil liability on the circulation of vehicles normally based in its territory, is covered by insurance. "

In the same terms is the written version French, says "Each Member State shall take all appropriate measures, subject to the application of Article 5, for civil liability on the movement of vehicles normally based in its territory is covered by insurance. " This is a transcript that also applies to the Greek, Italian, Dutch, Polish and Portuguese.

The English version, moreover, uses a more generic term such as' sUse. “Each Member State shall, subject to Article 5, take all appropriate measures to ensure that civil liability in respect of the use of vehicles normally based in its territory is covered by insurance.” In the same terms are versions Bulgarian, Czech, estonia, Letona, Maltese, Slovak, eslovena in finlandesa.

Finally, the Danesa versions, German, Lithuanian, Hungarian, Roman Swedish refer, more generally, the obligation to take out liability insurance for vehicles, apparently imposed the obligation to guarantee the liability resulting from the use or operation of a vehicle, regardless of whether such use or operation occurs or not in the field of road traffic.

The latter holds court decision interpreting the legislative wording, stating that the term "vehicle" includes the use of a vehicle in conformity with its usual role. The Court reaches this conclusion interpreting the meaning of the different policies adopted from the 1972. Believes that they have pursued and reinforced in order to protect those injured in an accident and which aim to ensure comparable treatment to victims, irrespective of the Member State where the accident occurred.

Spanish domestic legislation

Com ja hem dit, This decision may have significant effects on the Spanish domestic law. The Spanish version of Directive 2009/103 / EC 16 September 2009 refers to the concept of restrictive circulation, and in this sense is developed internal regulations.

The Royal Decree 1507/2008 of 12 of setembre, in the same direction as the previous Royal Decree 7/2001, in his article 2 described as a fact of circulation and, therefore, covered by the compulsory insurance of civil liability:

“1. For the purposes of civil liability circulation of motor vehicles and the compulsory insurance regulated in this regulation, understood by traffic incidents derivatives risk created by the driving of vehicles motor to the previous article, both garages and parking, such as roads or public and private lands suitable for circulation, urban or interurban, well as roads or land without such skills are in common use. "

Section 2 the same article describes the concept of excluded cases:

“2. No events for construed circulation:

1. Derivatives of holding sporting events with motor vehicles specially designed circuits for the purpose or entitled to such tests, without prejudice to the obligation of signing the special insurance provisions of the second additional provision.

2. Derivatives of performing tasks by industrial or agricultural motor vehicles specially designed for this, without prejudice to the application of paragraph 1 in case of displacement of these vehicles on the roads or lands mentioned in that paragraph if they were not performing industrial or agricultural tasks they were their own.

3. In the field of logistics distribution processes are considered industrial duty vehicles the load, discharge, Storage and other handling operations required for vehicles considered to be good, except transport effected by pathways that paragraph refers to 1.

4. The movements of motor vehicles on roads or land on which it does not apply the legislation specified in Article 1, enclosures such as ports and airports. "

Despite the difficulty of distinguishing between the variety casuistry provisions of law, its exceptions and exceptions to the exceptions, reading is clearly defined that excluded coverage Legal cases that flow to areas that are not commonly, vehicles in its role as agricultural or industrial, the use of a vehicle that is not the same circulation, etc.

In this sense, Clarification is the Sentence 159/2013 of 22 April Hearing Provicial Girona that a review of case law on this issue. In this case, the box of a truck, maneuvers that works in the area of ​​the N-II, will impact against a pont in constructio. The Provincial Court confirmed the decision of the first instance, and believes that the claim is not covered by insurance since it is not necessary due to the fact that movement 1) the truck was in a restricted area and out of common use and 2) was just doing industrial land download.

This judgment is interesting for two reasons: First, for its similarity to the case of farm trailer in Slovenia but opposite result. Therefore, based on the judgment of the ECJ 4 September if the accident truck NII it should be considered because of the traffic covered by insurance. Second, because it contains a significant collection of varied jurisprudence Spanish court analyzed the case, showing the different shades of interpretation about what Indeed circulation depending on the site, activity that exact moment and realized the vehicle in question.

Conclusions

Finally, because, We can say that the Spanish legislation and jurisprudence despite being flexible when assumptions include insurance coverage does not agree with the interpretation that the ECJ has recently taking a broader approach. This situation leads us to consider the consequence of this divergence. The judgment of the ECJ became part of the Community case law and therefore join the European legal order, so we must be ready to change your interpretation of the courts and the internal response that can give the Spanish legislator.