Stichting Koskea (Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Obligation for personal injuries to all passengers, other than the driver, arising out of the use of a vehicle to be covered by civil liability insurance - Judgment) [2026] EUECJ C-490/24 (12 February 2026)

Judgment This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 12(1) 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 (OJ 2009 L 263, p. 11). The request has been made in proceedings between Stichting Koskea, a foundation acting as administrator of ED, and Nationale Nederlanden Schadeverzekering Maatschappij NV ('Nationale Nederlanden'), trading under the name of Reaal Schadeverzekering NV, concerning the extent of the cover to be provided by compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles. Legal context European Union law Recitals 21 and 23 of Directive 2009/103 state: '(21) The members of the family of the policyholder, driver or any other person liable should be afforded protection comparable to that of other third parties, in any event in respect of their personal injuries. … (23) The inclusion within the insurance cover of any passenger in the vehicle is a major achievement of the existing legislation. This objective would be placed in jeopardy if national legislation or any contractual clause contained in an insurance policy excluded passengers from insurance cover because they knew or should have known that the driver of the vehicle was under the influence of alcohol or of any other intoxicating agent at the time of the accident. … Cover of such passengers under the vehicle's compulsory motor insurance does not prejudge any liability they might incur pursuant to the applicable national legislation, nor the level of any award of damages in a specific accident.' Under point (1) of Article 1 of Directive 2009/103, 'vehicle' means 'any motor vehicle intended for travel on land and propelled by mechanical power, but not running on rails, and any trailer, whether or not coupled'. Article 3 of that directive, entitled 'Compulsory insurance of vehicles', provides: '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. The extent of the liability covered and the terms and conditions of the cover shall be determined on the basis of the measures referred to in the first paragraph. … The insurance referred to in the first paragraph shall cover compulsorily both damage to property and personal injuries.' Article 5 of that directive allows Member States, subject to certain conditions, to derogate from the provisions of Article 3 thereof in respect of certain natural or legal persons, whether public or private. Article 12 of Directive 2009/103, entitled 'Special categories of victim', provides: '1. Without prejudice to the second subparagraph of Article 13(1), the insurance referred to in Article 3 shall cover liability for personal injuries to all passengers, other than the driver, arising out of the use of a vehicle. 2. The members of the family of the policyholder, driver or any other person who is liable under civil law in the event of an accident, and whose liability is covered by the insurance referred to in Article 3, shall not be excluded from insurance in respect of their personal injuries by virtue of that relationship. 3. The insurance referred to in Article 3 shall cover personal injuries and damage to property suffered by pedestrians, cyclists and other non-motorised users of the roads who, as a consequence of an accident in which a motor vehicle is involved, are entitled to compensation in accordance with national civil law. This Article shall be without prejudice either to civil liability or to the quantum of damages.' Under Article 13 of that directive, entitled 'Exclusion clauses': '1. Each Member State shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that any statutory provision or any contractual clause contained in an insurance policy issued in accordance with Article 3 shall be deemed to be void in respect of claims by third parties who have been victims of an accident where that statutory provision or contractual clause excludes from insurance the use or driving of vehicles by: (a) persons who do not have express or implied authorisation to do so; (b) persons who do not hold a licence permitting them to drive the vehicle concerned; (c) persons who are in breach of the statutory technical requirements concerning the condition and safety of the vehicle concerned. However, the provision or clause referred to in point (a) of the first subparagraph may be invoked against persons who voluntarily entered the vehicle which caused the damage or injury, when the insurer can prove that they knew the vehicle was stolen. … 3. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that any statutory provision or any contractual clause contained in an insurance policy which excludes a passenger from such cover on the basis that he knew or should have known that the driver of the vehicle was under the influence of alcohol or of any other intoxicating agent at the time of an accident, shall be deemed to be void in respect of the claims of such passenger.' As is apparent from Article 29 thereof, Directive 2009/103 repealed and replaced Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of 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 (OJ English Special Edition: Series I Volume 1972(II), p. 360), 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 (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17), 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 (OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33) and 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 directive and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (Fourth motor insurance directive) (OJ 2000 L 181, p. 65), as well as Directive 2005/14/EC 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 (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 14), as amended by the directives referred to in Part A of Annex I to that directive 2009/103. Netherlands law Article 4(1) of the Wet betreffende verplichte verzekering tegen wettelijke aansprakelijkheid inzake motorrijtuigen (Law on compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles) of 30 May 1963 (Stb. 1963, No 228), in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings ('the WAM'), is worded as follows: 'The insurance need not cover liability for damage caused to the driver of the motor vehicle causing the accident.' The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling At the end of 2016, ED was involved in a road traffic accident while driving a minibus, belonging to a football club, that was carrying a former coach of that club and two members of the club. While the minibus was travelling at a speed of approximately 70 km/h, the former coach, who was sitting behind and to the right of the driver, suddenly pulled the handbrake. The minibus skidded and hit several pillars. ED and the team mate sitting in the front passenger seat were ejected from the vehicle. The team mate died as a result of his injuries. ED was seriously injured and suffers permanent and very serious lasting effects from the accident. The former coach and the other member of the club suffered minor injuries. The football club that owned the minibus had taken out insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles with Reaal Schadeverzekering NV, which subsequently merged with Nationale Nederlanden. The club had also taken out passenger and driver indemnity insurance with Nationale Nederlanden ('the indemnity insurance'). In respect of the damage he suffered as a result of the accident, ED, represented by Stichting Koskea, who administers his assets and defends his interests, applied to Nationale Nederlanden for cover under that indemnity insurance. In January 2020, Stichting Koskea's lawyer informed ED that he was not covered by that indemnity insurance since the police report on the circumstances of the accident established that he had sat at the wheel of the minibus after consuming alcohol and while under its influence. The lawyer also stated that he was not covered under the compulsory civil liability insurance provided for by the WAM, as it did not cover damage suffered by the driver. Stichting Koskea, acting on behalf of ED, brought an action before the Rechtbank Noord-Nederland (District Court, North Netherlands, Netherlands), seeking a declaration that Nationale Nederlanden was obliged under the WAM to compensate the person concerned for present and future damage. In support of that action, Stichting Koskea argued, inter alia, that the exclusion from cover, by compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, of damage suffered by the driver of the vehicle, provided for in Article 4(1) of the WAM, did not apply in the present case since, although ED was at the wheel of the vehicle at the time of the accident, he could no longer be regarded as being the driver, within the meaning of that provision, because, by pulling the hand brake, the former coach had acted as the driver. By judgment of 22 October 2020, that court upheld that action. It found, in essence, that, from the moment the former coach pulled the handbrake, ED was no longer capable of actually driving the minibus and, consequently, could no longer be regarded as the driver within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the WAM. National Nederlanden brought an appeal against that judgment before the Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden (Court of Appeal, Arnhem-Leeuwarden, Netherlands). By judgment of 13 December 2022, that court set aside that judgment on the ground, in essence, that ED had not lost his status as the driver as a result of the former coach pulling the handbrake. In that regard, it noted that he had remained the person who had sat in the driver's seat behind the wheel, had set the car in motion and determined the speed and direction of travel. Thus, according to that court, he was operating the controls of the vehicle, and this fact was not altered by the coach suddenly pulling the handbrake and thus performing a driving act. Stichting Koskea brought an appeal on a point of law before the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands), which is the referring court. Before that court, it submits that ED could no longer be regarded as the driver of the minibus after the former coach pulled the handbrake, since that action deprived ED of the ability to actually drive the vehicle. The referring court states that, by Article 4(1) of the WAM, the Netherlands legislature transposed the first paragraph of Article 1 of Directive 90/232, now Article 12(1) of Directive 2009/103, according to which compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of vehicles must cover liability for personal injuries to all passengers, with the exception of the driver. It observes, however, that that concept of 'driver' is not defined either in the latter directive or in the directives which it replaced. In its case-law on the subject, the Court has always emphasised the importance of protecting passengers who are victims of a road traffic accident as well as the objective of ensuring that compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles allows all passengers who are victims of a road traffic accident caused by a vehicle to be compensated for the damage which they have suffered. Nevertheless, it is also apparent from that case-law that Article 12(1) of Directive 2009/103 distinguishes between the driver and other passengers. In the light of those factors, the referring court asks whether Article 12(1) of Directive 2009/103 must be interpreted as meaning that the compulsory civil liability insurance referred to in that provision has to cover liability for the damage suffered by the initial driver of the vehicle in question where a passenger intervened in the driving of that vehicle and an accident occurred as a result of that intervention. If that is the case, it considers that the question arises as to whether EU law imposes certain requirements which it should take into account in order to determine whether, in the circumstances at issue in the main proceedings, the person who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident lost his status as driver and can therefore claim the protection afforded by Directive 2009/103. In those circumstances the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: '(1) Is Article 12(1) of [Directive 2009/103] to be interpreted as requiring compulsory insurance to cover liability for the (initial) driver's damage in a case where a passenger interferes with the [driving] of the motor vehicle and an accident occurs as a result of that intervention? (2) If the first question is answered in the affirmative, do certain requirements arise from EU law that the national court must take into account when determining whether a driver, within the meaning of Article 12(1) of Directive 2009/103, has lost the capacity of driver in the circumstances of the case and [is] entitled to claim passenger protection under the general rule?' Consideration of the questions referred The first question By its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 12(1) of Directive 2009/103 must be interpreted as meaning that the damage suffered by the driver of the only vehicle involved in a road traffic accident does not have to be covered by the compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles provided for by that directive, even where a passenger intervened in the driving of that vehicle and that intervention caused that accident. In accordance with settled case-law, for the purpose of interpreting a provision of EU law, it is necessary to consider not only its wording but also the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (see judgments of 17 November 1983, Merck , 292/82, EU:C:1983:335, paragraph 12, and of 30 October 2025, Killybegs Fishing Enterprises and Others , C‑546/24, EU:C:2025:844 , paragraph 16). It is also settled case-law that the determination of the meaning and scope of terms for which EU law provides no definition and in respect of which it makes no reference to the law of the Member States must be determined by reference to their usual meaning in everyday language, while account is also taken of the context in which they occur and the purposes of the rules of which they form part (see, to that effect, judgments of 18 October 2011, Brüstle , C‑34/10, EU:C:2011:669 , paragraphs 25 and 31 and the case-law cited, and of 5 September 2024, BIOR , C‑344/23, EU:C:2024:696 , paragraph 40). In the first place, as regards the wording of Article 12(1) of Directive 2009/103, it should be noted that, according to that provision, without prejudice to the second subparagraph of Article 13(1) thereof, which sets out an exception which is irrelevant to the case in the main proceedings, the insurance referred to in Article 3 of that directive is to cover liability for personal injuries to 'all passengers, other than the driver', arising out of the use of a vehicle. Under the first paragraph of Article 3 of that directive, subject to Article 5 thereof, which provides for derogations from the obligation in respect of compulsory insurance of vehicles which are also not relevant to the case in the main proceedings, each Member State is to 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. Like the directives it replaced, Directive 2009/103 does not define the terms 'driver' or 'passenger', nor does it refer to the right of the Member States to define their scope. As regards the usual meaning of those terms in everyday language, it should be noted that the term 'driver' refers to a person who drives or steers something or someone. In relation to a vehicle, that term refers to the person who is at the wheel or the controls of the vehicle and steers it. The term 'passenger' refers to a person who is carried in a vehicle and who is not driving it. In the light of those factors, it is possible to infer from the wording of Article 12(1) of Directive 2009/103 that, first of all, there may be, in a vehicle, several 'passengers other than the driver', but, in principle, there can be only one driver at a time. Next, except in specific cases, in particular the practice of assisted driving for the purpose of obtaining a driving licence, which may be subject to special rules, the term 'driver' usually refers to the person who is at the controls or the wheel of the vehicle and is responsible for driving it, whereas the term 'passenger' refers to a person who is elsewhere in the vehicle concerned and who is not driving it. Lastly, that provision does not provide that liability for damage suffered by the 'driver' of the vehicle must be covered by the insurance referred to in Article 3 of that directive. In the second place, as regards the context of which Article 12(1) of Directive 2009/103 forms part, it must be noted, first, that the concept of 'vehicle' is defined in point 1 of Article 1 of that directive as any motor vehicle intended for travel on land and propelled by mechanical power, but not running on rails, and any trailer, whether or not coupled. Since a vehicle within the meaning of that directive is therefore necessarily propelled by mechanical power (see, to that effect, judgment of 12 October 2023, KBC Verzekeringen , C‑286/22, EU:C:2023:767 , paragraphs 37, 38 and 40), any vehicle in use, with the exception of self-driving vehicles, has, in principle, a driver and a driver's seat, and that driver is the person who, inside the vehicle, operates or is in a position to operate the mechanical force of the vehicle for the purposes of its movement, while at the wheel. Second, although the fourth paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 2009/103 provides that the insurance referred to in the first paragraph is to cover compulsorily both damage to property and personal injuries, it follows from a combined reading of that provision with Article 12(1) of that directive that it concerns, in particular, personal injuries to 'all passengers, other than the driver'. Third, under Article 12(2) of that directive, the members of the family of the policyholder, driver or any other person who is liable under civil law in the event of an accident, and whose liability is covered by the insurance referred to in Article 3 of that directive, are not to be excluded from insurance in respect of their personal injuries by virtue of that relationship. In addition, according to the first subparagraph of Article 12(3) of Directive 2009/103, the insurance referred to in Article 3 of that directive is to cover personal injuries and damage to property suffered by pedestrians, cyclists and other non-motorised users of the roads who, as a consequence of an accident in which a motor vehicle is involved, are entitled to compensation in accordance with national civil law. Moreover, Article 13(3) of that directive states that Member States are to take the necessary measures to ensure that any statutory provision or any contractual clause contained in an insurance policy which excludes a passenger from such cover on the basis that he knew or should have known that the driver of the vehicle was under the influence of alcohol or of any other intoxicating agent at the time of an accident is to be deemed void in respect of the claims of such passenger. Those provisions, like Article 12(1) of Directive 2009/103, distinguish the driver of the vehicle from other persons who may have been in that vehicle and other road users who were not in the vehicle but who may have been affected by a road traffic accident involving a vehicle. Thus, the categories of victims of an accident are, in essence, determined as distinct from the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident. Fourth, it should be noted that, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 12(3) of that directive, Article 12 thereof is without prejudice either to civil liability or to the quantum of damages. Therefore, the role that any occupant of the vehicle, such as, in this case, the passenger who pulled the handbrake, may have played in the accident and, therefore, in the occurrence of damage, may, in accordance with the rules on civil liability in force in the Member State in which the accident occurred, determine which person is civilly liable for the accident and influence the extent of compensation. However, the latter aspects are distinct from the personal scope of the compulsory insurance cover provided for in Directive 2009/103. In that regard, the Court has repeatedly held that the obligation to provide insurance cover against civil liability for damage caused to third parties by motor vehicles is distinct from the extent of the compensation to be afforded to them on the basis of civil liability. Whereas the former is defined and guaranteed by EU legislation, the latter is, essentially, governed by national law (judgments of 17 March 2011, Carvalho Ferreira Santos , C‑484/09, EU:C:2011:158, paragraph 31, and of 12 October 2023, KBC Verzekeringen , C‑286/22, EU:C:2023:767 , paragraph 23 and the case-law cited). All those textual and contextual factors thus indicate that Article 12(1) of Directive 2009/103 must be interpreted as meaning that a passenger's intervention in the driving of a vehicle, which causes an accident, cannot have the effect of depriving the driver of that vehicle of his or her status as driver, without undermining both the fundamental distinction between driver and third-party victim, which characterises the system of compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles established by that directive, and the distinction between the obligation to provide that insurance cover and the extent of compensation for damage on the basis of civil liability for the accident, which is governed by national law. In the third place, it must be noted that that interpretation is supported by the objectives pursued by Directive 2009/103. It is true that it is clear from the development of the EU legislation concerning compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles that the objective of protecting the victims of accidents caused by those vehicles has continuously been pursued and reinforced by the EU legislature (judgments of 20 December 2017, Núñez Torreiro , C‑334/16, EU:C:2017:1007 , paragraph 27 and the case-law cited, and of 30 April 2025, Nastolo , C‑370/24, EU:C:2025:300 , paragraph 39). However, as the Advocate General noted, in essence, in point 40 of his Opinion, that objective would be undermined if, depending on random factual circumstances, the person at the wheel of a vehicle could lose his or her status as driver because of a passenger's intervention in the driving of that vehicle. Since, as noted in paragraphs 28 and 30 of the present judgment, every vehicle, with the exception of self-driving vehicles, in principle, has a driver, the fact of depriving the person at the wheel of the vehicle of his or her status as driver would mean that it is that passenger who would then assume the status of driver and would, as a result, be excluded from the protection that the directive seeks to grant to third-party victims, including passengers. In addition, the legal uncertainty which would result from such a possibility is, in itself, incompatible with that objective. Moreover, as the Advocate General noted in point 38 of his Opinion, the legislative developments referred to in paragraph 38 of the present judgment have also been marked by the consistent and explicit exclusion, since the adoption of Directive 90/232, of coverage, by compulsory civil liability insurance provided for by EU law, of damage suffered by the driver, the only distinction permitted by that legislation having always been that between the driver, on the one hand, and the passenger or other third-party victim, on the other (see, to that effect, judgment of 1 December 2011, Churchill Insurance Company and Evans , C‑442/10, EU:C:2011:799 , paragraphs 27 to 31 and the case-law cited). Furthermore, nothing in that legislative development indicates that it was the intention of the EU legislature to harmonise the obligation to insure against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles beyond the coverage of damage caused to third parties, nor does such an intention emerge from Directive 2009/103. Recital 21 of that directive states, moreover, that the members of the family of the policyholder, driver or any other person liable should be afforded protection comparable to that of 'other third parties', in any event in respect of their personal injuries. Similarly, recital 23 of that directive refers to the inclusion within the insurance cover of 'any passenger in the vehicle', while specifying, in essence, that the fact that national legislation or a contractual clause excluding compulsory civil liability insurance cover in respect of 'claims by third party victims' in certain circumstances is in principle inefficient does not in any way prejudge, inter alia, any liability the passengers concerned might incur pursuant to the applicable national legislation. The question of whether there may be an obligation to cover, by insurance, damage suffered by the driver of the only vehicle involved in a road traffic accident therefore remains, under current EU law, governed by the national laws of the Member States. In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first question is that Article 12(1) of Directive 2009/103 must be interpreted as meaning that the damage suffered by the driver of the only vehicle involved in a road traffic accident does not have to be covered by the compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles provided for by that directive, even where a passenger intervened in the driving of that vehicle and that intervention caused the accident. The second question In the light of the answer to the first question, there is no need to answer the second question referred. Costs Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable. On those grounds, the Court (Fourth Chamber) hereby rules: Article 12(1) 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 the damage suffered by the driver of the only vehicle involved in a road traffic accident does not have to be covered by the compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles provided for by that directive, even where a passenger intervened in the driving of that vehicle and that intervention caused the accident. [Signatures] * Language of the case: Dutch. © European Union The source of this judgment is the Europa web site. The information on this site is subject to a information found here: Important legal notice . This electronic version is not authentic and is subject to amendment. BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII