| Popis: |
Motor third party vehicle insurance (MTPL insurance) is important for all EU citizens, both for insurance contractors and injured parties (so-called third parties), as it affects the free movement of people and vehicles. So one of the key objectives of EU is to strengthen and consolidate internal markets in the area of MTPL insurance, with the aim of guaranteeing that injured parties have comparable treatment no matter where in the EU the accident occurred. In this "context" of comparable treatment, one should certainly understand the meaning of the notion "vehicle in use" in terms of MTPL insurance, where, given that it is an autonomous term of EU law, its interpretation cannot be left to the national courts of the Member States but to the one who is competent, and that is Court of Justice of European Union (CJEU). The interpretation of the notion "vehicle in use" in the sense of Union law - the MTPL insurance Directives, the CJEU has so far made several decisions. The decisions are guided by the general principles of interpretation of Union law i.e. according to which a certain term of European law should be interpreted in the light of the EU objectives (teleological method), and in relation to the other articles of the Treaty on functioning of the EU (contextual method), keeping track with the degree of development of the Union, or the change of circumstances (the method of evolutionary interpretation). What is important to note is that in interpreting the notion "vehicle in use", the CJEU did not opt for a single "closed" (definitive/unique) definition of the notion "vehicle in use", but instead opted for one "open" (constructive) definition, which depends on the circumstances of each particular case. It is clear that following EU law and the CJEU case law requires an appropriate approach by national judiciary, where until now there has not been a general consensus on what is considered "vehicle in use" in terms of MTPL insurance. |
