MTPL保险中“使用中的车辆”概念的混乱:通过欧洲联盟法院的判例法

B. Matijević
{"title":"MTPL保险中“使用中的车辆”概念的混乱:通过欧洲联盟法院的判例法","authors":"B. Matijević","doi":"10.5937/spz63-23545","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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). \nWhat 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. \nIt 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.","PeriodicalId":33817,"journal":{"name":"Strani pravni zivot","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Croquis of the notion \\\"vehicle in use\\\" in MTPL insurance: Through the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union\",\"authors\":\"B. Matijević\",\"doi\":\"10.5937/spz63-23545\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"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). \\nWhat 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. \\nIt 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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":33817,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Strani pravni zivot\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Strani pravni zivot\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5937/spz63-23545\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Strani pravni zivot","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5937/spz63-23545","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

汽车第三方车辆保险(MTPL保险)对所有欧盟公民都很重要,包括对保险承包商和受伤方(所谓的第三方),因为它影响人员和车辆的自由流动。因此,欧盟的主要目标之一是加强和巩固MTPL保险领域的内部市场,以确保无论事故发生在欧盟何处,受害方都能获得类似的待遇。在这种可比待遇的“背景”下,人们当然应该理解MTPL保险中“使用中的车辆”概念的含义,因为这是欧盟法律的一个自主术语,其解释不能留给成员国的国家法院,而是由有管辖权的法院,即欧盟法院。从欧盟法律的意义上解释“使用中的车辆”概念——MTPL保险指令,欧盟法院迄今已做出多项决定。这些决定以解释欧盟法律的一般原则为指导,即根据这些原则,欧洲法律的某一术语应根据欧盟的目标(目的论方法)和《条约》关于欧盟运作的其他条款(上下文方法)进行解释,并与欧盟的发展程度保持一致,或者环境的变化(进化解释的方法)。需要注意的是,在解释“使用中的车辆”这一概念时,欧盟法院没有选择​​对于“使用中的车辆”概念的单一“封闭”(明确/唯一)定义,而是选择了一个“开放”(建设性)定义,这取决于每个特定案件的情况。很明显,遵循欧盟法律和CJEU判例法需要国家司法部门采取适当的方法,而到目前为止,在MTPL保险方面,对什么是“使用中的车辆”还没有达成普遍共识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Croquis of the notion "vehicle in use" in MTPL insurance: Through the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信