On 30 April 2025, the Court of Justice handed down its judgment in Case C‑370/24, AT v CT, on the interpretation of Article 13 of Directive 2009/103/EC. The request has been made in proceedings between AT, a natural person injured in a road traffic accident, and CT, the undertaking designated by the Fondo di garanzia per le vittime de la strada (Guarantee Fund for Road Accident Victims, FGVS), concerning compensation for the harm suffered as a result of that accident.

On 6 January 2016, AT was invited into a car, as a passenger, which the driver had in his possession. Due to a road traffic accident occurred during the journey, however, the two occupants of that car had to be transported to hospital, AT having suffered significant physical injuries. Since the car was found to have been stolen, and the driver tested positive for cocaine, opiates and tetrahydrocannabinol, he and AT were prosecuted for the offence of handling stolen goods, and at the end of those proceedings the latter was acquitted because she was not the perpetrator of the offence.

In the meantime, the driver died, and so AT brought an action seeking compensation for the harm suffered as a result of the accident against the latter’s heir and CT, in its capacity as an undertaking designated by the FGVS, before the Tribunale ordinario di Lodi (District Court of Lodi; the “referring court”) which, in light of the need to interpret the relevant European legislation, decided to stay the proceedings and to ask to the Court of Justice whether Article 13(2) of Directive 2009/103 must be interpreted as meaning that, first, it is for the body specified in Article 10(1) of that directive to prove, in order to discharge itself from its obligation to pay compensation, that, in the event of a road traffic accident, the injured party having voluntarily entered the vehicle which caused the damage or injury knew that it was stolen and, second, it precludes national case-law which interprets the legislation concerned as meaning that, in such a situation, it is for that person to prove that he or she did not know that that vehicle had been stolen in order to obtain compensation for the harm he or she suffered.

According to the Court, where a Member State has opted for the payment of compensation by the body specified in Article 10(1) of Directive 2009/103 in the event of damage or injury caused by stolen vehicles, it is for the latter to prove that the injured parties who voluntarily entered the vehicle which caused the damage or injury knew that it was stolen in order to be able to invoke against the victims a statutory provision or a contractual clause contained in an insurance policy, which excludes the use or driving of vehicles, in such circumstances. The victim of a road traffic accident, moreover, cannot be required to prove that he or she did not know that the vehicle in which he or she entered had been stolen, since such a burden of proof would run counter to the objective of protecting victims of road traffic accidents caused by motor vehicles pursued by Directive 2009/103. Therefore, a national case-law placing the burden of proving lack of knowledge of the unlawfulness of the origin of the vehicle which caused the road traffic accident on the victim, as a constituent element of his or her claim for compensation, does not appear to comply with the requirements stemming from Article 13(2) of Directive 2009/103.