Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 25 June 2026.#Helpfind Funding SARL and Others v Towarzystwo Ubezpieczeń i Reasekuracji ALLIANZ Polska S.A. and Others.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Gdyni.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles – Directive 2009/103/EC – Article 1(2) and Articles 3, 18 and 28 – Concept of ‘injured party’ – Assignment to a professional of claims arising from insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles by persons who have suffered material damage as a result of road traffic accidents – Legal standing of the assignee to enforce the payment of the assigned claim from the insurance undertakings concerned.#Case C-277/25.

Provisional text

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Ninth Chamber)

25 June 2026 (*)

( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles – Directive 2009/103/EC – Article 1(2) and Articles 3, 18 and 28 – Concept of ‘injured party’ – Assignment to a professional of claims arising from insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles by persons who have suffered material damage as a result of road traffic accidents – Legal standing of the assignee to enforce the payment of the assigned claim from the insurance undertakings concerned )

In Case C‑277/25,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Sąd Rejonowy w Gdyni (District Court, Gdynia, Poland), made by decision of 7 April 2025, received at the Court on 10 April 2025, in the proceedings

Helpfind Funding SARL,

GC,

Nova DELTA XALTUM sp. z o.o. sp.k.

v

Towarzystwo Ubezpieczeń i Reasekuracji ALLIANZ Polska S.A.,

Powszechny Zakład Ubezpieczeń S.A.,

Towarzystwo Ubezpieczeń i Reasekuracji WARTA S.A.,

Generali Towarzystwo Ubezpieczeń S.A.,

Sopockie Towarzystwo Ubezpieczeń ERGO HESTIA S.A.,

THE COURT (Ninth Chamber),

composed of M. Condinanzi, President of the Chamber, N. Jääskinen and A. Kornezov (Rapporteur), Judges,

Advocate General: N. Emiliou,

Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,

having regard to the written procedure,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

–        Helpfind Funding SARL, by Ł. Adamczyk, adwokat,

–        GC, by K. Karczewski, radca prawny,

–        NOVA DELTA XALTUM sp. z o.o. sp.k., by Ł. Gil, radca prawny,

–        Towarzystwo Ubezpieczeń i Reasekuracji ALLIANZ Polska S.A., by C. Kosmus, radca prawny,

–        Powszechny Zakład Ubezpieczeń S.A., by Ł. Kojara, radca prawny,

–        Sopockie Towarzystwo Ubezpieczeń ERGO HESTIA S.A., by P. Stachwiuk, radca prawny,

–        the Polish Government, by B. Majczyna and D. Lutostańska, acting as Agents,

–        the Czech Government, by J. Očková, M. Smolek and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents,

–        the European Commission, by G. Goddin, A. Manzaneque Valverde and J. Szczodrowski, acting as Agents,

having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,

gives the following

Judgment

1        This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 1(2) and Articles 3, 18 and 28 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).

2        The request has been made in five sets of proceedings between Helpfind Funding SARL, GC and NOVA DELTA XALTUM sp. z o.o. sp.k. and the insurance undertakings Towarzystwo Ubezpieczeń i Reasekuracji ALLIANZ Polska S.A., Powszechny Zakład Ubezpieczeń S.A., Towarzystwo Ubezpieczeń i Reasekuracji WARTA S.A., Generali Towarzystwo Ubezpieczeń S.A. and Sopockie Towarzystwo Ubezpieczeń ERGO HESTIA S.A. concerning compensation for material damage caused by motor vehicle accidents.

 Legal context

 European Union law

3        Recitals 1, 2, 20 and 30 of Directive 2009/103 state:

‘(1)      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 (Fourth motor insurance Directive) [(OJ 2000 L 181, p. 65)] have been substantially amended several times … In the interests of clarity and rationality those four Directives should be codified, 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)].

(2)      Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (motor insurance) is of special importance for European citizens, whether they are policyholders or victims of an accident. It is also a major concern for insurance undertakings as it constitutes an important part of non-life insurance business in the [European] Community. Motor insurance also has an impact on the free movement of persons and vehicles. It should therefore be a key objective of Community action in the field of financial services to reinforce and consolidate the internal market in motor insurance.

…

(20)      Motor vehicle accident victims should be guaranteed comparable treatment irrespective of where in the Community accidents occur.

…

(30)      The right to invoke the insurance contract and to claim against the insurance undertaking directly is of great importance for the protection of victims of motor vehicle accidents. In order to facilitate an efficient and speedy settlement of claims and to avoid as far as possible costly legal proceedings, a right of direct action against the insurance undertaking covering the person responsible against civil liability should be provided for victims of any motor vehicle accident.’

4        Article 1 of Directive 2009/103, entitled ‘Definitions’, is worded as follows, in point 2 thereof:

‘For the purposes of this Directive:

…

2.      “injured party” means any person entitled to compensation in respect of any loss or injury caused by vehicles’.

5        Article 3 of that directive, entitled ‘Compulsory insurance of vehicles’, provides, in the first paragraph thereof:

‘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.’

6        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.’

7        Article 18 of that directive, entitled ‘Direct right of action’, provides:

‘Member States shall ensure that any party injured as a result of an accident caused by a vehicle covered by insurance as referred to in Article 3 enjoys a direct right of action against the insurance undertaking covering the person responsible against civil liability.’

8        Article 28 of Directive 2009/103, entitled ‘National provisions’, is worded as follows:

‘1.      Member States may, in accordance with the Treaty, maintain or bring into force provisions which are more favourable to injured parties than the provisions needed to comply with this Directive.

…’

 Polish law

9        Article 19 of the ustawa o ubezpieczeniach obowiązkowych, Ubezpieczeniowym Funduszu Gwarancyjnym i Polskim Biurze Ubezpieczycieli Komunikacyjnych (Law on compulsory insurance, the Insurance Guarantee Fund and the Polish Motor Vehicle Insurance Office) of 22 May 2003 (Dz. U. of 2003, No 124, item 1152), as amended (Dz. U. of 2023, item 2500), provides, in paragraph 1 thereof:

‘A victim may, in connection with an event covered by a compulsory civil liability insurance contract, bring actions directly against an insurance undertaking. The insurance undertaking shall immediately notify the insured about any claim submitted.’

10      Article 58(1) of the ustawa – Kodeks cywilny (Law on the Civil Code), in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings (‘the Civil Code’), provides:

‘A legal act contrary to the law or intended to circumvent the law shall be void, unless a relevant provision provides otherwise, in particular that the invalid provisions of the legal act are to be replaced by the relevant provisions of the law.’

11      Article 509 of the Civil Code states:

‘1.      A creditor may, without the consent of the debtor, assign (transfer) a claim to a third party, save where this would be contrary to the law, a contractual stipulation or a characteristic of the obligation.

2.      The assignment of the claim extends to all rights ancillary to it, in particular by way of default interest.’

12      Article 822(1) and (4) of that code provides:

‘1.      By a civil liability insurance contract, the insurer undertakes to pay compensation, as specified in the contract, for damage caused to third parties in respect of whom the policyholder or insured person bears liability.

…

4.      Any person entitled to compensation for damage resulting from the occurrence of an event covered by a civil liability insurance contract may bring an action directly against the insurance undertaking.’

 The disputes in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling

13      Following road traffic accidents which caused damage to five motor vehicles, the persons who suffered material damage as a result of those accidents received compensation for that damage, paid by the insurance undertakings with which the persons responsible for those accidents had taken out motor vehicle liability insurance.

14      The persons who suffered that damage took the view that that compensation was insufficient, and therefore entered into assignment contracts with professionals whose business essentially involves purchasing and recovering claims. Under those contracts, those professionals acquired the claims that those individuals believed they still had against the insurance undertakings concerned, in return for payment. In each case, the claim was, in essence, equal to the difference between the estimated value of full compensation for the material damage suffered and the compensation already paid to the person who suffered the damage.

15      After those contracts were concluded, the assignees brought actions against the insurance undertakings concerned before the Sąd Rejonowy w Gdyni (District Court, Gdynia, Poland), which is the referring court, seeking an order that those undertakings pay the claims acquired from the assignors under those contracts.

16      In that regard, the referring court notes that, when those contracts were concluded, the assignors were not aware of the additional amounts of compensation which they may, where relevant, have claimed, since the assignment contracts did not specify those amounts. One of the assignors argued before that court that he would not have agreed to assign his claim had he known about the additional amount to which he was entitled, while another stated that he would have done so in any event, in order to obtain prompt remuneration for the sale of his claim.

17      The referring court also states that the amounts of the claims alleged by the assignees on the basis of the assignment contracts exceeded, sometimes significantly, the remuneration received by the assignors under those contracts.

18      The defendants in the main proceedings, which are the insurance undertakings covering the civil liability of the persons who caused the accidents giving rise to the disputes in the main proceedings, maintain that the compensation which they have already paid to the assignors corresponds to the entirety of the compensation to which the assignors were entitled. Furthermore, they contest the assignees’ standing to bring proceedings, arguing that, under the applicable national law, the assignment contracts at issue are invalid due to the disproportion between the amounts of compensation alleged by the assignees on the basis of those contracts and the remuneration received by the assignors under those contracts.

19      The referring court states in that regard that, in accordance with national law as interpreted by settled national case-law, claims arising from material damage suffered as a result of road traffic accidents are not personal in nature, with the result that the nature of those claims does not preclude their assignment and that, accordingly, the assignment contracts at issue before it cannot be regarded as invalid under national law.

20      However, that court asks whether national law, as interpreted by national case-law, is compatible with the main objective of Directive 2009/103, namely that of protecting victims of road traffic accidents, in so far as the agreed remuneration to be paid to the assignors under the assignment contracts at issue before it corresponds to a fraction of the amounts of compensation claimed by the assignees on the basis of those contracts against the insurance undertakings concerned. In particular, it asks whether Article 1(2) and Articles 3, 18 and 28 of that directive must be interpreted as precluding national legislation according to which a person who has suffered material damage as a result of a motor vehicle accident, and who believes that he or she has not received full compensation for that damage, is permitted to assign to a third party the part of the claim that he or she believes to still have against the insurance undertaking concerned, equal, in essence, to the difference between the estimated value of the full compensation of that damage and the compensation which he or she has already been paid by that insurance undertaking, so that that third party may bring legal proceedings, in its own name and on its own behalf, to seek payment of that claim from that undertaking.

21      Under those circumstances, the Sąd Rejonowy w Gdyni (District Court, Gydnia) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:

‘(1)      Should Articles 3, 18 and 28 of Directive [2009/103] be interpreted as precluding a finding that a contract is valid and enforceable if it has been concluded with [an injured party] who, having not previously received full compensation for loss or injury sustained as a result of an accident, assigns to a third party his or her right to obtain full compensation from the insurance company covering the person responsible for the accident caused by the use of a vehicle?

(2)      Should the above articles be interpreted as precluding recognition of the third party discussed in the first question as a person entitled to compensation in respect of any loss or injury caused by vehicles, in accordance with Article 1(2) of Directive 2009/103?

(3)      Should the above articles of Directive 2009/103 be interpreted as precluding a finding that the third party described in the first question has locus standi to bring a direct action against the insurance company referred to in that question?’

 Consideration of the questions referred

 Admissibility

22      Some of the applicants in the main proceedings submit, in essence, that it is not necessary to answer the questions referred in order to determine the cases in the main proceedings, since there is no provision in Directive 2009/103 which prohibits persons who have suffered material damage as a result of a motor vehicle accident from assigning to a third party claims arising in their favour from insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles, with the result that contracts for the assignment of such claims are governed by national law. Accordingly, the present reference for a preliminary ruling only delays the proceedings before the referring court unnecessarily.

23      In that regard, it is sufficient to note that, in so far as the argument put forward by those applicants in the main proceedings raises, in reality, the question whether Directive 2009/103 permits the assignment to a third party of claims arising from insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles, so that that third party may, as the assignee, bring legal proceedings, in its own name and on its own behalf, to seek payment of the claims assigned to it, that issue concerns the substance of the questions referred, and not the admissibility of those questions. Consequently, that argument must be examined in the context of the examination of the substance of those questions (see, by analogy, judgment of 19 September 2024, Consiglio nazionale delle Ricerche, C‑439/23, EU:C:2024:773, paragraph 27 and the case-law cited).

24      Accordingly, the questions referred for a preliminary ruling are admissible.

 Substance

25      By its three questions, which it is appropriate to examine together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 1(2) and Articles 3, 18 and 28 of Directive 2009/103 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation according to which a person who has suffered material damage as a result of a motor vehicle accident and who has received compensation for that damage from the insurance undertaking covering motor vehicle civil liability, but who believes that that compensation does not fully remedy that damage, is permitted to assign to a third party, in return for payment, his or her claim, equal to the difference between the estimated value of the full compensation of that damage and the compensation which he or she has already been paid by that insurance undertaking, so that that third party may bring legal proceedings, in its own name and on its own behalf, to seek payment of that claim from that undertaking.

26      In that regard, it must be stated, from the outset, that there is no provision in Directive 2009/103 which governs the assignment to a third party of a claim arising from insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles by persons who have suffered material damage as a result of road traffic accidents or governs the standing of assignees before national courts to enforce the payment of such claims.

27      The first paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 2009/103 provides that each Member State is, subject to Article 5 of that directive, 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.

28      As stated in recital 1 of Directive 2009/103, that directive codified Directive 72/166, Second Council Directive 84/5, Third Council Directive 90/232, Directive 2000/26 and Directive 2005/14. Those directives progressively clarified the obligations of the Member States relating to compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles. They are intended, first, to ensure the free movement of vehicles normally based in the territory of the European Union and of persons travelling in those vehicles and, secondly, to guarantee that the victims of accidents caused by those vehicles receive comparable treatment irrespective of where in the European Union the accident occurred (see, to that effect, judgment of 19 September 2024, Matmut, C‑236/23, EU:C:2024:761, paragraph 29 and the case-law cited).

29      In addition, it follows from recitals 2 and 20 of Directive 2009/103 that that directive pursues the same objectives as those pursued by the other directives referred to in the preceding paragraph of the present judgment (see, to that effect, judgment of 19 September 2024, Matmut, C‑236/23, EU:C:2024:761, paragraph 30 and the case-law cited).

30      The development of the EU legislation concerning compulsory insurance shows that the objective of protecting the victims of accidents caused by vehicles has continuously been pursued and reinforced by the EU legislature (judgment of 19 September 2024, Matmut, C‑236/23, EU:C:2024:761, paragraph 31 and the case-law cited).

31      Directive 2009/103 therefore requires the Member States to ensure that civil liability in respect of the use of vehicles normally based in their territory is covered by insurance and specifies, inter alia, the types of damage and the third-party victims to be covered by that insurance (judgment of 15 December 2022, HUK-COBURG-Allgemeine Versicherung, C‑577/21, EU:C:2022:992, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited).

32      The obligation to provide insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles for damage caused to third parties by those vehicles is, however, distinct from the extent of the compensation to be afforded to them on the basis of the civil liability of the insured person. Whereas the former is defined and guaranteed by EU legislation, the latter is, essentially, governed by national law (judgment of 15 December 2022, HUK-COBURG-Allgemeine Versicherung, C‑577/21, EU:C:2022:992, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited).

33      It is apparent from the aim of Directive 2009/103 and its wording that, like the directives which it codifies, it does not seek to harmonise the rules of the Member States governing civil liability and that, as EU law currently stands, the Member States remain free to determine the rules of civil liability applicable to road accidents (judgment of 15 December 2022, HUK-COBURG-Allgemeine Versicherung, C‑577/21, EU:C:2022:992, paragraph 36 and the case-law cited).

34      Consequently, and having regard in particular to Article 1(2) of Directive 2009/103, as EU law currently stands, the Member States remain, in principle, free to determine, in particular, what damage caused by motor vehicles must be compensated, the extent of the right to compensation and the persons who must be entitled to compensation (judgment of 15 December 2022, HUK-COBURG-Allgemeine Versicherung, C‑577/21, EU:C:2022:992, paragraph 37 and the case-law cited).

35      That freedom is however restricted by that directive, inasmuch as it, first, renders the cover of certain types of damage mandatory, specifying minimum amounts of cover determined by that directive (see, to that effect, judgment of 15 December 2022, HUK-COBURG-Allgemeine Versicherung, C‑577/21, EU:C:2022:992, paragraph 38 and the case-law cited). In the present case, there is nothing in the file before the Court to suggest that the compensation paid by insurance undertakings covering motor vehicle civil liability to the persons who have suffered the material damage at issue in the main proceedings was lower than those amounts.

36      Second, that freedom is also restricted by Directive 2009/103 in so far as, as regards the persons who are entitled to compensation for damage under that directive, that directive identifies, in Article 12, special categories of victim which are considered to be particularly vulnerable and provides that the coverage of personal injuries to the categories of persons identified in paragraphs 1 and 2 of that article and the coverage of personal injuries and damage to property of the categories of persons identified in paragraph 3 of that article are compulsory if those persons are entitled to compensation in accordance with national civil law (see, to that effect, judgment of 10 June 2021, Van Ameyde España, C‑923/19, EU:C:2021:475, paragraph 43 and the case-law cited).

37      In particular, paragraphs 1 to 3 of Article 12 of Directive 2009/103 refer, in the first place, to all passengers other than the driver of the vehicle concerned, in the second place, to 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, in the third place, to pedestrians, cyclists and other non-motorised users of the roads. In addition, the second subparagraph of paragraph 3 of Article 12 states that that article is without prejudice either to civil liability or to the quantum of damages. Accordingly, those provisions clearly do not govern the assignment of a claim held by such victims.

38      Furthermore, it follows from a combined reading of Article 1(2) and the first paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 2009/103 that the protection which must be ensured by virtue of that directive extends to any person entitled under national civil liability law to compensation for damage caused by motor vehicles. It cannot be concluded from any part of that directive that the EU legislature wished to restrict the protection ensured by those directives exclusively to persons directly involved in an event causing harm (judgment of 15 December 2022, HUK-COBURG-Allgemeine Versicherung, C‑577/21, EU:C:2022:992, paragraph 41 and the case-law cited).

39      It is apparent from the order for reference that the assignees derive their rights to the claims at issue in the main proceedings not from Polish civil liability law but solely from the assignment contracts which they concluded, on the basis of the Civil Code, with persons who have suffered material damage as a result of a road traffic accident.

40      In those circumstances, and having regard to the objective of protecting victims of road traffic accidents, set out in paragraph 30 of the present judgment, the scheme of Directive 2009/103 and the fact that that directive does not govern the assignment of claims arising from insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles, it must be held that an assignee who has acquired such a claim cannot be treated in the same way as an ‘injured party’ within the meaning of Article 1(2) of that directive.

41      Accordingly, Article 18 of Directive 2009/103, which provides that Member States are to ensure that any party injured as a result of an accident caused by a vehicle covered by insurance as referred to in Article 3 of that directive enjoys a direct right of action against the insurance undertaking covering the person responsible against civil liability, does not apply to actions brought by such assignees.

42      That interpretation is, moreover, supported by recital 30 of that directive, according to which the right to invoke the insurance contract and to claim against the insurance undertaking directly is of great importance for the protection of victims of motor vehicle accidents. Accordingly, that recital states that, in order to facilitate an efficient and speedy settlement of claims and to avoid as far as possible costly legal proceedings, a right of direct action against the insurance undertaking covering the person responsible against civil liability should be provided for victims of any motor vehicle accident. However, the assignees are not victims of an accident and cannot be treated in the same way.

43      As for Article 28 of Directive 2009/103, also mentioned by the national court, under which Member States may, in accordance with the Treaty, maintain or bring into force provisions which are more favourable to injured parties than the provisions needed to comply with that directive, it is sufficient to note that that article also refers to the rights of injured parties and therefore does not relate to assignees of claims for compensation.

44      It follows that there is no provision in Directive 2009/103 which precludes the possibility for Member States to lay down rules for the assignment of claims arising from the occurrence of an event covered by a contract of insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles or the possibility for the assignee to bring legal proceedings, in its own name and on its own behalf, to enforce the claim which has been assigned to it.

45      In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the questions referred is that Article 1(2) and Articles 3, 18 and 28 of Directive 2009/103 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation according to which a person who has suffered material damage as a result of a motor vehicle accident and who has received compensation for that damage from the insurance undertaking covering motor vehicle civil liability, but who believes that that compensation does not fully remedy that damage, is permitted to assign to a third party, in return for payment, his or her claim, equal to the difference between the estimated value of the full compensation of that damage and the compensation which he or she has already been paid by that insurance undertaking, so that that third party may bring legal proceedings, in its own name and on its own behalf, to seek payment of that claim from that undertaking.

 Costs

46      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 (Ninth Chamber) hereby rules:

Article 1(2) and Articles 3, 18 and 28 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 not precluding national legislation according to which a person who has suffered material damage as a result of a motor vehicle accident and who has received compensation for that damage from the insurance undertaking covering motor vehicle civil liability, but who believes that that compensation does not fully remedy that damage, is permitted to assign to a third party, in return for payment, his or her claim, equal to the difference between the estimated value of the full compensation of that damage and the compensation which he or she has already been paid by that insurance undertaking, so that that third party may bring legal proceedings, in its own name and on its own behalf, to seek payment of that claim from that undertaking.

[Signatures]

---

*      Language of the case: Polish.