On June 6, 2018, the decision of the Satversme Court came into force, according to which the provision of law entitling insurance companies to file a regressive claim against drivers of vehicles who caused a loss in road accidents and did not file a copy of the agreed notification to the insurance company, was found to be inadequate to the Article 105 of the Satversme.
The Satversme Court in its decision established that in the case when the insurance company goes to court, the driver of the vehicle who caused the losses and did not submit the completed agreed notification is obliged, in order of regress, to compensate for losses incurred as a result of the insured event, thereby substantially limiting this person’s rights on property.
In the current court practice, this provision of law was applied uniformly, as a result of which regressive claims of insurance companies based on this provision of law were subject to satisfaction.
The contested provision is found to be inappropriate to the Article 105 of the Satversme, but against the persons to whom this rule was applied in the courts, it was declared invalid from the moment of the violation of fundamental rights.
All those persons from which the courts previously recovered damages in favour of insurance companies on the basis of sub-clause (d) of clause 1 of part one of Article 41 of the Compulsory Civil Liability Insurance of Owners of Motor Vehicles Law, have the right within 3 months from the date of entry into force of the decision of the Satversme Court to apply to the court with application for reconsideration of the case on newly discovered circumstances.
According to clause 5 of Article 479 of the Civil Procedure Law, the newly discovered circumstance is the acknowledgement of a norm of law applied in the atrial of the case as not in conformity with a higher norm of law in lawful effect.