The Second Chamber of the Supreme Court , presided over by Justice Antonio del Moral García , suspended the ruling on an appeal in May 2025 and referred a fundamental question to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) . Thus, based on a legal question raised by Vosseler Abogados , the Supreme Court asked: Does European law require victims of intentional attacks committed with a vehicle to receive the same compensation as any other victim of a traffic accident?
The CJEU's ruling, expected on May 21 in Luxembourg, will set a legal precedent. It will also require a review of how the concept of intent —criminal acts committed with intent —is applied in Spain in the context of insurance and civil liability arising from the use of motor vehicles.
The case: murder with a car
On July 12, 2020 , following a fight in Cerdanyola del Vallès (Barcelona), the accused—AHM—chased the victim, AMV, in a vehicle and intentionally ran her over twice. The victim died that same day. The assailant was driving without a license, without insurance, at high speed, with his lights off, and under the influence of alcohol and other substances.
The court sentenced the defendant to 16 years and 8 months in prison for murder with premeditation and intent. In addition, the Insurance Compensation Consortium —the public body that acts as the insurer of last resort when a vehicle is uninsured—was ordered to compensate the victim's family.
The conflict: Should the Consortium pay if the crime was intentional?
The Insurance Compensation Consortium appealed the ruling . It argued that Spanish law expressly excludes intentional acts—those committed with malice aforethought—from the concept of a "traffic accident." Under this interpretation, if the vehicle was used as a weapon and not as a means of transport, the Consortium would not be obligated to provide compensation.
The appealed ruling slightly reduced the compensation awarded by a jury at the Provincial Court of Barcelona, from €353.448 to €235.632. This reduction was achieved by overturning the 50% increase resulting from the intentional nature of the conduct and the amounts awarded to the grandparents.
It was at this point that Álvaro Machado , the lawyer from Vosseler Abogados representing the victim's family—led by María Luisa Villagrasa Marcos —raised a crucial issue. European regulations could impose a different, broader protection than that provided for by Spanish law.
Vosseler Abogados argued that the European Motor Insurance Directive (2009/103/EC, amended in 2021) requires that all victims of damage caused by vehicles— even when the act was intentional —receive compensation equivalent to that provided by mandatory insurance. If Spanish law offers less coverage, it could be in breach of European law . Specifically, Law 35/1995, of December 11, on Aid to Victims of Violent Crimes.
The Supreme Court acknowledges the doubt and consults Europe
In response to the arguments presented by Vosseler Abogados, the Supreme Court—in a ruling dated April 29, 2025, and presided over by Justice Antonio del Moral García—determined that reasonable doubts existed regarding the interpretation of European regulations . Instead of resolving the case under current Spanish law, it decided to refer a preliminary question to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). This is a mechanism by which national courts ask the European courts how a European regulation should be interpreted before applying it.
This is the reason why the process in Madrid is suspended until Luxembourg responds (next May 21).
The Supreme Court's questions to the CJEU
- Does European law, since the 2009 Directive, already require that victims of intentional vehicle attacks receive compensation equivalent to that of any traffic accident? (In other words, does this right for victims already exist, or is it just a future aspiration of the regulations?)
- The Spanish system stipulates that the State compensates victims of violent crimes. However, the amounts are smaller and subject to more limitations than mandatory insurance. Can this be considered "equivalent" to what Europe requires, or is it insufficient? (In some cases, that reduction can exceed 50% of what a normal insurance policy would have paid, and some categories of victims are excluded.)
The importance of resolution
The ruling issued by the CJEU will not only affect this specific case: it will establish a binding precedent for all countries of the European Union. In Spain, in particular, it will require a review of how the concept of intent is applied in cases where a vehicle is used as an instrument of a crime.
As lawyer Álvaro Machado points out , “if the CJEU rules in favor of the position put forward by Vosseler Abogados , the families of victims of intentional hit-and-runs—murders, femicides, or assaults with vehicles—could be entitled to receive the same compensation as in a conventional traffic accident. Even,” he notes, “when the perpetrator is uninsured .”
Thus, the so-called 'Villagrasa Case' "can become a milestone in European jurisprudence regarding the protection of victims of violence ," says Álvaro Machado.
Congress gives green light to toughen penalties for traffic offenses
