The commentary concerns a judgment of 31.01.2019 in the case of Agostinho da Silva Martins (C-149/18), in which the CJEU ruled on the relation of the provisions contained in the Motor Insurance Directive 2009/103/EC of 16.09.2009 to EU conflict-of- laws rules contained in the Rome II Regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations. The judgment raised two problems relating to Article 28 of the Directive. This provision enables the Member States to adopt provisions that are more favourable to injured parties than the provisions needed to comply with the Directive. It has been examined whether the national legislation transposing the Directive providing, on the initiative of the national legislator, for more favourable limitation periods for actions seeking compensation for damage resulting from an accident can be regarded as mandatory provisions within the meaning of Rome II. The second issue raised was whether Article 28 of the Directive in question should be treated as a conflict of laws provision. The aim of the paper is to analyse the Court's decision. In the author's opinion these provisions cannot be regarded as mandatory ones, as this would mean that they should apply in every case, even if the applicable law would provide more favourable solutions than the provisions transposing the directive. Moreover, Article 28 of the Directive should not be considered a conflict-of-laws rule, as this would lead to the assumption that the provision in question would constitute a competence to establish one-sided conflict-of-laws rules that take precedence over the applicable law.