This page is part of the overview of Court of Justice insurance case law. It collects 8 judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union on this topic, in chronological order, with a short synthesis. The summaries are written in our own words. Citation conventions, links and temporal application are explained on the overview page.
Synthesis
The Motor Insurance Directive contains no conflict-of-laws rules. The law applicable to the injured party's claim is determined by the Rome II Regulation (EC) No 864/2007: as a rule the law of the country where the damage occurs, including relatives' damage (Lazar), which national limitation or equity rules do not, as a rule, displace as overriding mandatory provisions (Da Silva Martins, HUK-COBURG II). For recourse claims, the law governing liability must be distinguished from the law governing the payer's own obligation, which between insurers means in particular the insurance contracts (ERGO Insurance and Gjensidige Baltic; FGTI). In the recognition of judgments, the relative effect of arbitration agreements and the limits of public policy are key in insurance disputes (London Steam-Ship, Charles Taylor Adjusting, Gjensidige). The Regulations apply directly in Estonia; for recourse see VÕS § 492 and § 58 LKindlS.
Judgments
CJEU 10.12.2015, C-350/14, Lazar
Preliminary ruling, Fourth Chamber · ECLI:EU:C:2015:802 · para 30 · Regulation No 864/2007 (Rome II) Art 4(1); relatives' damage; indirect consequences
Close relatives living in Romania of a person killed in a road accident in Italy claimed compensation. The Court held that the damage suffered by close relatives living in another Member State as a result of a fatal accident in the forum State is an 'indirect consequence' within Article 4(1) of Rome II. The claim is therefore governed by the law of the country where the accident occurred, not that of the relatives' residence.
CJEU 21.01.2016, C-359/14 and C-475/14, ERGO Insurance and Gjensidige Baltic
Preliminary ruling, Fourth Chamber · ECLI:EU:C:2016:40 · paras 63–64 · Regulations No 593/2008 (Rome I) and No 864/2007 (Rome II); tractor unit and trailer; recourse between insurers
In references from Lithuanian courts, a tractor unit and its trailer were insured with different insurers and the accident occurred in a Member State other than the one where the contracts were concluded; the tractor unit's insurer paid and sought contribution from the trailer's insurer. The Court held that the Motor Insurance Directive contains no special rule for recourse between insurers; where the liability law applicable under Rome II provides for apportionment, the law governing the recourse claim is determined under Article 7 of Rome I by reference to the paying insurer's contract. Joined Cases C-359/14 and C-475/14.
CJEU 31.01.2019, C-149/18, Da Silva Martins
Preliminary ruling, Sixth Chamber · ECLI:EU:C:2019:84 · paras 35, 42 · Regulation No 864/2007 (Rome II) Arts 16 and 27; limitation period; overriding mandatory provision
A victim of an accident in Spain brought proceedings in Portugal, and the question was whether Portugal's longer limitation period applied instead of Spanish law. The Court held that a three-year limitation period cannot, as a rule, be treated as an overriding mandatory provision under Article 16 of Rome II. An exception is possible if, following a detailed analysis of the provision's wording, structure, objectives and context of adoption, the national court finds that its importance justifies derogating from the law applicable under Article 4 (para 35). Article 28 of the Motor Insurance Directive is not a conflict-of-laws rule within Article 27 of Rome II (para 42). Limitation is generally governed by the law identified under Rome II; the forum's longer limitation period does not apply automatically.
CJEU 20.06.2022, C-700/20, London Steam-Ship Owners' Mutual Insurance Association
Preliminary ruling, Grand Chamber · ECLI:EU:C:2022:488 · paras 73, 80 · Regulation No 44/2001 Art 34(1) and (3); judgment entered in terms of an arbitral award; P&I insurance
After the Prestige oil spill, a Spanish court awarded compensation against the P&I club, which had obtained an English arbitral award and a judgment entered in its terms. The Grand Chamber held that such a judgment does not bar recognition of the other Member State's judgment if it could not have been given without disregarding the Regulation's provisions and objectives, in particular the relative effect of the arbitration clause in the insurance contract and the lis pendens rules (para 73); the public policy ground cannot be used to reach the same result (para 80).
CJEU 17.05.2023, C-264/22, FGTI
Preliminary ruling, Ninth Chamber · ECLI:EU:C:2023:417 · para 32 · Regulation No 864/2007 (Rome II) Art 4(1), Art 15(h) and Art 19; subrogation; limitation
The French fund for victims of terrorism and other offences compensated a person injured by a watercraft's propeller while swimming and diving in Portugal, and sought reimbursement from the allegedly liable person's Portuguese insurer. The Court held that limitation of the claim acquired by a third party through subrogation is generally governed by the law of the country where the damage occurred; subrogation does not change the law applicable to the existing claim against the person who caused the damage (paras 9–15, 21–25 and 32). Relevant to cross-border recourse claims (VÕS § 492) and the calculation of limitation periods.
CJEU 07.09.2023, C-590/21, Charles Taylor Adjusting
Preliminary ruling, Third Chamber · ECLI:EU:C:2023:633 · para 41 · Regulation No 44/2001 Art 34(1) and Art 45(1); public policy; settlement and exclusive jurisdiction clause
In a marine insurance dispute the parties had concluded a settlement approved by the English court; the English court later awarded one party provisional damages for the costs of proceedings brought in Greece. The Court held that a court of a Member State may refuse recognition of such a judgment on public policy grounds where it impedes the continuation of proceedings pending in that State on the basis that their subject matter was covered by the settlement and that an exclusive jurisdiction clause excluded that State's courts. The ruling limits the use of damages claims to enforce jurisdiction agreements within the EU.
CJEU 21.03.2024, C-90/22, Gjensidige
Preliminary ruling, First Chamber · ECLI:EU:C:2024:252 · para 76 · Regulation No 1215/2012 Art 45(1)(a) and (e)(ii), Arts 25 and 71; CMR; refusal of recognition
In a Lithuanian reference, recognition was sought of another Member State's judgment in an international road carriage claim, although the carriage contract contained a jurisdiction agreement. The Court held that a court may not refuse recognition on the ground that the court of origin assumed jurisdiction in disregard of a jurisdiction agreement forming part of the contract of carriage. Relevant to cargo insurance and CMR disputes across borders.
CJEU 05.09.2024, C-86/23, HUK-COBURG II (E.N.I. and Y.K.I.)
Preliminary ruling, Fourth Chamber · ECLI:EU:C:2024:689 · para 57 · Regulation No 864/2007 (Rome II) Art 16; non-material damage; equity principle
In Bulgarian proceedings, relatives of a victim killed abroad claimed non-material damages, and the question was whether Bulgaria's equity principle is an overriding mandatory provision. The Court held that a rule requiring the court to award fair compensation for relatives' non-material damage is not, as a rule, an overriding mandatory provision under Article 16 of Rome II; an exception requires a close connection with the forum and a detailed analysis showing that the rule protects an essential public interest not achievable through the law applicable under Article 4.