This page is part of the overview of Court of Justice insurance case law. It collects 6 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
These judgments concern the powers of foreign insurers' representatives, the obligations of guarantee bodies and the effect of the Directive in disputes between private parties. A claims representative and a Solvency II representative may accept service of process (Spedition Welter, Corporis), but Member States need not allow the representative to be sued in place of the insurer (Vieira de Azevedo). Csonka concerned the former EU framework, which did not require a guarantee body to cover insurer insolvency. Current protection is based, among other provisions, on Articles 10a and 25a of Directive 2009/103/EC, inserted by Directive (EU) 2021/2118. In Estonia, the conditions in § 50¹ of the Motor Insurance Act (LKindlS) apply. In private disputes the national court need not disapply national law that conflicts with the Directive, and the victim may claim damages from the State (Smith). In Estonia see also § 51 LKindlS (cross-border claims handling).
Judgments
CJEU 11.07.2013, C-409/11, Csonka and Others
Preliminary ruling, First Chamber · ECLI:EU:C:2013:512 · para 35 · Directive 72/166/EEC Art 3(1); Directive 84/5/EEC Art 1(4); insolvency of the insurer
In Hungary, the claimants were insured vehicle owners who had caused damage and had to pay compensation themselves after their insurer became insolvent. They then sought compensation from the State for allegedly defective implementation of EU law. The Court held that Directives 72/166/EEC and 84/5/EEC, as applicable to the dispute, did not require a guarantee body to cover insurer insolvency, nor that the duty to insure cover that risk (paras 16–20, 35). That conclusion concerns the former legal framework: Directive (EU) 2021/2118 subsequently inserted Articles 10a and 25a into Directive 2009/103/EC, providing protection for injured parties in cases of insurer insolvency. In Estonia, § 50¹ LKindlS provides for compensation by the Motor Insurance Fund in the event of insurer insolvency, and current entitlement must be assessed under the conditions of that provision.
CJEU 10.10.2013, C-306/12, Spedition Welter
Preliminary ruling, Second Chamber · ECLI:EU:C:2013:650 · paras 25, 32 · Directive 2009/103/EC Art 21(5); claims representative's authority to accept service of judicial documents; consistent interpretation of national law
A German victim sought to serve a claim on the German claims representative of a French insurer. The Court held that the representative's sufficient powers include the power to accept service of judicial documents necessary to institute proceedings, since otherwise the Directive's aim of facilitating the victim's claim would be frustrated. For claims in Estonia this means that a foreign insurer's claims representative in Estonia may also be served with a statement of claim.
CJEU 26.03.2015, C-556/13, Litaksa
Preliminary ruling, Fourth Chamber · ECLI:EU:C:2015:202 · para 31 · Directive 90/232/EEC Art 2; single premium; territorial validity
In a Lithuanian reference, the question was whether the premium may differ depending on whether the vehicle is used only in its home Member State or throughout the Union. The Court held that a 'single premium' within the Directive is not a premium that varies depending on whether the insured vehicle is used only in its home Member State or throughout the Union; MTPL must cover the whole Union for a single premium. Relevant to pricing by Baltic insurers; in Estonia see § 15 LKindlS (territorial validity of cover).
CJEU 15.12.2016, C-558/15, Vieira de Azevedo
Preliminary ruling, Sixth Chamber · ECLI:EU:C:2016:957 · para 39 · Directive 2000/26/EC Art 4; claims representative; defendant
In Portugal claimants sued the claims representative of a foreign insurer in place of the insurer itself. The Court held that Article 4 of the Fourth Directive does not require Member States to provide that the claims representative may be sued in place of the insurer it represents. The representative is the addressee for service and claims handling, not a substitute defendant; the action must be brought against the insurer.
CJEU 07.08.2018, C-122/17, Smith
Preliminary ruling, Grand Chamber · ECLI:EU:C:2018:631 · para 57 · Directive 90/232/EEC Art 1; horizontal effect of directives; State liability
In Ireland the victim was injured in the part of a van without seats; national law and a policy term consistent with it excluded cover. The Grand Chamber held that, in a dispute between private parties, the national court is not obliged, solely on the basis of EU law, to disapply national provisions contrary to the Directive or a contractual term in line with them; the victim may seek damages from the Member State for breach of EU law. The judgment shows the practical significance of the absence of horizontal direct effect in insurance disputes.
CJEU 27.02.2020, C-25/19, Corporis
Preliminary ruling, Eighth Chamber · ECLI:EU:C:2020:126 · para 45 · Directive 2009/138/EC (Solvency II) Art 152; non-life insurer's representative; document instituting proceedings
In Poland a claimant sought to serve a motor claim against a Danish insurer on the insurer's representative in the host Member State. The Court held that the appointment of a non-life insurer's representative under Article 152 of Solvency II includes authority to accept the document instituting proceedings in a road accident claim. Relevant for foreign insurers operating in Estonia under the freedom to provide services.