# CJEU: insurance contracts, information and consumers

URL: https://insurancelawestonia.ee/court-of-justice-eu/insurance-contract-information-and-consumer-protection/
Author: Dr Olavi-Jüri Luik, Partner, Head of Insurance Law, attorney at law (Advokaadibüroo WIDEN OÜ)
Last updated: 2026-11-09

> 12 judgments of the Court of Justice of the EU on insurance contracts, information and consumers: summaries, paragraphs and links.

This page is part of the [overview of Court of Justice insurance case law](https://insurancelawestonia.ee/court-of-justice-eu). It collects 12 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](https://insurancelawestonia.ee/court-of-justice-eu#how-to-use-this-overview).

## Synthesis

In contract law the Court of Justice complements the Estonian Supreme Court's case law in three directions. First, transparency: a term defining the main subject matter escapes the unfairness test only if it is plain, intelligible and the consumer understands its economic consequences (Van Hove), and a term the consumer had no opportunity to read before conclusion of the contract does not bind the consumer if the national court finds it unfair (Ocidental); under Estonian law incorporation of the standard term is a separate question (VÕS § 37). Second, life insurance information and withdrawal: the right of withdrawal does not expire where the policyholder was not informed of it (Endress), and information on unit-linked contracts must cover the risks of the underlying assets (A and Others, Towarzystwo Ubezpieczeń Ż). Third, equal treatment: sex-based differences in premiums are prohibited in new contracts concluded from 21.12.2012 (Test-Achats). In Estonia see VÕS § 37 (standard terms as part of the contract), § 39 (interpretation of standard terms), § 42 (nullity of standard terms) and § 433 (policyholder's withdrawal from the contract).

## Judgments

### CJEU 01.03.2011, C-236/09, Association belge des Consommateurs Test-Achats and Others

*Preliminary ruling, Grand Chamber* · ECLI:EU:C:2011:100 · para 34 · Directive 2004/113/EC Art 5(2); gender equality; actuarial factors

A Belgian consumer association challenged the provision allowing Member States to maintain proportionate differences in premiums and benefits based on sex-related actuarial data. The Grand Chamber held that Article 5(2) of Directive 2004/113 is invalid with effect from 21.12.2012, because an indefinite derogation is incompatible with the principle of equal treatment of men and women. Since that date sex may not be a factor resulting in differences in individuals' premiums and benefits (unisex pricing). Under the Commission guidelines (2012/C 11/01, points 6–12) the rule applies to new contracts concluded from 21.12.2012, including amendments requiring the consent of all parties; for earlier contracts it must be checked whether an amendment amounted to a new agreement.

[Judgment on EUR-Lex](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62009CJ0236) · [CURIA](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-236/09&language=en)

### CJEU 01.03.2012, C-166/11, González Alonso

*Preliminary ruling, Fifth Chamber* · ECLI:EU:C:2012:119 · para 34 · Directive 85/577/EEC Art 3(2)(d); contract concluded away from business premises; insurance contract

In Spain a life insurance contract whose monthly premiums were used for investments was concluded away from business premises. The Court held that such a contract is an insurance contract excluded from the scope of the doorstep selling Directive. Consumer protection for insurance contracts is governed by specific EU instruments; in Estonia see the separate rules on distance contracts and withdrawal.

[Judgment on EUR-Lex](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62011CJ0166) · [CURIA](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-166/11&language=en)

### CJEU 07.03.2013, C-577/11, DKV Belgium

*Preliminary ruling, Fourth Chamber* · ECLI:EU:C:2013:146 · paras 29, 48–49 · Directive 92/49/EEC Arts 29 and 39; Arts 49 and 56 TFEU; health insurance; premium indexation

Belgian law allowed premiums, deductibles and benefits in non-occupational health insurance to be adjusted annually only by the consumer price index or a medical index exceeding it, or with the supervisor's approval. The Court distinguished two questions. The Third Non-life Directive did not preclude a technical framework for premium adjustments that left the insurer free to set the basic premium (para 29). A restriction under Articles 49 and 56 TFEU could be justified by consumer protection, namely protecting policyholders against unexpected premium increases in long-term health insurance, provided that the same objective could not be achieved equally effectively by a less restrictive measure; that assessment was for the national court (paras 48–49). The ruling delimits pricing freedom and consumer protection.

[Judgment on EUR-Lex](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62011CJ0577) · [CURIA](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-577/11&language=en)

### CJEU 19.12.2013, C-209/12, Endress

*Preliminary ruling, First Chamber* · ECLI:EU:C:2013:864 · para 32 · Directive 90/619/EEC Art 15(1); Directive 92/96/EEC Art 31; life insurance; right to cancel

In Germany a life policyholder had not been properly informed of his right to cancel; national law extinguished the right one year after payment of the first premium at the latest. The Court held that such a rule is incompatible with the Directives where the policyholder was not informed of the right to cancel. The judgment is the basis for assessing withdrawal and the consequences of defective information in life insurance; in Estonia see VÕS § 433.

[Judgment on EUR-Lex](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62012CJ0209) · [CURIA](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-209/12&language=en)

### CJEU 23.04.2015, C-96/14, Van Hove

*Preliminary ruling, Third Chamber* · ECLI:EU:C:2015:262 · para 50 · Directive 93/13/EEC Art 4(2); main subject matter; transparency; loan protection insurance

In France a borrower had joined a group policy covering loan repayments in the event of total incapacity for work, but under the terms his partial incapacity was not an insured event. The Court held that such a term may escape the unfairness test only if it defines the main subject matter of the contract and is in plain intelligible language, which also means that the average consumer can foresee the economic consequences for him. In Estonia see VÕS § 42 and the Supreme Court's case law on standard terms.

[Judgment on EUR-Lex](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62014CJ0096) · [CURIA](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-96/14&language=en)

### CJEU 29.04.2015, C-51/13, Nationale-Nederlanden

*Preliminary ruling, Fifth Chamber* · ECLI:EU:C:2015:286 · para 34 · Directive 92/96/EEC Art 31(3); life insurance; additional information on costs

In the Netherlands a policyholder argued that the insurer had not informed him of the costs and risk premiums of a unit-linked policy. The Court held that the Directive does not preclude an obligation, based on general principles of national law, to provide information beyond that listed in the annex, provided it is clear, accurate and necessary for understanding the essential characteristics of the commitment and legal certainty is ensured. The consequences of failure to inform are a matter of national law.

[Judgment on EUR-Lex](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62013CJ0051) · [CURIA](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-51/13&language=en)

### CJEU 19.12.2019, C-355/18 et al., Rust-Hackner and Others

*Preliminary ruling, Third Chamber* · ECLI:EU:C:2019:1123 · paras 82, 90, 98, 111, 121 · Life Directives and Directive 2009/138/EC Art 186; right to cancel; incorrect information

Austrian life policies contained incorrect information on the right to cancel, in particular on the form of the notice. The Court held that the cancellation period starts to run even where the information is incorrect, provided the error did not deprive the policyholder of the possibility of exercising the right under essentially the same conditions as with correct information; where information is missing or has that effect, time does not run. The financial consequences of cancellation are for national law, subject to the principle of effectiveness. Joined Cases C-355/18 to C-357/18 and C-479/18.

[Judgment on EUR-Lex](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0355) · [CURIA](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-355/18&language=en)

### CJEU 11.06.2020, C-581/18, TÜV Rheinland LGA Products and Allianz IARD

*Preliminary ruling, Grand Chamber* · ECLI:EU:C:2020:453 · para 60 · Article 18 TFEU; territorial limitation of liability insurance; medical devices

A patient living in Germany claimed from the liability insurer of the French manufacturer of breast implants, whose policy covered only damage occurring in France. The Grand Chamber held that the prohibition of discrimination in Article 18 TFEU does not apply to such a term, since EU law does not govern manufacturers' liability insurance for medical devices and the situation falls outside the scope of EU law. Territorial limits in liability policies must therefore be assessed under the applicable contract law and special legislation.

[Judgment on EUR-Lex](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0581) · [CURIA](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-581/18&language=en)

### CJEU 24.02.2022, C-143/20 and C-213/20, A and Others (unit-linked contracts)

*Preliminary ruling, Third Chamber* · ECLI:EU:C:2022:118 · paras 92, 108, 118, 126, 139 · Directive 2002/83/EC Art 36; Directive 2002/92/EC Art 12(3); unit-linked life insurance; group contract

In Poland consumers joined unit-linked group life insurance contracts as insured persons. The Court held that pre-contractual information must also be given to a consumer who joins a group contract as an insured person, and that information on the underlying assets must cover their essential characteristics and the nature and extent of structural risks. Important for information duties in unit-linked and group life insurance. Joined Cases C-143/20 and C-213/20.

[Judgment on EUR-Lex](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62020CJ0143) · [CURIA](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-143/20&language=en)

### CJEU 02.02.2023, C-208/21, Towarzystwo Ubezpieczeń Ż

*Preliminary ruling, Ninth Chamber* · ECLI:EU:C:2023:64 · para 72 · Directive 2005/29/EC Art 3(1); unfair commercial practices; unit-linked group contract

In Poland a consumer joined a unit-linked group contract on the proposal of another undertaking, and the standard terms did not allow him to understand the nature, structure and risks of the product. The Court held that drafting such terms may constitute an unfair commercial practice for which the insurer is responsible, even though another undertaking is the policyholder under the group contract. The ruling extends the insurer's responsibility along the distribution chain.

[Judgment on EUR-Lex](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62021CJ0208) · [CURIA](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-208/21&language=en)

### CJEU 20.04.2023, C-263/22, Ocidental

*Preliminary ruling, Ninth Chamber* · ECLI:EU:C:2023:311 · para 34 · Directive 93/13/EEC; opportunity to read terms; exclusion in life insurance

In Portugal a life insurer refused payment on the basis of an exclusion that the insured had not seen when the contract was concluded. Under Ocidental, the consumer's opportunity to read the terms before concluding the contract is important when assessing unfairness; if the national court finds a term excluding or limiting cover to be unfair, that term must not bind the consumer. Separately, under Estonian law, it is necessary to examine whether the standard term became part of the contract (VÕS § 37); the ruling also supports the insurer's duty to draw attention to exclusions.

[Judgment on EUR-Lex](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62022CJ0263) · [CURIA](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-263/22&language=en)

### CJEU 14.11.2024, C-646/22, Compass Banca

*Preliminary ruling, Fifth Chamber* · ECLI:EU:C:2024:957 · paras 59, 84, 97, 107 · Directive 2005/29/EC; average consumer; aggressive practices; cross-selling of loans and insurance

In Italy a financial institution offered a consumer a personal loan and an unrelated insurance product at the same time. The Court held that the average consumer is reasonably well informed, observant and circumspect, which does not preclude taking cognitive biases into account; offering a loan together with unrelated insurance is not in itself aggressive in all circumstances but must be assessed on the facts, including the way information is framed. Relevant to bancassurance and the distribution of add-on insurance.

[Judgment on EUR-Lex](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62022CJ0646) · [CURIA](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-646/22&language=en)