# CJEU: jurisdiction in insurance matters

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

> 17 judgments of the Court of Justice of the EU on jurisdiction in insurance matters: 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 17 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).

**Figure 1. Jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance (Brussels I bis, Arts 10–16)**

The scheme concerns parties domiciled in a Member State. Jurisdiction and the applicable law are separate questions.

- **Claimant: policyholder, insured or beneficiary** (Statutory rule)
  - courts of the Member State where the insurer is domiciled (Art 11(1)(a))
  - in another Member State, the courts for the place where the claimant is domiciled (Art 11(1)(b))
  - in liability insurance or insurance of immovable property, also the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred (Art 12)
  - in disputes arising out of a branch or agency, the Member State where it is situated (Art 11(2))
- **Claimant: the insurer** (Statutory rule)
  - only the courts of the Member State where the defendant is domiciled, whether policyholder, insured or beneficiary (Art 14(1))
  - counterclaim in the court where the original claim is pending (Art 14(2))
- **Direct action by the injured party** (Exception)
  - Arts 10–12 apply where direct actions are permitted (Art 13(2)); the Regulation itself creates no claim
  - the insurer may be joined in proceedings against the insured if the law of the court permits (Art 13(1))

> Statutory rule: A derogating jurisdiction agreement is allowed only in the cases in Art 15, e.g. after the dispute has arisen or for large risks under Art 16.

The applicable law is determined separately (Rome I and Rome II Regulations).

Legal basis: [Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, Arts 10–16](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32012R1215). Statutory text checked against the version in force on 9 November 2026.

## Synthesis

Section 3 of Chapter II of the Brussels Ibis Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Articles 10 to 16; formerly Articles 8 to 14 of Regulation No 44/2001 and Articles 7 to 12a of the Brussels Convention) protects the weaker party: the policyholder, the insured, the beneficiary and the injured party. The Court has allowed the injured party to bring a direct action against the insurer in the courts of his own domicile (FBTO) and extended this to an employer to whom the victim's rights passed, including a State acting as employer (MMA IARD, Mutua Madrileña), but not to a social security institution or a purchaser of claims (Vorarlberger, Hofsoe, CNP, T.B. and D.). The effect of jurisdiction agreements is limited (Peloux, Assens Havn, BALTA, A1 and A2), and reinsurance and claims between insurers fall outside the protective section (Group Josi, GIE Réunion européenne). For insurers this means that a foreign victim's claim must often be defended in the victim's home State.

## Judgments

### CJEU 13.07.2000, C-412/98, Group Josi

*Preliminary ruling, Sixth Chamber* · ECLI:EU:C:2000:399 · paras 61, 76 · Brussels Convention Title II and Arts 7 to 12a; reinsurance; claimant domiciled outside the EU

A Canadian insurer sued a Belgian reinsurer in France. The Court held that the Convention's jurisdiction rules apply in principle where the defendant is domiciled in a Contracting State, even if the claimant is domiciled in a non-member country (para 61), and that the special rules on insurance jurisdiction do not cover disputes between reinsurer and reinsured under a reinsurance contract (para 76). Contractual disputes between reinsurer and reinsured are therefore governed by the general rules of jurisdiction and the terms of a valid jurisdiction agreement. The judgment does not exempt such an agreement from the validity requirements. Where the policyholder, the insured or a beneficiary has a direct claim against the reinsurer under the applicable law, the protective jurisdiction rules for insurance matters may apply (para 75).

[Judgment on EUR-Lex](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:61998CJ0412) · [CURIA](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-412/98&language=en)

### CJEU 12.05.2005, C-112/03, Peloux

*Preliminary ruling, Second Chamber* · ECLI:EU:C:2005:280 · para 43 · Brussels Convention Art 12(3); jurisdiction agreement; beneficiary

A beneficiary sued a Belgian insurer in France, although the policyholder and the insurer had chosen the Belgian courts. The Court held that a jurisdiction agreement between policyholder and insurer cannot be relied on against a beneficiary who has not expressly subscribed to it and is domiciled in a Contracting State other than that of the policyholder and the insurer. The principle was developed further in C-803/18 BALTA.

[Judgment on EUR-Lex](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62003CJ0112) · [CURIA](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-112/03&language=en)

### CJEU 26.05.2005, C-77/04, GIE Réunion européenne and Others

*Preliminary ruling, First Chamber* · ECLI:EU:C:2005:327 · paras 24, 36 · Brussels Convention Art 6(2) and insurance section; multiple insurance; claim between insurers

A Spanish insurer was joined in French proceedings so that compensation could be shared under multiple insurance. The Court held that third-party proceedings between insurers based on multiple insurance are not subject to the Convention's insurance section, as there is no weaker party to protect (para 24), and that Article 6(2) on third-party proceedings may apply to such claims if the connection between the claims rules out abuse of that jurisdictional basis (para 36). Under Estonian law, § 486(3) of the Law of Obligations Act (VÕS) governs liability as between the insurers; § 487 concerns the elimination of multiple insurance. In cross-border cases, jurisdiction must be determined separately under the applicable procedural rules.

[Judgment on EUR-Lex](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62004CJ0077) · [CURIA](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-77/04&language=en)

### CJEU 13.12.2007, C-463/06, FBTO Schadeverzekeringen

*Preliminary ruling, Second Chamber* · ECLI:EU:C:2007:792 · para 31 · Regulation No 44/2001 Art 9(1)(b) and Art 11(2); direct action; forum of the victim's domicile

A victim domiciled in Germany sued a Dutch insurer in Germany after a road accident in the Netherlands. The Court held that the reference in Article 11(2) to Article 9(1)(b) means that the injured party may bring a direct action against the insurer before the courts of the Member State where he is domiciled, provided a direct action is permitted and the insurer is domiciled in a Member State. FBTO is the basis of cross-border claims jurisdiction: a victim in Estonia may sue a foreign insurer in Estonia, and vice versa.

[Judgment on EUR-Lex](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62006CJ0463) · [CURIA](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-463/06&language=en)

### CJEU 17.09.2009, C-347/08, Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse

*Preliminary ruling, Third Chamber* · ECLI:EU:C:2009:561 · para 47 · Regulation No 44/2001 Art 9(1)(b) and Art 11(2); social security institution; statutory subrogation

An Austrian social security institution, to which the rights of a road accident victim had passed by law, sued a German insurer in Austria. The Court held that a social security institution acting as statutory assignee cannot rely on the forum of its own seat against the insurer, since the protective jurisdiction is reserved for the weaker party. The ruling delimits jurisdiction over recourse claims, for example those of Estonian social security bodies against foreign insurers.

[Judgment on EUR-Lex](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62008CJ0347) · [CURIA](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-347/08&language=en)

### CJEU 20.05.2010, C-111/09, ČPP Vienna Insurance Group

*Preliminary ruling, Fourth Chamber* · ECLI:EU:C:2010:290 · para 33 · Regulation No 44/2001 Art 24; tacit prorogation; insurance matters

A Czech insurer sued a policyholder before a court lacking jurisdiction under the insurance section; the defendant appeared and did not contest jurisdiction. The Court held that the court must declare itself competent, since appearance without contesting jurisdiction amounts to tacit prorogation even in insurance matters. Article 26(2) of Brussels Ibis now requires the court first to inform the weaker party of the right to contest jurisdiction.

[Judgment on EUR-Lex](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62009CJ0111) · [CURIA](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-111/09&language=en)

### CJEU 21.01.2016, C-521/14, SOVAG

*Preliminary ruling, Fourth Chamber* · ECLI:EU:C:2016:41 · para 47 · Regulation No 44/2001 Art 6(2); third-party proceedings; recovery of insurance indemnity

In Finnish proceedings, an insurer that had paid compensation to the victim brought, within the same proceedings, a claim against an insurer from another Member State for reimbursement. The Court held that Article 6(2) covers an action brought by a third party under national law against the defendant in the main proceedings for reimbursement of insurance indemnities paid to the claimant, where it is closely connected with the main action and not brought solely to remove the defendant from the court otherwise competent.

[Judgment on EUR-Lex](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62014CJ0521) · [CURIA](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-521/14&language=en)

### CJEU 13.07.2017, C-368/16, Assens Havn

*Preliminary ruling, Eighth Chamber* · ECLI:EU:C:2017:546 · para 42 · Regulation No 44/2001 Art 13(5) and Art 14(2)(a); jurisdiction agreement; direct action

A Danish port brought a direct action in Denmark against the liability insurer of a tug whose policy contained an English jurisdiction clause. The Court held that a jurisdiction agreement between insurer and policyholder does not bind an injured party bringing a direct action against the insurer, even where the policy covers marine risks. Important for direct claims under liability policies (in Estonia VÕS § 521 and special statutes).

[Judgment on EUR-Lex](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62016CJ0368) · [CURIA](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-368/16&language=en)

### CJEU 20.07.2017, C-340/16, MMA IARD

*Preliminary ruling, Third Chamber* · ECLI:EU:C:2017:576 · paras 35, 39 · Regulation No 44/2001 Art 9(1)(b) and Art 11(2); employer as injured party

An Austrian employer continued to pay the salary of an employee injured in a road accident in Italy and, as subrogee, sued the French insurer in Austria. The Court held that an employer to whom the employee's rights to compensation have passed and who continued paying the salary may, as an injured party, sue the insurer in the courts of the place where it is established (paras 35, 39). Unlike a social security institution, the employer is treated as a weaker party. See also C-536/23 Mutua Madrileña (State as employer).

[Judgment on EUR-Lex](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62016CJ0340) · [CURIA](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-340/16&language=en)

### CJEU 31.01.2018, C-106/17, Hofsoe

*Preliminary ruling, Eighth Chamber* · ECLI:EU:C:2018:50 · para 47 · Regulation No 1215/2012 Art 13(2) and Art 11(1)(b); claims purchaser; professional collector

A Polish entrepreneur acquired a victim's claim against a German insurer and sued the insurer in Poland. The Court held that a person whose professional activity consists in recovering insurance claims as a contractual assignee cannot benefit from the special jurisdiction of the injured party's domicile. Claims purchasers must rely on the general rules, including Article 7(2); see also C-913/19 CNP and C-393/20 T.B. and D.

[Judgment on EUR-Lex](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62017CJ0106) · [CURIA](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-106/17&language=en)

### CJEU 27.02.2020, C-803/18, BALTA

*Preliminary ruling, Sixth Chamber* · ECLI:EU:C:2020:123 · para 46 · Regulation No 1215/2012 Art 15(5) and Art 16(5); large risks; jurisdiction agreement against the insured

In a Lithuanian reference, a large-risk contract between a Latvian insurer and the policyholder chose the Latvian courts; an insured established in Lithuania sued the insurer in Lithuania. The Court held that a jurisdiction clause in a large-risk contract cannot be relied on against an insured who is not a professional in the insurance sector, did not agree to the clause and is domiciled in a Member State other than that of the policyholder and the insurer. Relevant for group and programme policies used across the Baltic States.

[Judgment on EUR-Lex](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0803) · [CURIA](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-803/18&language=en)

### CJEU 20.05.2021, C-913/19, CNP

*Preliminary ruling, Third Chamber* · ECLI:EU:C:2021:399 · paras 47, 61 · Regulation No 1215/2012 Art 13(2), Art 7(2) and (5); assignee; claims handler as branch

A Polish company acquired a victim's claim against a Danish insurer. The Court held that the protective insurance jurisdiction does not apply to a dispute between the assignee undertaking and the insurer; jurisdiction may instead rest on Article 7(2) or 7(5) (para 47). A company handling MTPL claims in a Member State on behalf of an insurer established elsewhere may be a branch, agency or other establishment if it appears permanently as an extension of the insurer and has management and material equipment to negotiate with third parties (para 61).

[Judgment on EUR-Lex](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62019CJ0913) · [CURIA](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-913/19&language=en)

### CJEU 21.10.2021, C-393/20, T.B. and D.

*Preliminary ruling, Eighth Chamber* · ECLI:EU:C:2021:871 · paras 43, 54 · Regulation No 1215/2012 Art 13(2), Art 11(1)(b) and Art 7(2); assignee; place of the harmful event

A company that provided services to the direct victim of a road accident in connection with the damage acquired the victim's claim for consideration and pursued it against the tortfeasor's insurer. The Court held that such a company cannot rely on the protective insurance jurisdiction even if it is not a professional collector of claims (para 43), but an assignee may, under Article 7(2), sue an insurer established in another Member State before the courts of the place where the harmful event occurred (para 54). The judgment is available in French; there is no English or Estonian text on EUR-Lex.

[Judgment on EUR-Lex (French only)](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62020CJ0393) · [CURIA](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-393/20&language=en)

### CJEU 09.12.2021, C-708/20, BT (joining the insured)

*Preliminary ruling, Eighth Chamber* · ECLI:EU:C:2021:986 · para 38 · Regulation No 1215/2012 Art 13(3); direct action; insured as co-defendant

A person domiciled in one Member State was injured in a dwelling rented in another and sued, in his home courts, both the owner's liability insurer and the insured domiciled abroad. The Court held that the courts of the victim's domicile seised of a direct action against the insurer have no jurisdiction over a claim against a policyholder or insured domiciled in another Member State whom the insurer has not joined. The ruling limits joinder of defendants in cross-border liability cases.

[Judgment on EUR-Lex](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62020CJ0708) · [CURIA](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-708/20&language=en)

### CJEU 30.06.2022, C-652/20, Allianz Elementar Versicherung

*Preliminary ruling, Eighth Chamber* · ECLI:EU:C:2022:514 · para 57 · Regulation No 1215/2012 Art 11(1)(b); international and territorial jurisdiction

The question was whether Article 11(1)(b) determines only international jurisdiction or also the specific court. The Court held that, where applicable, it determines both international jurisdiction and territorial competence: the action may be brought before the court for the place where the claimant is domiciled. An insurer cannot therefore insist on transfer to another court of the same State under domestic venue rules.

[Judgment on EUR-Lex](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62020CJ0652) · [CURIA](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-652/20&language=en)

### CJEU 27.04.2023, C-352/21, A1 and A2

*Preliminary ruling, Sixth Chamber* · ECLI:EU:C:2023:344 · para 55 · Regulation No 1215/2012 Art 15(5) and Art 16(5); pleasure boat hull insurance; large risks

The question was whether hull insurance for a pleasure boat used for non-commercial purposes is a large risk for which jurisdiction may freely be agreed. The Court held that such insurance is not among the risks referred to in Article 16(5), so a jurisdiction clause cannot depart from the policyholder's protective jurisdiction. Relevant when drafting terms for yacht and small craft insurance.

[Judgment on EUR-Lex](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62021CJ0352) · [CURIA](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-352/21&language=en)

### CJEU 30.04.2025, C-536/23, Mutua Madrileña Automovilista

*Preliminary ruling, Fourth Chamber* · ECLI:EU:C:2025:293 · para 49 · Regulation No 1215/2012 Art 13(2) and Art 11(1)(b); State as employer; injured party

Germany, as employer, continued to pay the salary of a civil servant injured in a road accident and claimed it directly from the Spanish insurer. The Court held that a Member State to which the injured civil servant's rights have passed as employer may sue the insurer as an injured party, not in the courts of the civil servant's domicile but in those of the place where the employing administrative unit is established. The judgment extends MMA IARD to public employers.

[Judgment on EUR-Lex](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62023CJ0536) · [CURIA](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-536/23&language=en)