# CJEU: legal expenses insurance URL: https://insurancelawestonia.ee/court-of-justice-eu/legal-expenses-insurance/ Author: Dr Olavi-Jüri Luik, Partner, Head of Insurance Law, attorney at law (Advokaadibüroo WIDEN OÜ) Last updated: 2026-11-08 > 6 judgments of the Court of Justice of the EU on legal expenses insurance: 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 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](https://insurancelawestonia.ee/court-of-justice-eu#how-to-use-this-overview). ## Synthesis The core guarantee in legal expenses insurance is the insured's free choice of lawyer (formerly Article 4 of Directive 87/344/EEC, now Article 201 of Solvency II). The Court reads it broadly: the insurer may not itself select the lawyer for all insureds in a mass claim (Eschig) or make cover of a freely chosen lawyer's fees depend on its own assessment that outside help is needed (Sneller); free choice applies already in administrative and objection procedures and in court-related mediation (Massar, AK, Orde van Vlaamse Balies). Limiting the amount of costs is permitted if it does not render the freedom of choice meaningless (Stark). In Estonia see VÕS § 528 (choice of lawyer) and §§ 526 and 527. ## Judgments ### CJEU 10.09.2009, C-199/08, Eschig *Preliminary ruling, Second Chamber* · ECLI:EU:C:2009:538 · para 68 · Directive 87/344/EEC Art 4(1)(a); free choice of lawyer; mass claims In Austria many investors suffered loss through the same investment firm, and the legal expenses insurer wished to select the lawyer for all insureds. The Court held that the insurer may not reserve the right to select the legal representative for all insureds where a large number of them have suffered loss as a result of the same event. Important for class and mass actions and investment losses. [Judgment on EUR-Lex](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62008CJ0199) · [CURIA](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-199/08&language=en) ### CJEU 26.05.2011, C-293/10, Stark *Preliminary ruling, Fourth Chamber* · ECLI:EU:C:2011:355 · para 36 · Directive 87/344/EEC Art 4(1); location of the lawyer; limitation of costs An Austrian policy term allowed the insured to choose only a lawyer whose office was located where the competent court or authority of first instance sat. The Court held that the Directive does not preclude such an agreement if the restriction concerns only the extent of costs covered by the insurer and the payment actually made is sufficient, so that freedom of choice is not rendered meaningless. Cost-based limits are allowed, prohibitions of choice are not. [Judgment on EUR-Lex](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62010CJ0293) · [CURIA](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-293/10&language=en) ### CJEU 07.11.2013, C-442/12, Sneller *Preliminary ruling, Eighth Chamber* · ECLI:EU:C:2013:717 · paras 29, 32 · Directive 87/344/EEC Art 4(1)(a); freely chosen lawyer; legal assistance by insurer's staff In the Netherlands a legal expenses insurer provided assistance through its own employees and refused to pay for a lawyer chosen by the insured because it considered outside help unnecessary; representation by a lawyer was not mandatory. The Court held that the insurer may not make cover of a freely chosen lawyer's costs conditional on its own assessment of the need for outside help, whether or not representation is mandatory. The contract may, however, set limits on the amount of costs. [Judgment on EUR-Lex](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62012CJ0442) · [CURIA](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-442/12&language=en) ### CJEU 07.04.2016, C-460/14, Massar *Preliminary ruling, Tenth Chamber* · ECLI:EU:C:2016:216 · para 28 · Directive 87/344/EEC Art 4(1)(a); administrative proceedings; permission to dismiss In the Netherlands an employer applied to a public authority for permission to dismiss an employee, who wished to be represented by a lawyer of his choice. The Court held that 'administrative proceedings' include proceedings in which a public authority authorises an employer to terminate the employment contract of an employee who has legal expenses insurance. Free choice is therefore not limited to court proceedings. [Judgment on EUR-Lex](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62014CJ0460) · [CURIA](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-460/14&language=en) ### CJEU 07.04.2016, C-5/15, AK (Achmea) *Preliminary ruling, Tenth Chamber* · ECLI:EU:C:2016:218 · para 26 · Directive 87/344/EEC Art 4(1)(a); objection procedure; free choice of lawyer In a Dutch reference, the question was whether free choice of lawyer applies already in an objection procedure against a public authority's decision. The Court held that 'administrative proceedings' include objection procedures before a public body, so the insured may choose a lawyer at that stage. Decided on the same day as Massar, it confirms the broad scope of free choice. [Judgment on EUR-Lex](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62015CJ0005) · [CURIA](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-5/15&language=en) ### CJEU 14.05.2020, C-667/18, Orde van Vlaamse Balies and Others *Preliminary ruling, Third Chamber* · ECLI:EU:C:2020:372 · para 42 · Directive 2009/138/EC (Solvency II) Art 201(1)(a); judicial proceedings; mediation Belgian bar associations challenged a law on legal expenses insurance that did not extend free choice to mediation. The Court held that 'judicial proceedings' in Article 201 of Solvency II include judicial or extrajudicial mediation in which a court is or may be involved, either when the mediation is initiated or after it ends. The insured may therefore choose a lawyer in such mediation. [Judgment on EUR-Lex](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0667) · [CURIA](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-667/18&language=en)