This page is part of the overview of Court of Justice insurance case law. It collects 7 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
In the single insurance market, the home Member State's supervisor is primarily responsible for an insurer; the host authority may intervene through the cooperation procedure or in an emergency (Onix Asigurări, NOVIS). Recognition of an insurer's winding-up and the effect on pending lawsuits depend on the conflict rules of Solvency II (Paget Approbois, Bulstrad). Competition cases concern agreements between insurers and repair shops and information exchanges to raise premiums (Allianz Hungária, Manfredi). An aviation insurance case clarifies the concept of passenger (Wucher Helicopter). In Estonia see the Insurance Activities Act and the powers of the Financial Supervision Authority (Finantsinspektsioon) over insurers operating under the freedom to provide services.
Judgments
CJEU 13.07.2006, C-295/04 to C-298/04, Manfredi and Others
Preliminary ruling, Third Chamber · ECLI:EU:C:2006:461 · paras 95, 98, 100; operative part · Article 81 EC (Article 101 TFEU); information exchange between insurers; MTPL premiums; damages
Italian MTPL insurers had exchanged information that allowed premiums to be raised irrespective of market conditions, and policyholders claimed damages. The Court held that such an agreement may also infringe EU competition law if it appreciably affects trade between Member States, and that any individual may claim compensation for harm causally linked to a prohibited agreement. An injured person must be able to claim compensation for actual loss, loss of profit and interest (paras 95 and 100). In the absence of relevant EU rules, other conditions are determined by national law, subject to the principles of equivalence and effectiveness (para 98; point 5 of the operative part). Joined Cases C-295/04 to C-298/04.
CJEU 14.03.2013, C-32/11, Allianz Hungária Biztosító and Others
Preliminary ruling, First Chamber · ECLI:EU:C:2013:160 · para 51 · Article 101(1) TFEU; insurer and repair shop agreement; restriction by object
In Hungary insurers agreed with car dealers on hourly repair rates that depended on how many insurance contracts the dealer sold as the insurer's intermediary. The Court held that such an agreement may be a restriction of competition by object if, in its economic and legal context, it is sufficiently harmful to competition in the insurance or car repair market. Relevant to insurers' preferred repairer and commission arrangements.
CJEU 26.02.2015, C-6/14, Wucher Helicopter
Preliminary ruling, First Chamber · ECLI:EU:C:2015:122 · para 42 · Regulation (EC) No 785/2004 Art 3(g); Montreal Convention Art 17; aviation insurance requirements; passenger
In Austria a helicopter carried an avalanche blaster on board under a contract between his employer and the air carrier for a specific task, and he was injured. The Court held that such a person is a passenger within the Regulation on insurance requirements for air carriers and also within Article 17 of the Montreal Convention, provided the carriage is under a contract of carriage. The ruling determines whose injuries the carrier's compulsory insurance must cover.
CJEU 27.04.2017, C-559/15, Onix Asigurări
Preliminary ruling, Third Chamber · ECLI:EU:C:2017:316 · paras 44, 49, 53 · Directives 73/239/EEC and 92/49/EEC; freedom to provide services; host State supervision
The Italian supervisor prohibited a Romanian insurer operating under the freedom to provide services from concluding new contracts because its managers lacked the required good repute. The Court held that the host authority may not impose such a prohibition on that ground, since good repute is for the home State (paras 44 and 49), although in an emergency it may take appropriate measures where there is a real and imminent risk to policyholders (para 53). The ruling delimits the Estonian supervisor's powers over insurers operating on a freedom-of-services basis.
CJEU 12.11.2020, C-427/19, Bulstrad Vienna Insurance Group
Preliminary ruling, First Chamber · ECLI:EU:C:2020:914 · paras 36, 42 · Directive 2009/138/EC (Solvency II) Art 274; withdrawal of authorisation; provisional liquidator
In Bulgarian proceedings, a claim was pending against an insurer whose authorisation had been withdrawn in its home State and for which a provisional liquidator had been appointed. The Court held that such a decision is a decision to open winding-up proceedings only if home State law empowers the liquidator to realise assets and distribute the proceeds to creditors or provides for an equivalent winding-up (para 36); otherwise courts of other Member States need not apply home State law requiring proceedings to be stayed (para 42).
CJEU 13.01.2022, C-724/20, Paget Approbois
Preliminary ruling, Third Chamber · ECLI:EU:C:2022:9 · paras 57, 67 · Directive 2009/138/EC (Solvency II) Art 292; winding-up of an insurer; pending lawsuit
In France a claim for compensation was pending against a Danish insurer that became subject to winding-up proceedings in its home State. The Court held that such a claim is a 'pending lawsuit' within Article 292 of Solvency II, and the effects of the winding-up on it are governed by the law of the Member State in which the lawsuit is pending. Relevant where a foreign insurer that is a defendant in Estonian proceedings becomes insolvent.
CJEU 22.01.2026, C-18/24, NOVIS
Preliminary ruling, Fourth Chamber · ECLI:EU:C:2026:33 · paras 72, 83 · Directive 2009/138/EC (Solvency II) Art 155; host State supervision; PRIIPs and IDD
A Slovak insurer operated in Czechia through a branch and under the freedom to provide services, and the Czech supervisor found breaches. The Court held that the cooperation procedure in Article 155 of Solvency II applies where the host supervisor establishes that an insurer operating through a branch or on a freedom-of-services basis does not comply with obligations under the PRIIPs Regulation or the IDD. A new ruling on cross-border distribution supervision.