Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse v WGV-Schwäbische Allgemeine Versicherungs AG.

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• Celex Number: 62008CJ0347
• ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:2009:561
• Docket Number: C-347/08
• Court: Court of Justice (European Union)
• Procedure Type: Reference for a preliminary ruling
• Date: 17 September 2009

Case C-347/08

Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse

v

WGV-Schwäbische Allgemeine Versicherungs AG

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Feldkirch)

(Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Articles 9(1)(b) and 11(2) – Jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance – Motor accident – Statutory assignment of the rights of an injured party in favour of a social security institution – Action for recovery against the insurer of a person allegedly liable – Objective of protecting the weaker party)

Summary of the Judgment

Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation No 44/2001 – Jurisdiction in insurance matters

(Council Regulation No 44/2001, Arts 9(1)(b) and 11(2))

The reference in Article 11(2) of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to Article 9(1)(b) thereof must be interpreted as meaning that a social security institution, acting as the statutory assignee of the rights of the party directly injured in a motor accident, may not bring an action directly in the courts of its Member State of establishment against the insurer of the person allegedly responsible for the accident, where that insurer is established in another Member State. In that regard, Section 3 of Chapter II of Regulation No 44/2001 establishes an autonomous system for the conferral of jurisdiction in matters of insurance with the purpose of protecting the weaker party by rules of jurisdiction more favourable to his interests than the general rules provide for. However, a social security institution cannot be considered to be an economically weaker party and less experienced legally than a civil liability insurer, meaning that no special protection is justified in relations between those professionals in the insurance sector.

(see paras 40-43, 47, operative part)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber)

17 September 2009 (*)

(Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Articles 9(1)(b) and 11(2) – Jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance – Motor accident – Statutory assignment of the rights of an injured party in favour of a social security institution – Action for recovery against the insurer of a person allegedly liable – Objective of protecting the weaker party)

In Case C‑347/08,

REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Articles 68 EC and 234 EC from the Landesgericht Feldkirch (Austria), made by decision of 14 July 2008, received at the Court on 28 July 2008, in the proceedings

Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse

v

WGV-Schwäbische Allgemeine Versicherungs AG,

THE COURT (Third Chamber),

composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, A. Ó Caoimh, J. Klučka (Rapporteur), U. Lõhmus and P. Lindh, Judges,

Advocate General: P. Mengozzi,

Registrar: R. Şereş, Administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 1 July 2009,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

– the Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse by A. Wittwer, Rechtsanwalt,

– WGV-Schwäbische Allgemeine Versicherungs AG by A. Weber, Rechtsanwalt,

– the Austrian Government by C. Pesendorfer and G. Kunnert, acting as Agents,

– the Czech Government by M. Smolek, acting as Agent,

– the German Government by M. Lumma and J. Kemper, acting as Agents,

– the Spanish Government by J. López‑Medel Báscones, acting as Agent,

– the Italian Government by I. Bruni, acting as Agent, and W. Ferrante, avvocato dello Stato,

– the Commission of the European Communities by A.‑M. Rouchaud‑Joët and S. Grünheid, acting as Agents,

having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,

gives the following

Judgment

1 This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).

2 The reference has been made in the context of an action for recovery by the Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse, established in Dornbirn (Austria) (‘VGKK’), against WGV-Schwäbische Allgemeine Versicherungs AG, established in Stuttgart (Germany) (‘WGV-SAV’).

Legal context

Community law

Regulation No 44/2001

3 Recitals 11 to 13 in the preamble to Regulation No 44/2001 provide:

‘(11) The rules of jurisdiction must be highly predictable and founded on the principle that jurisdiction is generally based on the defendant’s domicile and jurisdiction must always be available on this ground save in a few well‑defined situations in which the subject‑matter of the litigation or the autonomy of the parties warrants a different linking factor. The domicile of a legal person must be defined autonomously so as to make the common rules more transparent and avoid conflicts of jurisdiction.

(12) In addition to the defendant’s domicile, there should be alternative grounds of jurisdiction based on a close link between the court and the action or in order to facilitate the sound administration of justice.

(13) In relation to insurance, consumer contracts and employment, the weaker party should be protected by rules of jurisdiction more favourable to his interests than the general rules provide for.’

4 The rules on jurisdiction enacted by Regulation No 44/2001 appear in Chapter II thereof which comprises Articles 2 to 31.

5 Article 2(1) of that regulation, which forms part of Section 1 of Chapter II, entitled ‘General Provisions’, provides:

‘Subject to this Regulation, persons domiciled in a Member State shall, whatever their nationality, be sued in the courts of that Member State.’

6 Article 3(1) in the same section of that regulation provides:

‘Persons domiciled in a Member State may be sued in the courts of another Member State only by virtue of the rules set out in Sections 2 to 7 of this Chapter.’

7 In Articles 8 to 14, Section 3, headed ‘Jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance’, of Chapter II, sets out the rules on jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance.

8 Article 8 of that regulation states:

‘In matters relating to insurance, jurisdiction shall be determined by this Section, without prejudice to Article 4 and point 5 of Article 5.’

9 Article 9(1) of the regulation provides:

‘An insurer domiciled in a Member State may be sued:

(a) in the courts of the Member State where he is domiciled, or

(b) in another Member State, in the case of actions brought by the policyholder, the insured or a beneficiary, in the courts for the place where the plaintiff is domiciled ...

…’

10 Under Article 11(2) of Regulation No 44/2001:

‘Articles 8, 9 and 10 shall apply to actions brought by the injured party directly against the insurer, where such direct actions are permitted.’

Directive 2000/26/EC

11Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 May 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (OJ 2000 L 181, p. 65), as amended by Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 14) (‘Directive 2000/26’), provides in Article 3, entitled ‘Direct right of action’:

‘Each Member State shall ensure that injured parties referred to in...