Opinion of Advocate General Richard de la Tour delivered on 9 January 2025.

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• Court: Court of Justice (European Union)
• ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:2025:7
• Date: 09 January 2025

Provisional text

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL

RICHARD DE LA TOUR

delivered on 9 January 2025 (1)

Case C‑536/23

Bundesrepublik Deutschland

v

Mutua Madrileña Automovilista

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I (Regional Court, Munich I, Germany))

( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 – Article 11(1)(b) – Article 13(2) – Jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance – Scope of the special rules of jurisdiction – Road traffic accident – Direct action by the injured party against the insurer – Concept of ‘injured party’ – Subrogation of the employer to the rights of its employee who was injured in the accident – Initiation of direct actions by a Member State in its capacity as an employer – Place where the claimant is domiciled )

I. Introduction

1. In adopting the special rules of jurisdiction which Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (2) lays down in matters relating to insurance, the EU legislature sought to pursue the objective of protecting the weaker party. (3) While it is relatively easy to identify the weaker party where the dispute is between, as is usually the case, the person injured in a road traffic accident and the insurance company of the vehicle responsible for that accident, it can prove to be more difficult where legal proceedings are brought by the injured person’s employer, which is subrogated to the rights of that person.

2. The Court is not unfamiliar with such a situation, since it has previously held that it follows from Regulation No 1215/2012 that an employer, established in one Member State, which continued to pay the remuneration of its employee absent as the result of a road traffic accident and to which have passed the employee’s rights with regard to the company insuring the civil liability resulting from the vehicle involved in that accident, which is established in a second Member State, may, in the capacity of ‘injured party’, within the meaning of Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, (4) sue the insurance company before the courts of the first Member State, where such a direct action is permitted. (5)

3. The particular feature of this reference for a preliminary ruling is the fact that the person who was injured in the road traffic accident is an official and that the employer subrogated to her rights is therefore a State.

4. In the present Opinion, I shall endeavour to explain why the solution already adopted by the Court can be applied, without betraying either the letter or the spirit of Regulation No 1215/2012, in a situation where the employer bringing the action, which it is common ground is subrogated to the rights of the person who was injured, is a State. In so doing, I shall also take the opportunity afforded by this reference for a preliminary ruling to clarify and explain the Court’s previous case-law concerning the determination of both the international and local jurisdiction of the court before which such an action may be brought, in this specific situation in which the connecting factor of the claimant’s domicile must be applied to a State.

II. Legal framework

5. Recitals 15, 16, 18 and 34 and Article 1(1), Article 4(1) and Article 5(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 are relevant in the present case.

6. Moreover, reference should be made to Section 3 of Chapter II of Regulation No 1215/2012, entitled ‘Jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance’, which comprises Articles 10 to 16 of the regulation.

7. Article 10 of that regulation reads as follows:

‘In matters relating to insurance, jurisdiction shall be determined by this Section, without prejudice to Article 6 and point 5 of Article 7.’

8. Article 11(1)(a) and (b) of that regulation provides:

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

(a) in the courts of the Member State in which he is domiciled;

(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 claimant is domiciled …’

9. Article 13(2) of that regulation provides:

‘Articles 10, 11 and 12 shall apply to actions brought by the injured party directly against the insurer, where such direct actions are permitted.’

10. Finally, Article 63(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 is worded as follows:

‘For the purposes of this Regulation, a company or other legal person or association of natural or legal persons is domiciled at the place where it has its:

(a) statutory seat;

(b) central administration; or

(c) principal place of business.’

III. The facts in the main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling

11. A federal official working at the Munich (Germany) office of the Deutsche Patent- und Markenamt (German Patent and Trade Mark Office) was injured in a road traffic accident on 8 March 2020 while on holiday in Spain. The rental car which collided with that official while she was cycling was covered by civil liability insurance provided by a Spanish insurance company, Mutua Madrileña Automovilista (‘the insurance company’).

12. As a result of the injuries resulting from that accident, the official was unfit for work from 8 March 2020 to 16 March 2020. During that period, her employer – the German State – continued to pay her remuneration. By letter of 25 January 2021, the German State requested from the insurance company’s claims representative appointed in Germany (6) reimbursement of the continued remuneration, that is to say, the sum of EUR 1 432.77. Being of the view that it was the official who had caused the accident, that representative refused to pay.

13. The German State, still acting in its capacity as an employer, then brought a civil action against the insurance company before the Amtsgericht München (Local Court, Munich, Germany), seeking payment of the remuneration at issue. Since that company had its registered office in Spain, it argued that that court lacked international jurisdiction and contested the merits of the action.

14. In a judgment of 16 February 2022, the Amtsgericht München (Local Court, Munich) declined international jurisdiction. That court therefore ruled that the German State could not rely on jurisdiction based on Article 11(1)(b) and Article 13(2) of Regulation No 1215/2012, since those provisions lay down derogating rules which must be interpreted strictly and the benefit of which cannot be extended to an employer when it is a State. After carrying out a general assessment of the need for protection, the Amtsgericht München (Local Court, Munich) concluded that the German State, which also carries out activities as a social security institution, in particular in the field of pension and sickness insurance schemes, could not rely on those rules.

15. The German State appealed to the Landgericht München I (Regional Court, Munich I, Germany), the referring court. As the official’s employer, the German State submits that it could correctly rely on Article 11(1)(b) and Article 13(2) of Regulation No 1215/2012, since it had acquired, by way of subrogation by operation of law, the official’s right to claim compensation from the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident in which she had been injured. It follows from the case-law of the Court relating to the rules laid down by those provisions, (7) first, that there is no need to make an assessment on a case-by-case basis or to draw any distinction according to the criterion of weakness and, secondly, that, in order to ensure predictability of jurisdiction, any assignee acting by way of statutory subrogation, and not as an insurer or social security institution, should be able to bring an action before the courts for the place where the injured party is domiciled.

16. For its part, the insurance company, the defendant in the main proceedings, submits before the referring court that it follows from the objective of protection covered by Article 11(1)(b) and Article 13 of Regulation No 1215/2012 that only a party in a weaker position than the insurer which it is suing can rely on that privilege derogating from the principle that the courts of the defendant’s domicile have jurisdiction. Moreover, the Court has denied that possibility both to a social security institution and to professionals in the insurance sector, regardless of their size. (8) The existence of such a weak position must be excluded where the claimant is a Member State of the European Union, and therefore a body governed by public international law, a fortiori where that body provides benefits which, by their nature, correspond to social security benefits and supervises the insurance sector on its territory, as does the applicant in the main proceedings.

17. According to the referring court, the merits of the appeal depend on whether the court at first instance was correct in declining jurisdiction pursuant to Article 11(1)(b) and Article 13(2) of Regulation No 1215/2012. It points out, in that regard, that it is not disputed by the parties to the main proceedings that the German State intends to bring, in accordance with the applicable provisions of Spanish law (9) and on the basis of an assignment of rights under German civil law, (10) a direct action against the insurance company in that company’s capacity as the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident in which the official was injured.

18. In the light of the arguments put forward by each of the parties and the national case-law as it stands, (11) the referring court asks whether a Member State which, as an employer, brings a direct action against an insurer on the basis of a statutory subrogation to the rights of an official who has been injured in an accident may rely – notwithstanding the fact that they are derogating rules – on the special rules of jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance provided for the benefit of the ‘injured party’, (12) by the combined provisions of Article 11(1)(b) and...