# C_2014329EN.01000901.xml

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 23 July 2014 — ERGO Insurance SE, acting through its Lithuanian branch ERGO Insurance SE v If P&C Insurance AS, acting through its branch If P&C Insurance AS

(Case C-359/14)

2014/C 329/11

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Referring court

Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ERGO Insurance SE, acting through its Lithuanian branch ERGO Insurance SE

Applicant:

Defendant: If P&C Insurance AS, acting through its branch If P&C Insurance AS

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 4(4) of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 [June] 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) (1), which provides that ‘[w]here the law applicable cannot be determined pursuant to paragraphs 1 or 2, the contract shall be governed by the law of the country with which it is most closely connected’, be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those which have arisen in the present case, German law has to be applied? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 4(4) of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 [June] 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) (1), which provides that ‘[w]here the law applicable cannot be determined pursuant to paragraphs 1 or 2, the contract shall be governed by the law of the country with which it is most closely connected’, be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those which have arisen in the present case, German law has to be applied?

1

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the negative, must the principle laid down in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) (2) be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those which have arisen in the present case, the law to be applied to the dispute between the insurer of the tractor and the insurer of the trailer must be determined in accordance with the law of the country of the place in which the damage resulting from the road accident occurred? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the negative, must the principle laid down in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) (2) be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those which have arisen in the present case, the law to be applied to the dispute between the insurer of the tractor and the insurer of the trailer must be determined in accordance with the law of the country of the place in which the damage resulting from the road accident occurred?

2

---

(1)  OJ L 177, p. 6.

1

(2)  OJ L 199, p. 40.

2

---