# C_2018427EN.01001801.xml

| 26.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 427/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 19 September 2018 — RB v TÜV Rheinland LGA Products GmbH and Others

(Case C-581/18)

(2018/C 427/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant: RB

Defendants and respondents: TÜV Rheinland LGA Products GmbH, Allianz IARD S.A.

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the prohibition of discrimination under Article 18(1) TFEU directed not only at the EU Member States and the Union institutions, but also at private parties (direct third-party effect of Article 18(1) TFEU)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the prohibition of discrimination under Article 18(1) TFEU directed not only at the EU Member States and the Union institutions, but also at private parties (direct third-party effect of Article 18(1) TFEU)?

| 2. | If the first question should be answered in the negative and Article 18(1) TFEU is not applicable to relations between private parties: Is Article 18(1) TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that this provision precludes restricting cover to cases of damage occurring in metropolitan France and the French overseas territories because the competent French authority, the Bureau central de tarification (central pricing office), did not object to the corresponding clause, even though that clause is contrary to Article 18(1) TFEU because it involves indirect discrimination on the basis of nationality? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question should be answered in the negative and Article 18(1) TFEU is not applicable to relations between private parties: Is Article 18(1) TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that this provision precludes restricting cover to cases of damage occurring in metropolitan France and the French overseas territories because the competent French authority, the Bureau central de tarification (central pricing office), did not object to the corresponding clause, even though that clause is contrary to Article 18(1) TFEU because it involves indirect discrimination on the basis of nationality?

| 3. | If the first question should be answered in the affirmative: Under what conditions can indirect discrimination be justified in cases of third-party effect? In particular: Can territorial restriction of insurance cover to cases of damage occurring within a certain EU Member State be justified with the argument of restriction of the liability obligation of the insurance company and the premium level if the relevant insurance policies at the same time provide that, in the event of serial damages, the cover per case of damage and the cover per insurance year are limited in terms of amount? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the first question should be answered in the affirmative: Under what conditions can indirect discrimination be justified in cases of third-party effect? In particular: Can territorial restriction of insurance cover to cases of damage occurring within a certain EU Member State be justified with the argument of restriction of the liability obligation of the insurance company and the premium level if the relevant insurance policies at the same time provide that, in the event of serial damages, the cover per case of damage and the cover per insurance year are limited in terms of amount?

| 4. | If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative: Is Article 18(1) TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that if, contrary to Article 18(1) TFEU, the insurer has only settled claims in cases of damage occurring in metropolitan France and the French overseas territories, it is prohibited from objecting that payment could not take place because the maximum cover amount was already reached, if the case of damage occurred outside of those territories? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative: Is Article 18(1) TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that if, contrary to Article 18(1) TFEU, the insurer has only settled claims in cases of damage occurring in metropolitan France and the French overseas territories, it is prohibited from objecting that payment could not take place because the maximum cover amount was already reached, if the case of damage occurred outside of those territories?

---