# C_2014024EN.01000303.xml

| 25.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 28 October 2013 — UAB ‘Litaksa’ v ‘BTA Insurance Company’ SE

(Case C-556/13)

2014/C 24/06

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UAB ‘Litaksa’

Applicant:

Defendant:‘BTA Insurance Company’ SE

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 2 of Directive 90/232/EEC, (1) as amended by Article 4 of Directive 2005/14/EC, (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the parties to an insurance contract do not have the right to agree on a territorial restriction of the insurance cover for the person insured (to apply a different insurance premium depending on the territory in which the vehicle is used — either in the whole of the European Union or only in the Republic of Lithuania), but in any event without the cover of victims being restricted, that is to say, to define use of the vehicle outside the Republic of Lithuania in another Member State of the European Union as a factor increasing the insurance risk, in which event an additional insurance premium has to be paid? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 2 of Directive 90/232/EEC, (1) as amended by Article 4 of Directive 2005/14/EC, (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the parties to an insurance contract do not have the right to agree on a territorial restriction of the insurance cover for the person insured (to apply a different insurance premium depending on the territory in which the vehicle is used — either in the whole of the European Union or only in the Republic of Lithuania), but in any event without the cover of victims being restricted, that is to say, to define use of the vehicle outside the Republic of Lithuania in another Member State of the European Union as a factor increasing the insurance risk, in which event an additional insurance premium has to be paid?

1

2

| 2. | Are the principle of the free movement of persons and vehicles in the entire area of the European Union and the general European Union principle of equality (non-discrimination) to be interpreted as being contravened by the aforementioned agreement of the parties to an insurance contract, whereby the insurance risk is linked to the territorial use of the vehicle? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are the principle of the free movement of persons and vehicles in the entire area of the European Union and the general European Union principle of equality (non-discrimination) to be interpreted as being contravened by the aforementioned agreement of the parties to an insurance contract, whereby the insurance risk is linked to the territorial use of the vehicle?

---

(1)  Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33).

1

(2)  Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 amending Council Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 88/357/EEC and 90/232/EEC and Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 14).

2

---