# C_2022109EN.01001201.xml

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Paget Approbois SAS v Depeyre entreprises SARL, Alpha Insurance A/S

(Case C-724/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Business of Insurance and Reinsurance - Directive 2009/138/EC - Winding-up of insurance undertakings - Article 292 - Effects of winding-up proceedings on pending lawsuits - Exception to the application of the lex concursus - Lex processus)

(2022/C 109/17)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Paget Approbois SAS

Defendant: Depeyre entreprises SARL, Alpha Insurance A/S

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 292 of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II) must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘pending lawsuit concerning an asset or a right of which the insurance undertaking has been divested’, referred to in that article, includes a pending lawsuit concerning an insurance compensation claim brought by a policyholder in respect of losses sustained in one Member State against an insurance undertaking subject to winding-up proceedings in another Member State. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 292 of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II) must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘pending lawsuit concerning an asset or a right of which the insurance undertaking has been divested’, referred to in that article, includes a pending lawsuit concerning an insurance compensation claim brought by a policyholder in respect of losses sustained in one Member State against an insurance undertaking subject to winding-up proceedings in another Member State.

| 2. | Article 292 of Directive 2009/138/EC must be interpreted as meaning that the law of the Member State in which the proceedings are pending, within the meaning of that article, is intended to govern all the effects of the winding-up proceedings on the pending lawsuit. In particular, it is appropriate to apply the law of that Member State which, first, provides that the opening of such proceedings results in the suspension of the pending lawsuit, secondly, make the resumption of the proceedings conditional upon the creditor having lodged his claim for an insurance indemnity against the insurance undertaking and upon notice of the dispute having been given to the bodies responsible for conducting the winding-up proceedings, and thirdly, precludes an order to pay the insurance compensation, since such an order can no longer be the subject of a judgment except relating to the determination and fixing the amount of the compensation, since, in principle, such provisions do not encroach on the jurisdiction reserved to the law of the home Member State pursuant to Article 274(2) of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 292 of Directive 2009/138/EC must be interpreted as meaning that the law of the Member State in which the proceedings are pending, within the meaning of that article, is intended to govern all the effects of the winding-up proceedings on the pending lawsuit. In particular, it is appropriate to apply the law of that Member State which, first, provides that the opening of such proceedings results in the suspension of the pending lawsuit, secondly, make the resumption of the proceedings conditional upon the creditor having lodged his claim for an insurance indemnity against the insurance undertaking and upon notice of the dispute having been given to the bodies responsible for conducting the winding-up proceedings, and thirdly, precludes an order to pay the insurance compensation, since such an order can no longer be the subject of a judgment except relating to the determination and fixing the amount of the compensation, since, in principle, such provisions do not encroach on the jurisdiction reserved to the law of the home Member State pursuant to Article 274(2) of that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 79, 8.3.2021.

---