# C_2019112EN.01000602.xml

| 25.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 31 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa — Portugal) — Agostinho da Silva Martins v Dekra Claims Services Portugal SA

(Case C-149/18) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Law applicable to non-contractual obligations - Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 (Rome II) - Articles 16 and 27 - Overriding mandatory provisions - Directive 2009/103/EC - Civil liability insurance for motor vehicles - Article 28))

(2019/C 112/08)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Agostinho da Silva Martins

Respondent: Dekra Claims Services Portugal SA

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 16 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) must be interpreted as meaning that a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the limitation period for actions seeking compensation for damage resulting from an accident is three years, cannot be considered to be an overriding mandatory provision, within the meaning of that article, unless the court hearing the case finds, on the basis of a detailed analysis of the wording, general scheme, objectives and the context in which that provision was adopted, that it is of such importance in the national legal order that it justifies a departure from the law applicable, designated pursuant to Article 4 of that regulation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 16 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) must be interpreted as meaning that a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the limitation period for actions seeking compensation for damage resulting from an accident is three years, cannot be considered to be an overriding mandatory provision, within the meaning of that article, unless the court hearing the case finds, on the basis of a detailed analysis of the wording, general scheme, objectives and the context in which that provision was adopted, that it is of such importance in the national legal order that it justifies a departure from the law applicable, designated pursuant to Article 4 of that regulation.

| 2. | Article 27 of Regulation No 864/2007 must be interpreted as meaning that Article 28 of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, as transposed into national law, does not constitute a provision of EU law which lays down a conflict-of-law rule relating to non-contractual obligations, within the meaning of Article 27 of that regulation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 27 of Regulation No 864/2007 must be interpreted as meaning that Article 28 of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, as transposed into national law, does not constitute a provision of EU law which lays down a conflict-of-law rule relating to non-contractual obligations, within the meaning of Article 27 of that regulation.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.

---