Rīgas apgabaltiesa; 2019-06-12; C33409218
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:LV:RAT:2019:0612.C33409218.6.S
Date: 2019-06-12
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters;Lugano Convention
Origin: Latvia

82019LV0612(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case concerns the recovery of damages paid in connection with a car accident abroad brought before the Rīgas apgabaltiesa (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’).
The Latvijas transportlīdzekļu apdrošinātāju birojs (1) (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) brought an action against a natural person domiciled in Latvia (hereinafter ‘the defendant’). A car accident occurred in Norway in which the defendant’s car and the third party’s car were involved, and the third party’s car was damaged.  The third-party demanded payment from the plaintiff because the defendant’s car did not have valid third-party liability insurance at the time of the accident. The plaintiff paid the claimed damages and filed an action for recovery of the insurance payment made by the plaintiff to the third party.
The defendant argued that it was not in Norway but in Latvia at the time of the accident, that the car was not being driven but was stationary, and that it could not be held liable for the accident.
The Rīgas rajona tiesa (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) ruled in favour of the plaintiff and ordered the defendant to pay the amount claimed. The Court of First Instance based its jurisdiction on Article 2(1) of the new Lugano Convention (2), according to which ‘persons domiciled in a State bound by this Convention shall, whatever their nationality, be sued in the courts of that State’ and on Article 12(1) of the Convention, which provides that ‘an insurer may bring proceedings only in the courts of the State bound by this Convention in which the defendant is domiciled‘. Since the defendant is domiciled in Latvia, the jurisdiction of the Latvian courts is well-founded. The court also stated that there was no reason to doubt that the defendant was registered as the owner and keeper of the vehicle involved in the accident in which the third party's car was damaged. According to the Court of First Instance, whether the owner was driving the car is irrelevant, as the owner is liable for the damage caused by his vehicle regardless of who is driving it. The accident occurred in 2012, the plaintiff's letter to the defendant requesting recovery was sent in 2013, and the action before the Court of First Instance was filed in 2018. This was sufficient time for the defendant to obtain evidence to support its allegations, but the defendant did not provide any. The Court of First Instance applied the national law (3) and upheld the claim.
Following the defendant's appeal, the Court of Appeal confirmed that the reasoning of the judgment of the Court of First Instance was correct and entirely sufficient. The grounds of appeal put forward by the defendant do not justify reviewing the decision of the Court of First Instance and dismissing the action. The Court of First Instance correctly assessed the facts and correctly applied the law, including the Civilprocesa likums (4). The Court of Appeal confirmed that the basis of the defendant's liability is established in its capacity as the owner of the car, so it is irrelevant who was driving the car at the time of the accident. The defendant did not prove that his car was not involved in the accident in Norway.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the Court of First Instance judgment.
(1) Motor Insurers' Bureau of Latvia.
(2) Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
(3) Sauszemes transportlīdzekļu īpašnieku civiltiesiskās atbildības obligātās apdrošināšanas likums (Law on Compulsory Civil Liability Insurance for Owners of Motor Vehicles).
Civillikums (Civil Code).
(4) Civilprocesa likums (Code of Civil Procedure).