Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2013:472
Date: 2013-07-11
Language of the case: German
Subject matter: Right of establishment;Freedom to provide services
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 19 December 2013 1. Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Direct life assurance –Directives 90/619 and 92/96 — Right of cancellation of an insurance policy-holder who has not been informed of that right — National provision limiting the period for the exercise of that right to one year after payment of the first premium — Unlawful (Council Directives 90/619, Art. 15(1) and 92/96, Art. 31) 2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Interpretation — Temporal effects of judgments by way of interpretation — Retroactive effect — Limitation by the Court — Conditions (Art. 267 TFEU) 1. Article 15(1) of Directive 90/619 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance, laying down provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide services (Second Life Assurance Directive), as amended by Directive 92/96 (Third Life Assurance Directive), read in conjunction with Article 31 of the latter directive, must be interpreted as precluding a national provision under which a right of cancellation lapses one year at the latest after payment of the first premium, where the policy-holder has not been informed about the right of cancellation. Such a national provision, providing for the expiry of the policy-holder’s right to cancel the contract at a time when he has not been informed about that right runs counter to the achievement of an essential objective pursued by the second and third life assurance directives and, therefore, to the effectiveness of those directives. As insurance contracts are legally complex financial products, capable of differing considerably depending on the insurer offering those products and of involving significant and potentially very long-term financial commitments, the policy-holder is at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the insurer, a situation which is similar to that of a consumer concluding a contract away from business premises. Therefore, the insurer may not validly rely on reasons of legal certainty in order to redress a situation caused by its own failure to comply with the requirement, under EU law, to communicate a defined list of information, including, in particular, information relating to the right of the policy-holder to cancel the contract. (see paras 26, 29, 30, 32, operative part) 2. See the text of the decision. (see paras 35-40)