Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2000:116
Date: 2000-03-09
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968;Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968 - Jurisdiction
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: France

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcetnent of Judgments — Jurisdiction — 
Conditions for the application of Title 11 — Domicile of the defendant in a Contracting 
State — Domicile of the plaintiff in third country — Lack of bearing subject to an 
express provision of the Convention 
(Convention of 27 September 1968, Title II) 
I - 5925 
SUMMARY — CASE C-412/98 
2. Convention on jurisdiction and the Enforcement of judgments — jurisdiction in 
matters relating to insurance — Objective — Protection of the weaker party — 
Scope — Disputes between professionals in connection with a reinsurance contract — 
Exclusion 
(Convention of 27 September 1968, Arts 7 to 12a) 
3. Convention on jurisdiction and the Enforcement of judgments — jurisdiction in 
matters relating to insurance — Objective — Protection of the weaker party — 
Scope — Disputes between a private individual and a reinsurer — Inclusion 
(Convention of 27 September 1968, Arts 7 to 12a) 
1. Title II of the Convention of 27 Sep­
tember 1968 on Jurisdiction and the 
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and 
Commercial Matters, as amended by 
the Convention of 9 October 1978 on 
the Accession of the Kingdom of Den­
mark, Ireland and the United Kingdom 
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, 
by the Convention of 25 October 1982 
on the Accession of the Hellenic 
Republic and by the Convention of 
26 May 1989 on the Accession of the 
Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese 
Republic, is in principle applicable 
where the defendant has its domicile 
or seat in a Contracting State, even if 
the plaintiff is domiciled in a non-
member country. It would be otherwise 
only in exceptional cases where an 
express provision of the Convention 
provides that the application of the rule 
of jurisdiction which it sets out is 
dependent on the plaintiff's domicile 
being in a Contracting State. Such is 
the case where the plaintiff exercises 
the option open to him under Arti­
cle 5(2), point 2 of the first paragraph 
of Article 8 and the first paragraph of 
Article 14 of the Convention, and also 
in matters relating to prorogation of 
jurisdiction under Article 17 of the 
Convention, solely where the defen­
dant's domicile is not situated in a 
Contracting State. 
(see paras 47, 61, 
and operative part 1) 
2. The rules of special jurisdiction in 
matters relating to insurance set out 
in Articles 7 to 12a of the Convention 
of 27 September 1968, as amended by 
the Convention of 9 October 1978 on 
the Accession of the Kingdom of Den­
mark, Ireland and the United Kingdom 
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, 
by the Convention of 25 October 1982 
on the Accession of the Hellenic 
Republic and by the Convention of 
26 May 1989 on the Accession of the 
Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese 
Republic, do not refer to disputes 
between a reinsurer and a reinsured in 
connection with a reinsurance contract. 
In affording the insured a wider range 
of jurisdiction than that available to 
I - 5926 
GROUP JOSI 
the insurer and in excluding any pos­
sibility of a clause conferring jurisdic­
tion for the benefit of the insurer, those 
rules reflect an underlying concern to 
protect the insured, who in most cases 
is faced with a predetermined contract 
the clauses of which are no longer 
negotiable and is the weaker party 
economically. No particular protection 
is justified as regards the relationship 
between a reinsured and his reinsurer. 
Since both parties to the reinsurance 
contract are professionals, neither of 
whom can be presumed to be in a weak 
position compared with the other party 
to the contract. 
(see paras 64, 66, 76, 
and operative part 2) 
3. Although the rules of special jurisdic­
tion in matters relating to insurance set 
out in Articles 7 to 12 of the Conven­
tion of 27 September 1968 do not refer 
to disputes between a reinsured and his 
reinsurer in connection with a reinsur­
ance contract, they are, on the other 
hand, fully applicable where, under the 
law of a Contracting State, the policy­
holder, the insured or the beneficiary of 
an insurance contract has the option to 
approach directly any reinsurer of the 
insurer in order to assert his rights 
under that contract as against that 
reinsurer. In such a situation, the plain­
tiff is in a weak position compared 
with the professional reinsurer, so that 
the objective of special protection 
inherent in Article 7 et seq. of the 
Convention justifies the application of 
the special rules which it lays down. 
(see para. 75) 
I - 5927