Information;Order — ECLI:EU:C:2023:944
Date: 2023-11-27
Language of the case: Romanian
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Provisions governing the Institutions;Area of freedom, security and justice;Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Romania

Summary C-310/23 – 1 
Case C-310/23 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
22 May 2023 
Referring court: 
Tribunalul București (Romania) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
6 March 2023 
Appellant: 
Groupama Asigurări SA 
Respondents: 
Asigurarea Românească – Asirom Vienna Insurance Group SA 
GE 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Action for indemnity brought by the insurer of a tractor against the insurer of the 
semi-trailer coupled to that tractor by which the former claims that the latter 
should pay half of the damages paid following a road traffic accident which 
occurred in Germany. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Under Article 267 TFEU, interpretation of Article 267 TFEU, the judgment of 
21 January 2016, ERGO Insurance ([Joined Cases] C-359/14 and C-475/14), 
Article 7 of the Rome I Regulation and Articles 4 and 19 of the Rome II 
Regulation is sought. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-310/23 
 
2  
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. Does a previous decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union fall 
within the concept of acts of the institutions of the Union, with the result that, 
under Article 267(b) TFEU, the Court of Justice itself is allowed to interpret the 
grounds of that decision? 
2(a) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, in the light of 
paragraphs 47, 50, 51 and 58 to 62 of the [judgment in] ERGO Insurance (Joined 
Cases C-359/14 and C-475/14), are the legal relations relating to the existence and 
extent of the obligation of the civil liability insurer [of a] (semi)trailer, coupled to 
a tractor at the time of an accident in the territory of a Member State other than 
that in which the insurance contract was concluded, to pay to the insurer of the 
tractor a part of the insurance compensation paid to its insured party, in the 
context of an action for indemnity brought by the latter against the former, 
governed by the law applicable to the insurance contract concluded between the 
insurer of the (semi)trailer and [the insured party] (pursuant to contractual civil 
liability, as governed by Article 7 of Regulation No 593/2008 on the law 
applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I)) or, on the contrary, governed by 
the national law of the place where the accident occurred (pursuant to civil 
liability in tort/delict referred to in Article 4 of Regulation No 864/2007 on the 
law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II))? 
2(b) If the answer to Question 2(a) is that civil liability in tort/delict is applicable, 
can [the paragraphs of the judgment] of the Court of Justice of the European 
Union referred to above be interpreted, with regard also to Article 15 of the Rome 
II Regulation, as meaning that such civil liability in tort/delict could be shared in 
equal parts between the insurers of civil liability for the vehicles involved in the 
accident? 
3. If the answer to the first question is in the negative, in the interpretation of 
the Court, does Article 7 of the Rome I Regulation or Article 4 of the Rome II 
Regulation apply for the purpose of establishing the existence and extent of the 
obligation of the motor vehicle civil liability (‘the MCL’) insurer of a semi-trailer, 
coupled to a tractor at the time of an accident, to compensate a part of the 
insurance compensation paid to the victim by the MCL insurer of the tractor in the 
context of an action for indemnity brought by the latter against the first insurer? 
Provisions of European Union law and case-law relied on 
Article 267 TFEU. 
Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome 
I). 
GROUPAMA ASIGURĂRI 
 
3 
Articles 4 and 19 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). 
Judgment of 21 January 2016, ERGO Insurance, C-359/14 and C-475/14, 
EU:C:2016:40, paragraphs 47, 50, 51 and 58 to 62 (‘the judgment in ERGO 
Insurance’). 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Article 2.210(1) of the Codul Civil (Civil Code), according to which, up to the 
amount of the compensation paid, all the rights of the insured party or of the 
beneficiary of the insurance in relation to those liable for the damage are 
subrogated to the insurer, and Article 2.223(1), under which, in the case of civil 
liability insurance, the insurer is required to compensate the insured party for the 
damages it is legally required to pay in relation to injured third parties. 
Articles 1, 10 and 11 of Legea nr. 132/2017 privind asigurarea obligatorie de 
răspundere civilă auto pentru prejudicii produse terților prin accidente de vehicule 
și tramvaie (Law No 132/2017 on compulsory motor vehicle civil liability 
insurance in respect of damages caused to third parties by vehicle and tram 
accidents), which define the scope of the law, the general principles of 
compulsory motor vehicle civil liability insurance and the insured risks. 
Article 16 of Norma Autorității de Supraveghere Financiară nr. 20/2017 privind 
asigurările auto din România (Financial Supervisory Authority Regulation 
No 20/2017 on motor vehicle insurance in Romania), which provides, inter alia, as 
follows: (i) MCL insurance cover for trailers/semi-trailers is valid only if they are 
not coupled to a tractor; (ii) if the event occurs when the trailer or semi-trailer is 
coupled to the tractor, the tractor shall be liable and (iii) the MCL insurer of the 
tractor shall compensate the party that suffered the damage and may exercise its 
right of indemnity against the MCL insurer of the trailer/semi-trailer if it proves 
that the damage occurred as a result of a technical defect in the trailer/semi-trailer 
that could not have been detected by the driver. 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 On 10 September 2017, a tractor to which a semi-trailer was coupled caused a 
road traffic accident in Germany as a result of which a car registered in Germany 
was damaged. 
2 The tractor was insured against civil liability by the insurance company 
Asigurarea Românească – Asirom Vienna Insurance Group SA (‘Asirom VIG 
SA’), the respondent. The semi-trailer was insured under a civil liability insurance 
contract concluded with the insurance company Groupama Asigurări SA, the 
appellant. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-310/23 
 
4  
3 Asirom VIG SA paid insurance compensation, under compulsory civil liability 
insurance, in the amount of EUR 2 595.16, which covered in full the damage 
suffered by the victim of the accident. 
4 On 14 August 2020, Asirom VIG SA brought an action for indemnity before the 
Judecătoria Sectorului 1 București (Court of First Instance, Sector 1, Bucharest, 
Romania) against the insurer of the semi-trailer seeking payment of the amount of 
6 033.74 Romanian lei (approximately EUR 1 208), corresponding to half of the 
total amount of EUR 2 595.16. 
5 The Court of First Instance, Sector 1, Bucharest, granted Asirom VIG SA’s 
request; in the grounds of its judgment, that court held that, in accordance with 
Articles 4 and 19 of the Rome II Regulation, German law was applicable to the 
non-contractual obligation at issue in the dispute. Since German law lays down, as 
is apparent from judgment No IV-ZR-279/08 of the [Bundesgerichtshof] (Federal 
Court of Justice, Germany) of 27 October 2010, the principle of co-insurance, in 
the case of damage resulting from a road traffic accident caused by a vehicle to 
which a semi-trailer is coupled, the apportionment of liability applies and the 
insurer of the tractor which, as in the present case, paid the compensation is 
entitled to recover half of that compensation from the insurer of the semi-trailer. 
6 Groupama Asigurări SA appealed against that judgment before the Tribunalul 
București (Regional Court, Bucharest, Romania), the referring court. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
7 According to the appellant, the Court can be requested to interpret the judgment in 
ERGO Insurance. In its view, that judgment must be interpreted as meaning that 
the specific obligation of the insurer of the semi-trailer to pay a part of the 
compensation must be examined in accordance with the law applicable to the 
insurance contract, in this case Romanian law, and not under the law applicable to 
civil liability in tort/delict arising from the accident. 
8 The respondent Asirom VIG SA asserts that the applicable provisions of EU law 
are clear and leave no room for reasonable doubt. The persons responsible for the 
accident and the extent of their liability are determined on the basis of the law of 
the country in which the accident occurred, in accordance with Article 4 of the 
Rome II Regulation, while the insurer’s obligation to compensate the damage and 
its right of subrogation in relation to the rights of the victim are determined on the 
basis of the law applicable to the insurance contract, in accordance with Article 7 
of the Rome I Regulation. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
9 The referring court states, first of all, that it is called upon to rule as a court of last 
instance. 
GROUPAMA ASIGURĂRI 
 
5 
10 Next, it notes the existence of contradictory case-law developed by the Romanian 
courts which is the result of the different ways in which those courts, called upon 
to apply the same provisions of national and EU law, have interpreted 
paragraphs 47, 50, 51 and 58 to 62 of the judgment in ERGO Insurance. In that 
regard, the main difficulty is in determining the legal basis for the liability of the 
insurer of the semi-trailer, that is to say, whether it is contractual liability 
(Article 7 of the Rome I Regulation) or liability in tort/delict (Article 4 of the 
Rome II Regulation). 
11 By its first question, which the referring court considers should be answered in the 
affirmative, the referring court asks whether a judgment of the Court of Justice 
delivered in another case pending before a court of another Member State may be 
the subject of a reference for a preliminary ruling. It refers in that regard to the 
judgments of the Court of Justice of 8 September 2009, Budějovický Budvar 
(C-478/07), and of 22 September 2011, Budějovický Budvar (C-482/09). In those 
cases, the same national court, in the same dispute, made a second reference to the 
Court in order to clarify the uncertainties related to the interpretation of the 
judgment delivered by the Court following a first reference for a preliminary 
ruling. However, in the case before the Tribunalul București (Regional Court, 
Bucharest), its doubts do not arise from the subsequent course of the proceedings 
in the same case, but from the contradictory national case-law interpreting an 
earlier decision of the Court, namely the judgment in ERGO Insurance. 
12 As regards the second and third questions, the referring court notes that the Rome 
I Regulation lays down the rule that the law applicable to non-contractual 
obligations is that of the country in which the damage occurred, but in the present 
case, taking into account the specific situation and the action for indemnity 
brought by the insurer of the tractor against the insurer of the semi-trailer, the 
provisions of the Rome II Regulation also become applicable. 
13 The judgment in ERGO Insurance should be read in the light of Articles 4 and 19 
of the Rome II Regulation and Article 7 of the Rome I Regulation, taking into 
account also the decision of the Federal Court of Justice, Germany, given that it 
was followed by the Council of Bureaux which manages the Green Card. 
14 The Regional Court, Bucharest, considers, like the respondent Asirom VIG SA, 
that paragraphs 47, 50, 51 and 58 to 62 of the judgment in ERGO Insurance must 
be interpreted as meaning that the relations between the two insurers are governed 
by Romanian law, as the law applicable to the insurance contract under 
Article 7(1) of the Rome I Regulation, whereas the extent of their liability towards 
the party that suffered the damage is governed by Articles 4 and 19 of the Rome II 
Regulation. That interpretation leads to the recognition of the obligation of the 
insurer of the semi-trailer to pay to the insurer of the tractor half of the 
compensation paid to the party that suffered the damage.