Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2017:546
Date: 2017-07-13
Language of the case: Danish
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Area of freedom, security and justice;Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Denmark

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber), 13 July 2017 Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction in insurance matters — Agreement on jurisdiction concluded between the insurer and the party which caused the damage — Not possible to invoke that agreement against the victim who may bring a direct action against the insurer) (Council Regulation No 44/2001, Arts 13 and 14) Point 5 of Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, considered in conjunction with Article 14, point 2(a), thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a victim entitled to bring a direct action against the insurer of the party which caused the harm which he has suffered is not bound by an agreement on jurisdiction concluded between the insurer and that party. The extension to victims of the constraints of agreements on jurisdiction based on the combined provisions of Articles 13 and 14 of Regulation No 44/2001 could compromise the objective pursued by Chapter II, Section 3, thereof, namely to protect the economically and legally weaker party (see, to that effect, judgment of 17 September 2009, Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse, C‑347/08, EU:C:2009:561, paragraph 40). (see paras 40, 41, operative part)