Korkein oikeus; 2014-02-04; AIG Europe S.A. Branch Office (later Chartis S.A. Branch Office), A; KKO:2014:3
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:FI:KKO:2014:3
Date: 2014-02-04
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Finland

82014FI0204(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The insurance company AIG Europe (hereinafter „the plaintiff”) and the company Sonera entered into a liability insurance contract. The companies agreed that all disputes related to the contract will be handled by the Finnish courts. The CEO of Sonera, whilst being a citizen of the United Kingdom, (hereinafter “the defendant”) was sued in a criminal proceeding for breach of communication confidentiality and asked the plaintiff to cover the legal expenses related to the proceedings within the insurance contract. The plaintiff paid the attorney’s costs of EUR 461_649.44. However, under the terms of the insurance policy, the insured person was obliged to repay the compensation paid by the plaintiff if he is found guilty of a criminal offence by a final judgment. That indeed happened: the defendant was sentenced and after the judgment became final, the plaintiff requested that the defendant pay back the compensation in full. The defendant refused to do so, so the plaintiff brought the case before the court.
The (Finnish) Court of First Instance affirmed the existence of the clause of the contract between the plaintiff and Sonera having the effect of conferring jurisdiction by virtue of Article 13(3) of the Brussels I Regulation (1). The contract also included the “large risk” definition in accordance with Article 13(5) of Brussels I Regulation. However, according to the court, the contract covers only the relations between the companies, not between the plaintiff and the defendant, who was sued as a third person. The clause conferring jurisdiction cannot make it possible to weaken the legal position of the defendant as a third party, since the defendant was not personally a party to the contract. According to Article 12(1), “an insurer may bring proceedings only in the courts of the Member State in which the defendant is domiciled, irrespective of whether he is the policyholder, the insured or a beneficiary”. Since the defendant is domiciled in the UK, the Court of First Instance declared a lack of its jurisdiction to hear this case, dismissed the action and suggested that the courts of the UK have the jurisdiction.
The plaintiff appealed this decision, demanding that it be annulled and the case be referred back to the Court of First Instance. The Court of Appeal concurred with the lower court’s conclusions and upheld its decision.
The plaintiff appealed to the Korkein oikeus, (hereinafter “the Supreme Court”) claiming that the decision of the Court of Appeal should be annulled and the case be refered back to the Court of First Instance. The main question to be decided by the Supreme Court was, whether the insurance contract between the plaintiff and Sonera was binding in relations between the plaintiff and the defendant and whether the Finnish courts had jurisdiction in this case.
The Supreme Court cited the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in case C-112/03 (2), according to which “a jurisdiction clause cannot be relied on against a beneficiary under the contract who was not expressly subscribed to that clause and is domiciled in a Contracting State other than that of the policy-holder and the insurer”. This interpretation was provided for the Brussels Convention, but since it was superseded by the Brussels I Regulation, it is binding also for the Regulation. The clause in the contract conferring the jurisdiction may become binding to the third person only if expressly approved by it. The fact that the defendant was a CEO of Sonera is not enough to justify a binding clause between the plaintiff and Sonera being expressly approved by the defendant.
Therefore, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal that the Finnish courts lacked the jurisdiction to hear this case.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
(2) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 May 2005, Société financière et industrielle du Peloux v Axa Belgium and Others, C-112/03, ECLI:EU:C:2005:280.