Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2013:717
Date: 2013-11-07
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Right of establishment;Freedom to provide services
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Netherlands

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber), 7 November 2013 1. Freedom of movement for persons — Freedom of establishment — Legal expenses insurance — Directive 87/344 — Right of the insured person to choose his legal representative freely — Derogation — Insurance contract providing legal assistance which is provided, in principle, by the insurer’s employees — Possibility for the insurer to cover the costs of legal assistance of the insured person’s legal representative only if the handling of the case must be subcontracted to an external lawyer — Not included — Whether or not legal assistance is compulsory — No effect (Council Directive 87/344, Recital 11 and Art. 4(1)(a)) 2. Freedom of movement for persons — Freedom of establishment — Legal expenses insurance — Directive 87/344 — Right of the insured person to choose his legal representative freely — Scope — Possibility of limiting the reimbursement of the costs of representation — Lawfulness — Condition (Council Directive 87/344, Art. 4(1)) 1. Article 4(1)(a) of Directive 87/344 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance must be interpreted as precluding a legal expenses insurer which stipulates in its insurance contracts that legal assistance will in principle be provided by its employees from also providing that the costs of legal assistance provided by a lawyer or legal representative chosen freely by the insured person will be covered only if the insurer takes the view that the handling of the case must be subcontracted to an external lawyer. The interpretation of Article 4(1)(a) of Directive 87/344 will not differ depending on whether or not legal assistance is compulsory under national law in the inquiry or proceedings concerned. In fact, the right of the insured person to choose his legal representative freely is of general application and is obligatory in nature. It follows from both the eleventh recital in the preamble to Directive 87/344 and Article 4(1) of that directive that the interest of persons covered by legal expenses insurance means that the insured person must have the freedom to choose his own lawyer or other person appropriately qualified under national law for the purpose of any judicial or administrative proceedings. Accordingly, it follows from a reading of those provisions that the insured person’s right to choose his lawyer cannot be restricted to situations in which the insurer decides that recourse should be had to an external lawyer. (see paras 22, 23, 25, 29, 32, operative parts 1, 2) 2. See the text of the decision. (see paras 26, 27)