Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2020:123
Date: 2020-02-27
Language of the case: Lithuanian
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Area of freedom, security and justice;Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Lithuania

Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date of receipt:  
20 December 2018  
Referring court:  
Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) 
Date of the decision to refer:  
7 December 2018  
Appellant in cassation (defendant at first instance):  
AAS BALTA 
Other party to the proceedings in cassation (applicant at first instance):  
UAB GRIFS AG 
  
Subject matter of the action in the main proceedings 
The dispute in the main proceedings essentially concerns the question whether the 
Lithuanian courts have jurisdiction to deal with a case involving the granting of an 
insurance payment claimed by a beneficiary which is established in Lithuania and 
is insured under a general civil-liability insurance contract between the 
policyholder and the insurer established in Latvia that contains a clause providing 
that any disputes relating to the contract are to be dealt with in the courts of the 
Republic of Latvia in accordance with the laws there in force. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request for a preliminary ruling 
Interpretation of Articles 15(5) and 16(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and 
the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. 
Point (b) of the first paragraph and the third paragraph of Article 267 of the Treaty 
on the Functioning of the European Union. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-803/18 
 
2  
Question referred 
Must Articles 15(5) and 16(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the 
recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters be 
construed as meaning that, in the case of large-risk insurance, an agreement 
conferring jurisdiction included in the insurance contract concluded between the 
policyholder and the insurer may be relied on against a person insured under that 
contract who has not expressly subscribed to that clause and who is habitually 
resident or established in a Member State other than that of the policyholder and 
the insurer? 
Provisions of EU law cited 
Recital 18 and Articles 10, 11(1)(b), 12, 15(3), 15(5) and 16(5) in Section 3 
(‘Jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance’) of Chapter II of Regulation (EU) 
No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 
2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil 
and commercial matters. 
Article 13(27) of, and Part A of Annex I to, Directive 2009/138/EC of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up 
and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II). 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 The applicant, the private limited liability company (‘UAB’) GRIFS AG, provides 
security services and is established in Lithuania; the defendant, AAS BALTA, is 
an insurance company established in Latvia. 
2 On 31 July 2012 GRIFS AG SIA, a company established in Latvia that is not a 
party to the present proceedings, and the defendant AAS BALTA entered into a 
general civil-liability insurance contract (‘the insurance contract’). The parties to 
that insurance contract thereby agreed additionally to insure the general civil-
liability of the applicant UAB GRIFS AG, all of the shares in which are held by 
GRIFS AG SIA. 
3 Under the general terms of the insurance contract, relations arising therefrom were 
governed by the laws of the Republic of Latvia and, in the event of a dispute 
which could not be resolved amicably, that dispute was to be examined by the 
courts of the Republic of Latvia in accordance with the laws there in force. 
4 On 21 August 2012, thieves broke into a jewellery store owned by UAB Jaunystės 
romantika (Alytus, Lithuania) and guarded by the applicant under a contract for 
the supply of security services. UAB Jaunystės romantika and its insurer, ERGO 
Insurance SE, brought actions before the courts seeking compensation for the 
BALTA 
 
3 
losses suffered as a result of the theft. By a judgment of 18 March 2016 the 
Vilniaus apygardos teismas (Vilnius Regional Court) upheld those actions by 
awarding the applicants UAB Jaunystės romantika and ERGO Insurance SE 
compensation, together with interest and procedural costs, to be paid by the 
defendants UAB GRIFS AG and AAS BALTA. That court found that UAB 
GRIFS AG was responsible for locking up the shopping centre, that there was a 
direct causal link between the resulting damage and the inaction on the part of 
UAB GRIFS AG and that that [in]action on the company’s part amounted to gross 
negligence. By its ruling of 22 December 2016 the Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas 
(Lithuanian Court of Appeal) upheld the decision of the Vilniaus apygardos 
teismas, while the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (the Lithuanian Supreme 
Court) (hereinafter: ‘the Aukščiausiasis Teismas’ or ‘the court of cassation’) 
upheld that decision of the Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas by its ruling of 23 June 
2017. 
5 In the present proceedings the applicant UAB GRIFS AG brought an action before 
the Vilniaus apygardos teismas requesting the defendant AAS BALTA to pay to it 
the insurance payment, interest and procedural costs in the amount of 
EUR 114 941.58. By its ruling of 21 November 2017 the Vilniaus apygardos 
teismas dismissed the action on the ground that it did not have jurisdiction 
inasmuch as under the general terms and conditions of the insurance contract all 
disputes arising therefrom were to be dealt with in the courts of the Republic of 
Latvia in accordance with the laws there in force. Furthermore, having regard to 
the fact that the Latvian company GRIFS AG SIA, which was a party to the 
insurance contract, was a shareholder in, and owner of, the applicant UAB GRIFS 
AG, the Vilniaus apygardos teismas stated that it had no doubt that the applicant 
had consented, even if only indirectly, to all of the contractual terms, including 
those relating to the choice of court for dispute resolution. 
6 Having examined a separate appeal brought by the applicant, by a ruling of 
29 March 2018 the Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas set aside the ruling of the Vilniaus 
apygardos teismas of 21 November 2017 and referred the matter concerning the 
action brought by UAB GRIFS AG back to the court of first instance for fresh 
consideration. In the view of the court of appeal, the agreement by the contracting 
parties to resolve any disputes arising from the insurance contract in the courts of 
the Republic of Latvia in accordance with the laws there in force did not oblige 
the applicant to bring an action solely before a court of the Republic of Latvia 
since the applicant was, as a beneficiary under the insurance contract, entitled to 
exercise the alternative choice-of-jurisdiction possibilities provided for in 
Article 11 of Regulation No 1215/2012. 
7 By its appeal in cassation brought before the Aukščiausiasis Teismas the 
defendant requested that the ruling made by the Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas on 
29 March 2018 be set aside and that the claim should remain unexamined. By its 
response to the appeal in cassation, the applicant requests that the appeal in 
cassation be dismissed and that that ruling of the Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas be 
left unaltered. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-803/18 
 
4  
Principal arguments of the parties to the main proceedings 
8 According to the defendant, the Lithuanian courts should have classified the 
contract from which the applicant derives its claims as a ‘large-risk’ insurance 
contract, as defined in Article 16(5) of Regulation No 1215/2012, because the 
policyholder exceeded the limits of the average number of employees and the net 
turnover as set out in Article 13(27)(c) of Directive 2009/138. In order to establish 
whether those criteria are met, it is necessary to evaluate and aggregate the data of 
both the policyholder and the applicant but even the policyholder’s data (those of 
the Latvian company GRIFS AG SIA) suffice to establish that the criteria have 
been exceeded, which makes it possible to classify the contract as a ‘large-risk’ 
insurance contract. In accordance with Article 15(5) of Regulation No 1215/2012, 
the parties to such a contract may depart from the provisions relating to the special 
jurisdiction rules in Section 3 [of Chapter II of] of that regulation; hence, the 
parties to the insurance contract were able to agree that jurisdiction was to be 
conferred solely on the courts of the Member State in which the insurer was 
established. 
9 Moreover, according to Article 15(3) of Regulation No 1215/2012, an insurer and 
a policyholder, both of whom are domiciled or habitually resident in the same 
Member State, may agree that jurisdiction is to be conferred on the courts of the 
insurer’s place of domicile even if the harmful event were to occur abroad. The 
defendant notes that the insurance contract was concluded between the insurer and 
the policyholder, both of whom are established in the Republic of Latvia, which 
means that the agreement conferring jurisdiction is permissible and is binding on 
the policyholder and its subsidiary, the applicant, which is designated in the 
insurance contract as an insured person along with the policyholder. Even though 
the applicant is not a signatory to the insurance contract, that contract is deemed to 
have been concluded for the applicant’s benefit and the applicant’s situation is 
equivalent to that of the policyholder, which implies that all of the terms and 
conditions of the insurance contract, including the agreement conferring 
jurisdiction on the Latvian courts, are binding on it. 
10 According to the applicant, the choice-of-court agreement reached by the parties 
to the insurance contract (the Latvian company GRIFS AG SIA and the 
defendant) cannot give rise to any legal consequences for the applicant, that is to 
say, a person which is not a party to that agreement. The applicant points out that, 
in relation to the parties to the insurance contract, it is a third party (an insured 
person), while, in accordance with the established case-law of the European Court 
of Justice and the court of cassation any choice-of-court agreement between the 
parties to a contract has no legal force in relation to a third party. The applicant 
cannot, in its view, be identified with the Latvian company GRIFS AG SIA and 
cannot be deemed to be either the policyholder or a party to the insurance contract 
with the defendant. 
11 The applicant does not agree that the agreement conferring jurisdiction between 
the Latvian company GRIFS AG SIA and the defendant can apply to the applicant 
BALTA 
 
5 
pursuant to Article 15(3) and (5) and Article 16(5) of Regulation No 1215/2012 
because, according to the applicant, the exceptions set out in those provisions can 
apply only in the case where the parties to the proceedings are also the parties to 
the insurance contract (the policyholder and the insurer) and where they have 
reached an agreement concerning jurisdiction. The applicant, however, is neither 
the policyholder nor a party to the choice-of-court agreement concluded with the 
defendant; furthermore, the applicant and the defendant are established in 
different Member States. The sole circumstance that the applicant did not have the 
possibility to negotiate the terms and conditions of the insurance contract, 
including those relating to the choice of jurisdiction, is sufficient for the 
conclusion to be drawn that the applicant is in a weaker position and, in 
accordance with the case-law of the European Court of Justice, the position of an 
insured person who is in a weaker position must be safeguarded. 
Brief summary of the grounds for the request for a preliminary ruling 
12 In the main proceedings before it the court of cassation is faced with a question 
concerning the interpretation and application of the provisions of Regulation 
No 1215/2012 on jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance. It specifically asks 
whether the agreement conferring jurisdiction which is contained in the insurance 
contract deemed to be a ‘large-risk’ contract on the basis of the criteria laid down 
in Directive 2009/138, and which has been concluded between the policyholder 
and the insurer established in the same Member State and refers to the courts of 
their place of establishment, can be relied on against an insured beneficiary which 
is established in a different Member State and is not a party to the contract. 
13 It follows from the case-law of the European Court of Justice that the Brussels 
Convention expressly provided for the possibility of stipulating clauses conferring 
jurisdiction not only in favour of the policyholder, being a party to the contract, 
but also in favour of the insured party and the beneficiary who may not be parties 
to the contract when they are different persons whose identity may even be 
unknown when the contract is signed (judgment of 14 July 1983, Gerling and 
Others, 201/82, ECLI:EU:C:1983:217, paragraph 18); however, a jurisdiction 
clause established pursuant to that Convention in an insurance contract between 
an insurer and a policyholder cannot be relied on against a beneficiary under that 
contract who has not expressly subscribed to that clause and who is domiciled or 
established in a Contracting State other than that of the policyholder and the 
insurer (judgment of 12 May 2005, Société financière et industrielle du Peloux, 
C-112/03, ECLI:EU:C:2005:280). In that case the beneficiary, like the 
policyholder, is protected by the Brussels Convention as the economically weaker 
party (judgment of 12 May 2005, Société financière et industrielle du Peloux, 
C-112/03, ECLI:EU:C:2005:280, paragraph 37). 
14 Nevertheless, paragraph 38 of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 May 
2005 in Société financière et industrielle du Peloux (C-112/03, 
ECLI:EU:C:2005:280) states that a jurisdiction clause cannot in any event be 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-803/18 
 
6  
accepted as enforceable against a beneficiary unless it does not undermine the aim 
of protecting the economically weakest party. The Court of Justice has therefore 
not ruled out the possibility that an insured person who has not subscribed to the 
agreement conferring jurisdiction might be bound by that agreement and in that 
respect it assigns an essential role to that person’s economic capacity, regarding 
this as a criterion to be used in establishing whether that person requires additional 
protection. 
15 Having regard to the possibility, provided by the EU legislature, of departing from 
the provisions of Section 3 of [Chapter II of] Regulation No 1215/2012 in cases 
involving large risks, and having regard to the objective of protecting the interests 
of economically weaker parties, the court of cassation points out that the 
economic-capacity criterion is closely linked to the concept of large risks defined 
in Directive 2009/138. 
16 According specifically to Directive 2009/138, some risks are deemed large (and 
accordingly requiring large economic capacity) as inherent to the kind of activity 
(risks classified under classes 4, 5, 6, 7, 11 and 12 in Part A of Annex I), some 
risks are deemed large due to additional conditions (risks classified under classes 
14 and 15 in Part A of Annex I) and some others, in order to be deemed large, 
have to meet the specific criteria laid down in Article 13(27)(c) of Directive 
2009/138, including economic criteria (risks classified under classes 3, 8, 9, 10, 13 
and 16 in Part A of Annex I). Thus, in the case where the entity in question 
engages in a large-risk activity, such an entity is deemed economically capable 
and may be a party to a legal insurance relationship deemed equal to the insurer. 
17 According to the court of cassation, on the one hand, where the activity satisfies 
the ‘large risk’ criteria, it may in principle be presumed that the parties to the legal 
insurance relationship are economically capable and may depart from the 
provisions relating to the jurisdiction clause in Section 3 of [Chapter II of] 
Regulation No 1215/2012. On the other hand, the policyholder’s specific features 
do not always reflect the situation and economic capacity of the insured person. In 
such a case there may therefore be a need to ensure a proper balance between the 
rights and responsibilities of the parties to the legal insurance relationship. It is, 
however, unclear where the line between the parties’ autonomy and the need to 
protect the weaker party should be drawn. 
18 The court of cassation is unsure whether the explanations on legal protection of 
economically weaker entities given by the European Court of Justice in its 
judgment of 12 May 2005 in Société financière et industrielle du Peloux 
(C-112/03, ECLI:EU:C:2005:280, paragraphs 33, 37 and 38) are relevant also in 
cases where the insurance covers large risks, particularly in view of the fact that 
the European Court of Justice in principle recognised the need for such protection 
in its judgment of 13 July 2017 in Assens Havn (C-368/16, ECLI:EU:C:2017:546, 
paragraphs 33 and 36). The court of cassation specifically seeks to establish 
whether, in the case of large-risk insurance, an agreement conferring jurisdiction 
in the insurance contract concluded between the policyholder and the insurer may 
BALTA 
 
7 
be relied on against an insured person under that contract who has not expressly 
subscribed to that clause and who is habitually resident or established in a 
Member State other than that of the policyholder and the insurer.