Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2016:785
Date: 2016-10-19
Language of the case: Portuguese
Subject matter: Right of establishment;Approximation of laws;Freedom to provide services
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling;Reference for a preliminary ruling - decision unnecessary
Origin: Portugal

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 15 December 2016 1. EU law — Interpretation — Methods — Literal, systematic and teleological interpretation 2. Approximation of laws — Insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles — Directive 2000/26 — Claims representative — Possibility of being sued in the national courts instead of the insurance undertaking which it represents — Precluded (European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/26, as amended by Directive 2005/14, Art. 4) 1. See the text of the decision. (see para. 19) 2. Article 4 of Directive 2000/26 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and amending Directives 73/239 and 88/357 (Fourth motor insurance Directive), as amended by Directive 2005/14, must be interpreted as not requiring Member States to provide that the claims representative appointed pursuant to that article may itself be sued, instead of the insurance undertaking which it represents, in the national court before which an action for damages was brought by an injured party falling within the scope of Article 1 of Directive 2000/26, as amended by Directive 2005/14. It admittedly follows from those considerations that the Union legislature intended that, without being able to call into question observance of the rules of private international law, representation of insurance undertakings under Article 4(5) of Directive 2000/26 includes the duty to allow injured parties validly to bring proceedings before national courts for compensation for damage. In that context, the claims representative’s sufficient powers must include the authority to accept service of judicial documents. On the other hand, it is apparent neither from the drafting history nor from the recitals in the preamble to Directive 2000/26 that the intention of the EU legislature was to extend those powers to allow injured parties to bring proceedings against that undertaking’s representative, in order to seek compensation from the insurance undertaking of the responsible party, before the national court of their place of residence. (see paras 33, 35, 39, operative part)