Order — ECLI:EU:C:2021:1006
Date: 2021-12-10
Language of the case: Polish

Translation C-393/20 – 1 
Case C-393/20 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
18 August 2020 
Referring court: 
Sąd Rejonowy dla Krakowa-Śródmieścia w Krakowie (Poland) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
7 August 2020 
Applicants: 
T.B. and D. sp. z o.o.  
Defendant: 
G.I. A/S 
  
Anonymised version 
… 
DECISION 
On 7 August 2020, 
the Sąd Rejonowy dla Krakowa-Śródmieścia w Krakowie (District Court for 
Kraków-Śródmieście, Kraków), 5th Commercial Chamber […] [composition of 
the chamber] 
having examined … [procedural matter] on 7 August 2020 in Kraków 
the joined cases 
brought by T.B. and D. sp. z o.o., a limited liability company having its seat in J., 
against G.I. A/S, a company having its seat in K. (Kingdom of Denmark), 
concerning payment 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 18. 8. 2020 – CASE C-393/20 
 
2  
has decided: 
I. to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice of the European 
Union for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 267 [TFEU]: 
(1) Must Article 13(2), in conjunction with Article 11(1)(b), 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 
interpreted as meaning that it may be relied on by a person who, in 
return for services provided to a party directly injured in a road 
accident in connection with the damage caused, has acquired a claim 
for compensation, but does not carry out the professional activity of 
recovering insurance indemnity claims against insurance companies 
and who brought an action, in the court for the place where he is 
established, against the third-party liability insurer of the party 
responsible for that accident, which insurer has its seat in another 
Member State? 
(2) Must Article 7(2) or Article 12 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 interpreted as meaning that it may be relied 
on by a person who acquired, under an assignment agreement, a claim 
from a party injured in a road accident in order to bring a civil-liability 
action before a court of the Member State in which the accident 
occurred against the insurer of the party responsible for that accident, 
which insurer has its seat in a Member State other than the Member 
State in which the accident occurred? 
… [procedural matters] 
[Or. 2] 
Grounds 
for the decision of 7 August 2020 
I. Subject matter of the proceedings and relevant facts. 
1. The subject matter of the proceedings in the joined cases concerns the claims of 
two commercial operators, T.B. and D. sp. z o.o., which has its seat in J., against 
the defendant G.I. A/S, which has its seat in K (Denmark). In each of these two 
joined cases, the applicant seeks compensation for the damage resulting from a 
road accident caused by persons who are insured by the defendant. 
2. Case … [No 1]. 
T.B. AND D. 
 
3 
2.1. In his action of 19 October 2018, T.B. sought to recover PLN 501 from the 
defendant. In the statement of claim, the applicant indicated that on 12 December 
2017 a road accident occurred, as a result of which a vehicle owned by the injured 
party K.W. was damaged. The documents enclosed with the statement of claim 
indicate that the accident occurred in K. (Poland), the vehicles involved in the 
collision were registered in the territory of Poland, and the drivers of the vehicles 
are Polish citizens. The person at fault – P.P. – had a third-party liability insurance 
policy with the defendant insurance company. The defendant paid PLN 1 301.17 
by way of compensation. In the applicant’s opinion, the compensation was 
understated. The applicant, who engages professionally in risk assessment and 
loss assessment activities, acquired from the injured party a claim for further 
compensation under a claim assignment agreement. 
2.2. In response, counsel for the defendant requested that the claim be rejected 
on the ground of lack of domestic jurisdiction. The defendant relied on the 
arguments contained in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European 
Union of 31 January 2018 in Case C-106/17. Since the applicant is professionally 
involved in the acquisition of insurance indemnity claims, he cannot, it is argued, 
benefit from the special protection offered by the forum actoris principle and must 
bring an action against the insurer in the courts of the place where the insurer has 
its seat. The defendant cited a number of rulings by Polish courts of ordinary 
jurisdiction made in similar circumstances […] [references to national case-law]. 
2.3. By letter of 24 July 2019, the applicant submitted that the defendant acts 
through the limited liability company C.P. sp. z o.o. in the territory of Poland, and 
that domestic jurisdiction is thus justified. Furthermore, it was argued, it follows 
from Article 12 of Regulation No 1215/2012 that the insurer may be sued in the 
courts for the place where the harmful event occurred. 
3. Case … [No 2]. 
3.1. In its action of 8 May 2019, D., a limited liability company having its seat in 
J., sought to recover PLN 1 626.95 from the defendant. In the statement of claim, 
the applicant indicated that on 7 July 2017 an accident had occurred, [Or. 3] as a 
result of which a vehicle owned by the injured parties M. and E.C. had been 
damaged. The party responsible for the accident had a third-party liability 
insurance policy with the defendant company The documents enclosed with the 
statement of claim indicate that the accident occurred in Ś. (Poland), the vehicles 
involved in the collision were registered in the territory of Poland, and the drivers 
of the vehicles are Polish citizens. For the duration of the works to repair the 
vehicle, the injured parties hired a replacement vehicle from the applicant. The 
defendant contested the amount of the costs of hiring the replacement vehicle, 
which came to PLN 2 558.40, and paid only PLN 931.45 on that account. On 
4 March 2019, the injured parties concluded an agreement with the applicant, 
assigning to it the claim arising from the costs of hiring the replacement vehicle. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 18. 8. 2020 – CASE C-393/20 
 
4  
3.2. In response, counsel for the defendant requested that the claim be rejected 
on the ground of lack of domestic jurisdiction. The defendant invoked the 
arguments contained in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European 
Union of 31 January 2018 in Case C-106/17. As the applicant is professionally 
involved in the acquisition of insurance indemnity claims, it was argued, it cannot 
take advantage of the possibility of bringing an action before a court in a Member 
State other than that of the seat of the insurer. In support of its position, the 
defendant cited a number of rulings by courts of ordinary jurisdiction made in 
similar circumstances. 
3.3. In letters of 3 December 2019 and 4 March 2020, the applicant indicated that 
it cannot be regarded as equal to the defendant, since it is only a repair workshop 
offering vehicle repair services without payment and accepting claim assignment 
as settlement of repair costs. It does not purchase insurance indemnity claims in 
order to pursue them in court. Since the defendant provides its services in Poland, 
it should take into account the need to ensure that injured parties and entities 
acting on their behalf can pursue their claims before a national court. The 
applicant also pointed out that domestic jurisdiction is based on Article 12 of 
Regulation No 1215/2012. 
3.4 At the hearing held on 31 July 2020, counsel for the applicant stressed that, 
if the claim were to be rejected, injured parties would find themselves in a 
difficult situation, since vehicle repair workshops would not provide non-cash 
services in return for claim assignment due to the difficulties in pursuing their 
claims outside Poland. It takes several months for a foreign insurer to pay 
compensation, and injured parties often do not have the means to have the vehicle 
repaired or to hire a replacement vehicle themselves. 
II. Legal framework 
EU law 
4. 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 (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1; ‘the 
Regulation’). 
4.1. Article 4(1): 
[Or. 4] ‘Subject to this Regulation, persons domiciled in a Member State shall, 
whatever their nationality, be sued in the courts of that Member State.’ 
4.2. Article 5(1): 
‘Persons domiciled in a Member State may be sued in the courts of another 
Member State only by virtue of the rules set out in Sections 2 to 7 of this Chapter.’ 
T.B. AND D. 
 
5 
4.3. Article 7(2): 
‘A person domiciled in a Member State may be sued in another Member State … 
in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, in the courts for the place where 
the harmful event occurred or may occur’. 
4.4. Article 8(2): 
‘A person domiciled in a Member State may also be sued … as a third party in an 
action on a warranty or guarantee or in any other third-party proceedings, in the 
court seised of the original proceedings, unless these were instituted solely with 
the object of removing him from the jurisdiction of the court which would be 
competent in his case’. 
4.5. Article 11(1)(b): 
‘An insurer domiciled in a Member State may be sued … in another Member 
State, in the case of actions brought by the policyholder, the insured or a 
beneficiary, in the courts for the place where the claimant is domiciled;’. 
4.6. Article 11(2): 
‘An insurer who is not domiciled in a Member State but has a branch, agency or 
other establishment in one of the Member States shall, in disputes arising out of 
the operations of the branch, agency or establishment, be deemed to be domiciled 
in that Member State.’ 
4.7. Article 12: 
‘In respect of liability insurance or insurance of immovable property, the insurer 
may in addition be sued in the courts for the place where the harmful event 
occurred. The same applies if movable and immovable property are covered by 
the same insurance policy and both are adversely affected by the same 
contingency.’ 
4.8 Article 13: 
‘1. In respect of liability insurance, the insurer may also, if the law of the court 
permits it, be joined in proceedings which the injured party has brought against 
the insured. 
2. Articles 10, 11 and 12 shall apply to actions brought by the injured party 
directly against the insurer, where such direct actions are permitted. 
…’ 
[Or. 5] 
Polish law 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 18. 8. 2020 – CASE C-393/20 
 
6  
5. Kodeks cywilny z dnia 23 kwietnia 1964 r. (Civil Code of 23 April 1964, Journal 
of Laws [Dz. U.] of 1964, No 16, item 93) 
5.1. Article 509: 
‘§ 1. A creditor may, without the consent of the debtor, assign a debt to a third 
party (transfer), save where this would be contrary to the law, a contractual 
stipulation or a characteristic of the obligation. 
§ 2. All rights associated with the claim, in particular any claim to arrears of 
interest, shall be transferred together with the claim.’ 
5.2. Article 822(4) of the Civil Code: 
‘A person entitled to compensation for a contingency covered by a civil-liability 
insurance policy may bring a claim directly against the insurer.’ 
III. Reasons for the questions referred 
General observations 
6. The common element of the joined cases is the fact that they concern road 
accidents which occurred in Poland and involved exclusively Polish citizens and 
vehicles registered in Poland. The applicants are entities which have acquired 
claims for compensation under debt assignment agreements. 
7. In Poland, it is common practice that, where the cost of damage repair is met by 
the third-party liability insurance of the party at fault, the parties injured in road 
accidents use the services of vehicle repair workshops and rental firms offering 
replacement vehicles without cash payment, and the providers of these services 
seek compensation directly from the insurer of the party at fault. 
8. A circumstance which raises doubts as to domestic jurisdiction is the fact that the 
parties at fault had third-party liability insurance policies with G.I. A/S, a 
company with its seat in Denmark. This insurer does not have a branch, agency or 
another establishment in Poland, and therefore Article 11(2) of Regulation 
No 1215/2012 does not constitute a basis for domestic jurisdiction. The defendant 
insurer offered insurance contracts to Polish citizens through P., a limited liability 
company with its seat in Ż. 
Question 1 
9. It follows from the case-law of the Court of Justice that the purpose of the 
reference in Article 13(2) of Regulation No 1215/2012 is to add injured parties to 
the list of claimants contained in Article 11(1)(b) of that regulation, without 
restricting the category of persons having suffered damage to those suffering it 
directly (judgment of 31 January 2018, Hofsoe, C-106/17 [EU:C:2018:50], 
paragraph 37 and the case-law cited therein). 
T.B. AND D. 
 
7 
10. The Court of Justice has also indicated that derogations from the principle of the 
jurisdiction of the defendant’s domicile must be exceptional in nature [Or. 6] and 
must be interpreted strictly. It follows that no special protection is justified where 
the parties concerned are professionals in the insurance sector, neither of whom 
may be presumed to be in a weaker position than the other (judgment of 
31 January 2018, Hofsoe, C-106/17 [EU:C:2018:50], paragraphs 40 and 42 and 
the case-law cited therein). 
11. In the case-law of the Court of Justice, there is no precise definition of an ‘injured 
party’ within the meaning of Article 13(2) of the Regulation. On the other hand, it 
is indicated that the protective function which Article 13(2) of the Regulation 
fulfils, read in the light of Article 11(1)(b) thereof, means that the application of 
the special rules of jurisdiction laid down in those provisions must not be 
extended to persons for whom that protection is not justified (see judgments of 
13 July 2000, Group Josi, C-412/98, EU:C:2000:399, paragraphs 65 and 66; of 
26 May 2005, GIE Réunion européenne and Others, C-77/04, EU:C:2005:327, 
paragraph 20; and of 17 September 2009, Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse, 
C-347/08, EU:C:2009:561, paragraph 41). 
12. Citing the judgment in Case C-106/17, the applicant, D., a limited liability 
company with its seat in J., points out that it is not a professional in the insurance 
sector and does not carry out the professional activity of recovering insurance 
indemnity claims against insurance companies, in its capacity as contractual 
assignee of such claims. The applicant’s core business is the provision of services 
in the field of vehicle damage repair and replacement vehicle rental. However, in 
addition, within the framework of accepting claim assignment as a non-cash 
settlement of repair costs, the applicant seeks payment of the compensation due to 
it from insurers. 
13. Pursuant to recital 15 of Regulation No 1215/2012, the rules of jurisdiction should 
be highly predictable and founded on the principle that jurisdiction is generally 
based on the defendant’s domicile. 
14. The referring court thus has doubts as to what criteria should be applied when 
assessing whether an entity is a ‘weaker party’ and thus can be regarded as an 
injured party within the meaning of Article 13(2) of the Regulation and invoke 
domestic jurisdiction under Article 11(1)(b) thereof. In particular, the referring 
court has doubts as to whether it should only be assessed whether an entity’s 
professional activities in the insurance sector are of a primary rather than an 
incidental nature, or whether other factors such as the resources of the entity in 
question and the scale of its other business activities are relevant. 
15. In the view of the referring court, given the differences in the case-law of courts of 
ordinary jurisdiction and the importance of the issue at hand for the question of 
jurisdiction, it would be reasonable to specify precisely which entities may be 
regarded as injured parties within the meaning of Article 13(2) of the Regulation. 
Such a criterion could, for example, form the basis on which a claim is acquired. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 18. 8. 2020 – CASE C-393/20 
 
8  
This would lead to the conclusion that entities which decide to acquire a claim by 
way of a consensual agreement cannot invoke domestic jurisdiction on the basis of 
Article 13(2), in conjunction with Article 11(1)(b), of Regulation No 1215/2012. 
[Or. 7] Question 2 
16. Whereas the first question referred for a preliminary ruling concerns only the 
applicant in one of the joined cases (D., a limited liability company with its seat in 
J.), the second question is general in nature and concerns both joined cases. 
17. The referring court is unsure whether a person who has acquired, pursuant to an 
assignment agreement, a claim for compensation from the third-party liability 
insurer of the party at fault may rely on the aforementioned provisions of 
Articles 7(2) and 12 of the Regulation in order to pursue claims before the court of 
the place where the harmful event occurred. 
18. Article 7(2) of the Regulation provides for the possibility of suing a person 
domiciled in a Member State in matters relating to tort or delict in the courts for 
the place where the harmful event occurred. It may therefore be assumed that this 
provision also applies to cases involving a legal successor of the directly injured 
party which have been brought against the entity liable in respect of the tort or 
delict (for instance, the insurer) […] [references to national case-law]. 
19. However, the doubt as to the applicability of the connecting factor indicated above 
arises from the fact that the insurer’s liability is based on the insurance contract 
concluded with the party at fault. In addition, the question of jurisdiction in 
insurance matters is regulated in Articles 10 to 16 of the Regulation. 
20. The applicants in the joined cases point out that the jurisdiction of the court of the 
place of the accident in the cases at issue is based on Article 12 of the Regulation, 
according to which, in respect of liability insurance, the insurer may be sued in the 
courts for the place where the harmful event occurred. This view has been 
reflected, in analogous circumstances, in the case-law of the Polish courts of 
ordinary jurisdiction … [references to national case-law]. On the other hand, it is 
pointed out that Article 12 of the Regulation should be read in conjunction with 
Article 13(2) thereof. Thus, only a person who is an injured party within the 
meaning of Article 13(2) of the Regulation would be able to invoke the 
jurisdiction arising from Article 12 […] [references to national case-law]. 
21. The adoption of one of the above solutions will have a major impact on all 
economic actors. If it is accepted that a party which acquires a claim and is a 
professional in the insurance sector cannot invoke domestic jurisdiction under 
Article 7(2) and Article 12 of the Regulation, the action will have to be brought 
before the courts of the Member State in which the third-party liability insurer of 
the party at fault is established [Or. 8], even though the place of the event and the 
place in which the party at fault and the injured party are domiciled are in another 
Member State. 
T.B. AND D. 
 
9 
22. However, pursuant to Article 13(1) of the Regulation, in respect of liability 
insurance, the insurer may also, if the law of the court permits it, be joined in 
proceedings which the injured party has brought against the insured party. A 
similar provision is contained in Article 8(2) of the Regulation, which allows a 
person domiciled in a Member State to be sued as a third party in an action on a 
warranty or guarantee or in any other third-party proceedings, in the court seised 
of the original proceedings. Pursuant to the aforementioned Article 822(4) of the 
Civil Code, Polish law allows a person entitled to compensation for a contingency 
covered by a civil-liability insurance policy to bring a claim directly against the 
insurer. 
23. Thus, in order to be able to sue the third-party liability insurer of the party at fault, 
the party which has acquired the claim will have to sue the insured party, since 
this will enable the claim acquirer to invoke the jurisdiction arising from 
Article 13(1) of the Regulation (or possibly from Article 8(2) of the Regulation). 
24. The foregoing interpretation would result in unfavourable consequences for the 
party at fault, who will be liable for certain costs, although in principle his 
participation as defendant in such cases is not necessary. This solution is also 
inconsistent with Polish law, which allows the injured party – as well as the claim 
acquirer – to sue the insurer of the party at fault without having to sue the party at 
fault. 
25. Therefore, in the opinion of the referring court, it would be reasonable to interpret 
Articles 12 and 13(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1215/2012 in such a manner as to 
allow the third-party liability insurer of the party at fault to be sued in the court of 
the place where the harmful event occurred without an obligation to sue the 
insured party. 
26. In conclusion, answers to both of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
are necessary in order to resolve the cases pending before the referring court. 
Referring these questions for a preliminary ruling is justified by the fact that from 
the case-law of Polish courts of ordinary jurisdiction available in the public 
domain and also known to the referring court ex officio, it follows that the 
aforementioned provisions of the Regulation are interpreted in different ways, 
which results – in analogous circumstances – in divergent rulings being delivered 
in respect of domestic jurisdiction. 
27. […] [procedural matters]