EuGH; 2022-06-30; C-652/20
Judgment;Summary;Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:EU:C:2022:514
Date: 2022-06-30
Language of the case: Romanian
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Area of freedom, security and justice;Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Romania;Germany

Anonymised version 
Translation C-652/20 -1 
Case C-652/20 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
2 December 2020 
Referring court: 
Tribunalul București (Romania) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
28 September 2020 
Applicants: 
HW 
ZF 
MZ 
Defendant: 
Allianz Elementar Versicherungs-AG 
  
[…] TRIBUNALUL BUCUREȘTI 
SECȚIA A VI-A CIVILĂ 
(Regional Court, Bucharest – Sixth Division for Civil Matters) 
[…] ORDER 
Public hearing of 28 September 2020 […] [composition of the court] 
Registered in the roll is the civil action brought by the applicant HW, the 
applicant MZ and the applicant ZF […] against the defendant Allianz Elementar 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 28.9.2020 – CASE C-652/20 
 
2  
Anonymised version 
Versicherungs-AG through the intermediary of its correspondent 
S.C. Allianz-Țiriac Asigurări SA, for damages (non-material damage). 
[…] [national proceedings] […] THE COURT 
Ruling: 
I On the reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union of a 
question for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of 
Article 11(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012: 
I (i) Facts: 
1 On 22 December 2017, the deceased person SZ was driving a vehicle registered in 
Austria and bearing the registration number W-67200G. As a result of driving too 
fast and of having consumed alcohol, SZ lost control of the vehicle and crashed 
into an electricity pole. Responsibility for the accident lies, at least in part, with 
SZ. Following the accident, EY, who was sitting to the right of the driver, also 
died. [OR. 2] 
2 The vehicle bearing the registration number W-67200G was insured in Austria by 
the defendant Allianz Elementar Versicherungs-AG under an insurance policy 
[…] that was in effect on the date of the accident. 
3 Following the accident, on 17 February 2020, the applicants in the present case 
(the mother of the deceased person EY, his maternal grandfather and his maternal 
grandmother) brought legal proceedings against the defendant Allianz Elementar 
Versicherungs-AG, through the intermediary of its correspondent in Romania 
(S.C. Allianz Țiriac Asigurări SA, whose registered office is in Bucharest), with 
each applicant seeking compensation for non-material damage in the sum of 
1 000 000 Romanian lei (RON) (slightly in excess of EUR 250 000). They claim 
to have suffered great mental anguish as a result of the death of EY and argue that 
the consequential harm should be covered by the insurer of the vehicle bearing the 
registration number W-67200G. The applicants have chosen to bring proceedings 
before the referring court, which is located in the place where the defendant’s 
correspondent in Romania has its registered office, rather than [before the courts 
of] the places where they are domiciled (the applicants are domiciled respectively 
in the counties of Brașov and Mehedinți, while their legal representative has its 
law office in the county of Olt). 
ALLIANZ ELEMENTAR VERSICHERUNGS-AG 
 
3 
Anonymised version 
I (ii) Issue of jurisdiction: 
4 The provisions of Article 131(1) 1 and Article 1071(1) 2 of the Codul de procedură 
civilă roman (Romanian Code of Civil Procedure) 3 […] require the court to verify 
ex officio that it has general, international, substantive and local jurisdiction at the 
first hearing to which the parties have been duly summoned and at which they are 
in a position to apply for a form of order, and to record the legal basis for its 
jurisdiction in the transcript of the hearing. Therefore, of relevance to the present 
case are the provisions of Article 11(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 4 
[…], pursuant to which: an insurer domiciled in a Member State may be sued: … 
in another Member State, in the case of actions brought by the policyholder, [OR. 
3] the insured or a beneficiary, in the courts for the place where the claimant is 
domiciled; …  
5 Accordingly, that provision is applicable in the present case, since the insurer (the 
defendant) is domiciled in the territory of a Member State of the European Union 
(Austria) and legal proceedings have been brought against it by beneficiaries of 
the insurance policy (the applicants) in another Member State (Romania). The 
applicability of Article 11(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 is also 
apparent from the ruling of the Court of Justice in Case C-463/06 [(FBTO 
Schadeverzekeringen)], in which, with reference to provisions of Regulation (EC) 
No 44/2001 5 subsequently taken up in Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, it held 
that: the reference in Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 
22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of 
judgments in civil and commercial matters to Article 9(1)(b) of that regulation is 
to be interpreted as meaning that the injured party may bring an action directly 
against the insurer before the courts for the place in a Member State where that 
 
1 Article 131 Verification of jurisdiction Paragraph (1): At the first hearing before the court of 
first instance to which the parties have been duly summoned and at which they are in a position 
to apply for a form of order, the judge must, ex officio, verify and establish whether the court 
seised has general, substantive and local jurisdiction to hear the case and must record in the 
transcript of the hearing the legal grounds for declaring that the court seised has jurisdiction. 
The transcript shall be interlocutory. 
2 Article 1071 Verification of international jurisdiction Paragraph (1): The court seised shall 
verify, ex officio, that it has international jurisdiction in accordance with domestic legislation 
governing jurisdiction; where it establishes that it does not have such jurisdiction and that no 
other Romanian court has jurisdiction, it shall dismiss the claim on the ground that it does not 
fall within the jurisdiction of the Romanian courts, without prejudice to the application of the 
provisions of Article 1070. The decision of the court may be appealed before a higher court. 
3 Law No 134/2010, republished in the Monitorul Oficial [al României] (Official Journal of 
Romania) No 247 of 10 April 2015, as amended. 
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) […]. 
5 Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition 
and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (repealed). 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 28.9.2020 – CASE C-652/20 
 
4  
Anonymised version 
injured party is domiciled, provided that such a direct action is permitted and the 
insurer is domiciled in a Member State. 
6 The issue of interpretation which the referring court is required to address arises 
from the wording of the last part of the provision, which states that, where a 
beneficiary of the insurance issues proceedings in another Member State, he or 
she may sue the insurer in the courts for the place where he or she is domiciled. 
7 The referring court observes in this connection that the rules governing 
international jurisdiction do not, generally speaking, aim also to determine 
domestic jurisdiction (or more precisely, local jurisdiction). That is true of the 
provisions of Article 1072(1) of the Codul de procedură civilă 6 and of recital 4 of 
Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012. 7 
8 However, the referring court considers that there are exceptions to that rule, and 
legal academic writers also take that view. […] For example, the Codul de 
procedură civilă establishes local jurisdiction in accordance with a rule of private 
[OR. 4] international law in the case of forum necessitatis [(see Article 1070(1) of 
the Codul de procedură civilă, 8 which provides that the Romanian court for the 
place with which the case is sufficiently connected acquires jurisdiction to hear 
the case in the particular circumstances contemplated in that provision)]. 
9 However, more importantly, the first indent of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 
No 1215/2012 has been interpreted by the Court of Justice […] as meaning that 
that provision establishes not only international jurisdiction, but also domestic 
(local) jurisdiction. To that effect, in its judgment in Case C-386/05 [(Color 
Drack)], at [paragraph] 30, the Court held that: the first indent of Article 5(1)(b) of 
Regulation No 44/2001, determining both international and local jurisdiction, 
seeks to unify the rules of conflict of jurisdiction and, accordingly, to designate 
the court having jurisdiction directly, without reference to the domestic rules of 
the Member States. The Court of Justice of the European Union has thus expressly 
stated that the provisions of the first indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation 
No 44/2001, which are equivalent to those of the first indent of Article 7(1)(b) of 
 
6 Article 1072 Domestic jurisdiction Paragraph (1): Where the Romanian courts have 
jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of this Book, jurisdiction shall be determined on 
the basis of the rules laid down in this Code and, where necessary, the rules laid down in special 
laws. 
7 Which states that: certain differences between national rules governing jurisdiction and 
recognition of judgments hamper the sound operation of the internal market. Provisions to unify 
the rules of conflict of jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters, and to ensure rapid and 
simple recognition and enforcement of judgments given in a Member State, are essential. 
8 Article 1070 Forum necessitatis Paragraph (1): The Romanian court for the place with which 
the case is sufficiently connected acquires jurisdiction to hear the case. However, the law does 
not provide for the jurisdiction of the Romanian courts where it is shown that it is not possible 
to bring a claim abroad or that it cannot reasonably be required that a claim be brought abroad. 
ALLIANZ ELEMENTAR VERSICHERUNGS-AG 
 
5 
Anonymised version 
Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, determine both international jurisdiction and 
domestic (local) jurisdiction. 
10 It follows that, even in the case of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, there are rules 
on conflicts that are intended to determine not only international jurisdiction, but 
also domestic (local) jurisdiction. It is on the basis of that premiss that the 
referring court’s doubts arise, in the sense that it is possible to find arguments in 
favour of an interpretation according to which the provision under consideration 
establishes [both] international jurisdiction and domestic (local) jurisdiction, just 
as there are arguments to the contrary, according to which the subject matter of 
the provision mentioned is solely international jurisdiction. 
11 The arguments in favour of the view that Article 11(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 
No 1215/2012 establishes both international jurisdiction and domestic (local) 
jurisdiction, at least in so far as the referring court understands them, are the 
following: 
12 (a) in the first place, a grammatical interpretation suggests this, in that the 
provision points to the jurisdiction of the court for the place where the claimant is 
domiciled; it should be emphasised that the English, French and Italian language 
versions, as well as other language versions, have the same content; accordingly, 
it should be observed that reference is made to the place of domicile, and not to 
the State of domicile; [OR. 5] 
13 (b) next, a systematic analysis, in addition to the grammatical analysis, 
suggests the same; it may be observed that the wording of Article 11(1) of the 
regulation refers to three distinct situations, but, while point (a) refers to the courts 
of the Member State in which the insurer is domiciled, point (b) establishes the 
jurisdiction of the courts for the place where the claimant is domiciled; that 
difference in wording might be explained by the fact that the latter rule is intended 
also to establish local jurisdiction; it may also be noted that the first indent of 
Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, which, as has already been 
mentioned, has been interpreted by the Court of Justice as also concerning local 
jurisdiction, also contains the same word: place; 
14 (c) moreover, according to recital 15 [of] Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, the 
rules of jurisdiction should be highly predictable; that objective is achieved 
through an interpretation according to which reference is also made to domestic 
(local) jurisdiction; 
15 (d) on the other hand, the application of the rule under consideration in this 
way would not impinge upon the traditions of the Member States of the European 
Union in so far as concerns the determination of their own domestic jurisdictions; 
this is different, for example, from the case of Article 24(1) of Regulation (EU) 
No 1215/2012, whose provisions, the Court of Justice of the European Union has 
had occasion to rule, establish only international jurisdiction (see, to that effect, 
the judgment in Case C-420/07 [(Apostolides)]; it should be emphasised at this 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 28.9.2020 – CASE C-652/20 
 
6  
Anonymised version 
juncture that national traditions differ in the attribution of jurisdiction in the case 
of claims relating to immovable property; the previous Romanian legislation even 
contained rules different from those currently established under Article 117 of the 
Codul de procedură civilă […]), 9 the situation under consideration does not raise 
any sensitive issues and, in any event, the provisions of Article 62 of the 
regulation are applicable to this situation. 
16 As regards the arguments that may be made in favour of the opposing view, which 
is that international jurisdiction alone is addressed, the referring court would 
suggest the following: 
17 (a) the arguments mentioned above do not take account of the fact that the rule 
is still the rule on the establishment, by the rules of private international law, 
solely of international jurisdiction, and that exceptions must be expressly provided 
for; in addition, in the interests of legal certainty, [OR. 6] such exceptions must be 
set out in clear, precise rules capable of providing the answer sought without any 
excessive need for interpretation; 
18 (b) a teleological interpretation may support the view that, since the aim of 
Article 11(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 is to establish jurisdiction 
more favourably for the beneficiary of the insurance, then the application of that 
rule should not result in the conclusion that claimants may not apply to a different 
court in the Member State in which they are domiciled, if that could be to their 
advantage. Such an interpretation could render the provisions of the regulation 
nugatory (the Tribunalul Gorj (Regional Court, Gorj) has ruled to similar effect). 
It could, for example, be to the advantage of the applicants in the present case to 
apply to the Bucharest court, rather than to any of the courts where they are 
domiciled, since they may assume that the Bucharest court will give a higher 
award for non-material damage than would the other courts in the country; that 
assumption might be based on the fact that the income of residents of Bucharest is 
much higher than that of people in the rest of Romania, as indeed are the prices, 
which reasonably leads to the conclusion that judges in Bucharest, like other 
residents in that city, will perceive the value of money differently from the other 
judges in the country, in the sense that the perceived value of money will be less; 
this could, in theory, result in the grant of a higher amount of compensation for 
non-material loss. This example is, however, based merely on intuition. 
 
9 Article 117 Claims relating to immovable property Paragraph (1): Claims relating to rights in 
immovable property shall be brought solely before the court of the district in which the property 
is situated. Paragraph (2): Where the property is situated in several judicial districts, the claim 
shall be brought before the court of the place of domicile or residence of the defendant, if the 
defendant is in one of those districts, and otherwise before any of the courts of the districts in 
which the property is situated. […] 
 
ALLIANZ ELEMENTAR VERSICHERUNGS-AG 
 
7 
Anonymised version 
I (iii) Fulfilment of the conditions for referring a question to the Court of 
Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling concerning the 
interpretation of Article 11(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012: 
19 Pursuant to Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 
the Court of Justice of the European Union has jurisdiction to give a preliminary 
ruling concerning the interpretation of acts of the European Union institutions 
when it is requested to do so by a national court which considers that a decision on 
the question is necessary to enable it to give judgment. 
20 The present case entails interpretation of a rule of European Union law; an official 
interpretation is necessary, in that the referring court is in doubt as to the content 
of the rule of jurisdiction laid down in Article 11(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 
No 1215/2012 and resolution of that issue of interpretation is necessary in order to 
verify the jurisdiction of that national court. [OR. 7] 
21 In addition, the ruling of the Court of Justice will satisfy other, broader, but 
equally practical objectives: making it public knowledge that the regulation under 
consideration can also establish domestic (local) jurisdiction, and not only 
international jurisdiction (since the Court has not yet ruled to that effect in the 
operative part of any judgment, and given that its position on the point is not well 
known), and also preventing conflicting case-law on the subject. 
22 […] 
[…] 
23 […] 
 
24  […] 
[…] 
FOR THOSE REASONS, 
IN THE NAME OF THE LAW 
HEREBY 
Refers the following question to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a 
preliminary ruling: [OR. 8] 
Are the provisions of Article 11(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 to be 
interpreted as relating solely to the international jurisdiction of the Member States 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 28.9.2020 – CASE C-652/20 
 
8  
Anonymised version 
[of the European Union] or as also establishing the domestic (local) jurisdiction of 
the courts for the place where the beneficiary of the insurance policy is domiciled? 
[…] [procedural provisions of national law]