Korkein oikeus; 2016-09-12; SOVAG, If Insurance Finland; KKO:2016:59
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:FI:KKO:2016:59
Date: 2016-09-12
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Finland

82016FI0912(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
"A" was injured in a traffic accident in Germany and filed an action in the Länsi-Uudenmaan käräjäoikeus (hereinafter “the District court”) against a German insurance company SOVAG (hereinafter “the defendant”), where the vehicle of the driver responsible for the accident had been insured. Following the action of A, the Finnish insurance company “If” (hereinafter “the plaintiff”), which paid the compensation to A, also submitted a request against the German insurer in the same District court, based on Article 61(2) of the Tapaturmavakuutuslaki (“Employment Accidents Insurance Act”), according to which the insurance institution is entitled to receive the amount paid from the injured party or any other person liable.
The plaintiff requested the court to confirm that A had been injured in the road accident resulting in a permanent work disability and to confirm that the defendant is obliged to pay all compensation to the plaintiff that it had paid to A.
The defendant alleged lack of jurisdiction of the Finnish courts and requested that the action be dismissed.
The District Court considered that the jurisdiction should be assessed according to Section 3 (Jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance) of the Brussels I Regulation (1), held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear this case and dismissed the action. Plaintiff 2 appealed to the Court of Appeal, which ruled that it is not Section 3 that is applicable in this case, but Article 6(2) instead, according to which a person domiciled in a Member State may also be sued as a third party in any third-party proceedings, in the court seised for the original proceedings. Therefore, the Court of Appeal held that the District Court had the jurisdiction over this case and referred the case back to the District Court.
The defendant appealed to the Korkein oikeus (hereinafter “the Supreme Court”) claiming that the decision of the Court of Appeal should be annulled and that the action filed in the District Court should be dismissed due to a lack of international jurisdiction. The Supreme Court made a request for a preliminary ruling (2) to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to ascertain whether Article 6(2) of the Brussels I Regulation “is to be interpreted as covering an action" "on a warranty of guarantee or another equivalent claim closely linked to the original action, which is brought by a third party, as permitted by national law, against one of the parties with a view to its being heard in the same court proceedings”.
The CJEU, in its judgment (3) ruled that Article 6(2) “must be interpreted to the effect that its scope includes an action brought by a third party, in accordance with national law, against the defendant in the original proceedings, and closely linked to those original proceedings, seeking reimbursement of compensation paid by that third party to the applicant in those original proceedings, provided that the action was not instituted solely with the object of removing that defendant from the jurisdiction of the court which would be competent in the case.”
Based on the interpretation provided by CJEU, the Supreme Court held that the District court had jurisdiction to hear and decide this case. Therefore, the decision of the Court of Appeal was upheld.
(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgement in civil and commercial matters.
(2) Reguest for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 18 November 2014.
(3) Judgement of the Court of Justice of 21 January 2016, SOVAG v If, C-521/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:41.