Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2005:113
Date: 2005-02-24
Language of the case: French
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968;Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968 - Jurisdiction
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: France

Summary of the Judgment 1. Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments – Jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance – Objective – Protection of the weaker party – Scope – Third‑party proceedings between insurers – Excluded (Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968, Title II, Section 3) 2. Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments – Special jurisdiction – Third‑party proceedings – Applicability of third‑party proceedings based on multiple insurance – Condition – Existence of a connecting factor with the principal claim (Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968, Art. 6(2) 1. Third‑party proceedings between insurers based on multiple insurance are not subject to the rules of special jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance in Section 3 of Title II of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the accession of the Hellenic Republic, by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic and by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden. In affording the insured a wider range of jurisdiction than that available to the insurer and in excluding any possibility of a clause conferring jurisdiction for the benefit of the insurer, the provisions of that section reflect an underlying concern to protect the insured, who in most cases is faced with a predetermined contract, the clauses of which are no longer negotiable, and is the weaker party economically. No special protection is justified since the parties concerned are professionals in the insurance sector, none of whom may be presumed to be in a weaker position than the others. (see paras 17, 20, 24, operative part 1) 2. Article 6(2) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the accession of the Hellenic Republic, by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic and by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, is applicable to third‑party proceedings between insurers based on multiple insurance, in so far as there is a sufficient connection between the original proceedings and the third‑party proceedings to support the conclusion that the choice of forum does not amount to an abuse. It is for the national court seised of the original claim to verify the existence of such a connection, in the sense that it must satisfy itself that the third‑party proceedings do not seek to remove the defendant from the jurisdiction of the court which would be competent in the case. (see paras 32, 36, operative part 2)