Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden; 2023-02-21; Allianz; 200.307.967
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:NL:GHARL:2023;1549
Date: 2023-02-21
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Netherlands

82023NL0221(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
ECLI:NL:GHARL:2023:1549 – 21 February 2023 - 200.307.967
Insurance – Tort – Alleged fraud - the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1)
The plaintiff holds Allianz, established in Belgium, liable for a road accident allegedly caused by the Mercedes Benz Vito 109 driver insured by Allianz. Allianz refused to pay, contesting the circumstances of the accident.
Allianz sought a (negative) declaration from the Dutch court that it was not liable and/or responsible for the occurrence and consequences of the accident alleged by the plaintiff. It also sought a declaration that the plaintiff had acted unlawfully towards Allianz by falsely claiming that an accident had occurred (insurance fraud).
By judgment of 8 December 2021, the Rechtbank Overijssel (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) accepted jurisdiction over Allianz's claims and ruled that Dutch law applied. The Court of First Instance subsequently granted the requested declarations. The plaintiff asked the Court of Appeal to declare that the Dutch court had no jurisdiction.
The plaintiff lived in Germany when the first summons was issued. This means that the Court of Appeal must first decide (ex officio) whether the Dutch court has jurisdiction to hear the case.
Article 11(1)(b) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) provides that ‘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’.
3.10 The present case concerns a (more or less) mirror image situation: the insurer is the plaintiff, and the (alleged) injured party is the defendant. However, the reasons for extending the application of Article 11 also (or perhaps precisely) exist in such cases. Article 14(1) should also be interpreted as covering not only cases where an insurer brings a claim against the policyholder, the insured, or a beneficiary but also cases in which an insurer brings a claim against an (alleged) injured party. According to the Court of Appeal, it is consistent with the system and the scope of protection of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) to grant the same jurisdiction to persons who (allegedly) have suffered damage, in addition to the specifically mentioned categories. If Article 14(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) were not to apply in cases where the defendant is the (alleged) injured party (and not the policyholder, the insured, or a beneficiary), the Court of Appeal considers that this would be contrary to the spirit of the Brussels I Regulation (recast).
3.11 In the light of the foregoing, the Court of Appeal considers that the application of Article 14(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) cannot be limited to the qualification of the defendant as a ‘policyholder’, ‘the insured’, or ‘a beneficiary’. The point is that this provision only allows the insurer to bring its claim in the courts of the Member State in which the defendant is domiciled. This includes the weaker, injured defendant with the pretence of a direct action against the insurer.
3.12 In the light of the foregoing, the Court of Appeal concludes that, under Article 14(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), Allianz had to bring its action in the court of the plaintiff’s domicile. The plaintiff was domiciled in Germany when the originating summons was issued. Consequently, the German court of that domicile had exclusive jurisdiction to hear the case. The Court of First Instance, therefore, lacked jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal will be unable to deal with the other complaints.
The Court of Appeal set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance (sitting in Almelo) of 8 December 2021 and declared that the Court of First Instance had no jurisdiction to hear the case.
(1) 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 (recast).