Judgment of the Court of 10 May 2016 in Joined Cases E-15/15 and E-16/15, Franz-Josef Hagedorn v Vienna-Life Lebensversicherung AG and Rainer Armbruster v Swiss Life (Liechtenstein) AG (Directive 2002/83/EC — Article 36 — Transfer of life assurance contracts — Admissibility — The term ‘assurance contract’ — Change in policy conditions)
Date: 2016-05-10
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Liechtenstein, contract terms, insurance contract, life assurance








C_2017066EN.01002901.xml










2.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 66/29





JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 10 May 2016
in Joined Cases E-15/15 and E-16/15,
Franz-Josef Hagedorn v Vienna-Life Lebensversicherung AG and Rainer Armbruster v Swiss Life (Liechtenstein) AG
(Directive 2002/83/EC — Article 36 — Transfer of life assurance contracts — Admissibility — The term ‘assurance contract’ — Change in policy conditions)
(2017/C 66/08)
In Joined Cases E-15/15 and E-16/15, Franz-Josef Hagedorn v Vienna-Life Lebensversicherung AG and Rainer Armbruster v Swiss Life (Liechtenstein) AG — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the Supreme Court of the Principality of Liechtenstein (Fürstlicher Oberster Gerichtshof) concerning the interpretation of Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 concerning life assurance, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 10 May 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:






1.


Article 36(1) of Directive 2002/83/EC does not address legal transactions such as those in which an existing unit-linked life assurance policy is transferred via a purchase agreement from one person to another where the insured risk, namely the insured person, under the assurance policy remains the same. A transfer of a unit-linked life assurance policy by a legal transaction does not constitute a change in the policy conditions unless the terms of the assurance policy are also amended, thereby altering the balance of rights and obligations of the parties to the assurance contract. It falls to the referring court to assess the facts of the cases and to determine whether the relevant transfers led to a change in the policy conditions of the unit-linked life assurance policies acquired by the applicants.










2.


If a ‘change in the policy conditions’ within the meaning of the Directive has taken place, the referring court needs to consider whether the information listed in Annex III(B)(b)(2) was provided to the second-hand policy holder in a clear, accurate and complete manner, in writing, and in an official language of the EEA State of commitment.










3.


It is of no significance for the information obligation of the assurance undertaking whether the former policy holder was an undertaking and the new policy holder is a consumer, unless this difference has led to an amendment to the terms of the assurance contract.










4.


The information listed in Annex III(A) of the Directive solely relates to ‘information about the assurance undertaking’ and ‘information about the commitment’. Consequently, whether or not the original policy holder disclosed information about himself so that his own risk or investor profile could be assessed is of no relevance for the information obligation of the assurance undertaking under the Directive.










5.


Directives must be implemented into the national legal order of the EEA States with unquestionable binding force and the specificity, precision and clarity necessary to satisfy the requirements of legal certainty. Furthermore, national courts are bound to interpret national law in conformity with EEA law. Under Article 34 SCA, the Court has jurisdiction to give advisory opinions on the interpretation of the EEA Agreement upon the request of national courts. After the Court has rendered its judgment, it falls to the referring court to interpret national law in light of the factors clarified by the Court. In cases where a conform interpretation of national law is not sufficient to achieve the result sought by the relevant EEA rule, that matter may be brought before the Court under the procedure prescribed by Article 31 SCA.