CELEX: 62014CN0475
Language: en
Date: 2014-10-17 00:00:00
Title: Case C-475/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 17 October 2014  — AAS Gjensidige Baltic, acting through the Lithuanian branch of AAS Gjensidige Baltic v UAB DK PZU Lietuva

12.1.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 7/15
            
         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 17 October 2014 — AAS Gjensidige Baltic, acting through the Lithuanian branch of AAS Gjensidige Baltic v UAB DK PZU Lietuva
   (Case C-475/14)
   (2015/C 007/20)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian
   
      Referring court
   
   Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Appellant in cassation: AAS Gjensidige Baltic, acting through the Lithuanian branch of AAS Gjensidige Baltic
   
      Other party to the proceedings: UAB DK PZU Lietuva
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Does Article 14(b) of Directive 2009/103/EC (1) lay down a conflict-of-law rule, which ratione personae should be applied not only to the victims of road traffic accidents but also to the insurers of the vehicle responsible for the damage caused in the accident, for the purposes of determining the law applicable to the relations between them, and is this provision a special rule with respect to the rules on the applicable law laid down in the Rome I (2) and Rome II (3) regulations?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               If the first question is answered in the negative, it is important to ascertain whether the legal relations between the insurers in the present case fall within the concept of ‘contractual obligations’ within the meaning of Article 1(1) of the Rome I regulation. If the legal relations between the insurers do fall within the concept of ‘contractual obligations’, the important question is then whether those relations fall within the category of insurance contracts (legal relations) and the law applicable to them should be determined in accordance with Article 7 of the Rome I regulation.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               If the first two questions are answered in the negative, it is important to ascertain whether, in the case of a claim for recourse, the legal relations between the insurers of vehicles used in a combination fall within the concept of a ‘non-contractual obligation’ within the meaning of the Rome II regulation and whether or not these relations should be treated as derivative legal relations arising as a result of the road traffic accident (delict), when determining the applicable law in accordance with Article 4(1) of the Rome II regulation. In a case such as the present case, should the insurers of the vehicles used in a combination be treated as debtors who are liable for the same claim within the meaning of Article 20 of the Rome II regulation, and should the law applicable to the relations between them be determined according to that rule?
            
         
      (1)  Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ 2009 L 263, p. 11).
   
      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) (OJ 2008 L 177, p. 6).
   
      (3)  Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) (OJ 2007 L 199, p. 40).