Groupement d'intérêt économique (GIE) Réunion européenne and Others v Zurich España and Société pyrénéenne de transit d'automobiles (Soptrans).
Date: 2005-05-26
17. According to settled case-law, it is apparent from a consideration of the provisions of Section 3 in the light of the documents leading to their enactment that, 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, they 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 (Case 201/82 Gerling and Others  v Amministrazione del Tesoro dello Stato  [1983] ECR 2503, paragraph 17 and Case C-412/98 Group Josi  [2000] ECR I-5925, paragraph 64).
18. That role of protecting the party deemed to be economically weaker and less experienced in legal matters implies, however, that the application of the rules of special jurisdiction laid down to that end by the Convention should not be extended to persons for whom such protection is not justified ( Group Josi , paragraph 65).
20. In those circumstances 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.
22. The authors of the Convention took as their premiss that the provisions of Section 3 of Title II were applicable only to relations characterised by an imbalance between the parties and established for that reason a body of rules on special jurisdiction which favours the party regarded as economically weaker and less experienced in legal matters. Moreover, Article 12(5) of the Convention excludes from that protective body of rules insurance contracts in which the insured enjoys considerable economic power.
23. It is therefore consistent with the letter, spirit and purpose of the provisions in question to hold that they are not applicable to relations between insurers in the context of third-party proceedings.
27. The claims brought by Soptrans and by the insurers before the Tribunal de grande instance de Perpignan must therefore be regarded respectively as original proceedings and third-party proceedings within the meaning of Article 6(2) of the Convention.
30. As both the Commission and the Advocate General, in paragraphs 32 and 33 of his Opinion, have emphasised, the existence of a connection between the two sets of proceedings before the French courts is inherent in the very concept of third-party proceedings.
32. 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.
34. It should be added in that respect that, with regard to third party proceedings, Article 6(2) merely determines which court has jurisdiction and is not concerned with conditions for admissibility properly so-called. As regards procedural rules, reference must be made to the nation al rules applicable by the national court (Case C-365/88 Hagen  [1990] ECR I-1845, paragraphs 18 and 19).