Erhard Eschig v UNIQA Sachversicherung AG.
Date: 2009-09-10
38. It should be recalled, at the outset, that according to the settled case‑law of the Court, in interpreting a provision of Community law it is necessary to consider not only its wording but also the context in which it occurs and the objects of the rules of which it is part (see Case 292/82 Merck  [1983] ECR 3781, paragraph 12; Case 337/82 St Nikolaus Brennerei und Likörfabrik  [1984] ECR 1051, paragraph 10; Case C-223/98 Adidas  [1999] ECR I-7081, paragraph 23; Case C-191/99 Kvaerner  [2001] ECR I-4447, paragraph 30; and Case C-17/03 VEMW and Others  [2005] ECR I-4983, paragraph 41).
45. As is apparent from the entirety of Articles 4, 6 and 7 of Directive 87/344, the rights of insured persons recognised by those articles seek to broadly protect the interests of the insured person without being restricted to situations in which a conflict of interests arises.
47. Therefore, it should be noted, first of all, that Article 4(1) of Directive 87/344 recognises the right of the insured person to choose his representative but, other than in cases where a conflict of interests arises, restricts that right to inquiries and proceedings. The use of the adjective ‘any’ as well as the tense of the verb ‘to recognise’ demonstrate the general application and obligatory nature of that rule.
49. In that regard, it should be noted that the measures provided for in Article 3(2)(a) and (b) of Directive 87/344 retain their scope of application even where an independent right on the part of the person with legal expenses insurance to freely choose his representative is inferred from Article 4(1)(a) of that directive.
54. First, it is settled case-law that the need for a uniform interpretation of Community directives makes it impossible for the text of a provision to be considered, in case of doubt, in isolation; on the contrary, it requires that it be interpreted and applied in the light of the versions existing in the other official languages (see, to that effect, Case C-296/95 EMU Tabac and Others  [1998] ECR I‑1605, paragraph 36; Case C-321/96 Mecklenburg  [1998] ECR I-3809, paragraph 29; and Case C‑498/03 Kingscrest Associates and Montecello  [2005] ECR I-4427, paragraph 26).
65. It is useful to point out, finally, that Directive 87/344 does not seek to completely harmonise the Member States’ legal expenses insurance contracts and that, as Community law currently stands, those States remain free to determine the body of rules applicable to those contracts.
66. However, the Member States must exercise their powers in this field in compliance with Community law and, in particular, with Article 4 of Directive 87/344.
67. Furthermore, it should be noted that it is for the national court to interpret the provisions of the VersVG, as far as possible in the light of the wording and the purpose of Directive 87/344, taking into account the interpretation given above of Article 4(1) thereof, in order to achieve the result sought by that directive and, consequently, comply with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC (see, to that effect, inter alia, Joined Cases C-397/01 to C-403/01 Pfeiffer and Others  [2004] ECR I-8835, paragraph 113).