SOVAG - Schwarzmeer und Ostsee Versicherungs-Aktiengesellschaft v If Vahinkovakuutusyhtiö Oy.
Date: 2016-01-21
29


Nevertheless, it must be pointed out that, according to recital 13 of Regulation No 44/2001, the objective of that section is to protect the weaker party, namely, the insured party, beneficiary or policyholder, by means of rules on jurisdiction more favourable to his interests than the general rules.
30


The action at issue in the main proceedings concerns relations between professionals in the insurance sector and will not affect the procedural situation of a party deemed to be weaker. The objective of protecting a party deemed to be weaker being fulfilled once jurisdiction is established on the basis of Section 3 of Chapter II of Regulation No 44/2001, subsequent procedural developments concerning only relations between professionals cannot fall within the ambit of that section (see, to that effect, judgments in GIE Réunion européenne and Others, C‑77/04, EU:C:2005:327, paragraphs 20 and 23 and Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse, C‑347/08, EU:C:2009:561, paragraph 42).
31


Thus, given that an action brought by an insurer against another insurer, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not come within the scope of Section 3 of Chapter II of Regulation No 44/2001, Article 6(2) of that regulation will apply to such an action provided that the latter falls within the situation described in that provision.
35


According to the settled case-law of the Court, where there is divergence between the various language versions of an EU legislative text, the provision in question must be interpreted by reference to the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms part (judgment in Jakutis and Kretingalės kooperatinė ŽŪB, C‑103/14, EU:C:2015:752, paragraph 103).
37


In that regard, it should be noted that, even though the rules of special jurisdiction must be strictly interpreted and cannot be given an interpretation going beyond the cases expressly envisaged by Regulation No 44/2001 (see, to that effect, judgment in CDC Hydrogen Peroxide, C‑352/13, EU:C:2015:335, paragraph 18), several of the objectives of that regulation support the interpretation that an action brought by a third party against one of the parties to the original proceedings is also to be regarded as falling within the scope of Article 6(2) of Regulation No 44/2001.
41


In addition, the Court has previously held, in the context of the convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, signed in Brussels on 27 September 1968 (OJ 1972 L 299, p. 32) (‘the Brussels Convention’), that an action brought by the insured party against the insurer, seeking compensation for the consequences of an accident, and an action whereby that insurer seeks indemnification from another insurer considered to have provided cover for the same event, must be regarded, respectively, as original proceedings and an action on a warranty or guarantee within the meaning of Article 6(2) of that convention (see, to that effect, judgment in GIE Réunion européenne and Others, C‑77/04, EU:C:2005:327, paragraph 27).
43


Since the interpretation given by the Court in respect of the provisions of that convention is also valid for those of Regulation No 44/2001 whenever the provisions of those instruments may be regarded as equivalent (judgment in CDC Hydrogen Peroxide, C‑352/13, EU:C:2015:335, paragraph 60), it must be found that such is the case as regards Article 6(2) of the Brussels Convention and Article 6(2) of Regulation No 44/2001.
45


Given that Article 6(2) of Regulation No 44/2001 requires a link between, on the one hand, the original proceedings and, on the other hand, the third party proceedings or the action on a warranty or guarantee to which it refers, it is for the national court seised of the original claim to ascertain whether such a connection exists, in the sense that it must satisfy itself that the third party proceedings or the action on a warranty or guarantee do not seek to remove the defendant from the jurisdiction of the court which would be competent in the case (see, to that effect, judgment in GIE Réunion européenne and Others, C‑77/04, EU:C:2005:327, paragraphs 30 and 32).