Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse v WGV-Schwäbische Allgemeine Versicherungs AG.
Date: 2009-09-17
26. In this respect, it is settled case‑law that the need for a uniform interpretation of Community law 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 also in the light of the versions existing in the other official languages (see Case 9/79 Koschniske  [1979] ECR 2717, paragraph 6; Case C‑296/95 EMU Tabac and Others  [1998] ECR I‑1605, paragraph 36; and Case C‑174/05 Zuid‑Hollandse Milieufederatie and Natuur en Milieu  [2006] ECR I‑2443, paragraph 20) and by reference to the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which that provision forms part (Case 30/77 Bouchereau  [1977] ECR 1999, paragraph 14).
27. In the present case, it should be borne in mind, first, that, like the German version, other language versions of Article 11(2) of Regulation No 44/2001 use a term equivalent to ‘the injured party’ (in French, ‘la personne lésée’). This is true of the following language versions: Spanish (‘persona perjudicada’), Czech (‘poškozený’), Danish (‘skadelidte’), Estonian (‘kahju kannatanud pool’), Italian (‘persona lesa’), Polish (‘poszkodowany’), Slovak (‘poškodený’) and Swedish (‘skadelidande’). Second, in paragraph 26 of its judgment in FBTO Schadeverzekeringen , the Court ruled that the purpose of the reference in Article 11(2) of Regulation No 44/2001 is to add injured parties to the list of plaintiffs contained in Article 9(1)(b) of that regulation, without restricting the category of persons having suffered damage to those suffering it directly.
30. The Court has already held that the reference in Article 11(2) of Regulation No 44/2001 to Article 9(1)(b) of that regulation is to be interpreted as meaning that the courts for the place where an injured party is domiciled have jurisdiction as regards an action brought directly against the insurer of the person allegedly responsible, provided that such an action is permitted and that the insurer is domiciled in a Member State ( FBTO Schadeverzekeringen , paragraph 31).
35. In order to ensure that Regulation No 44/2001 is given full effect and an autonomous interpretation, reference should be made principally to its general scheme and objectives (Case 201/82 Gerling Konzern Speziale Kreditversicherung and Others  [1983] ECR 2503, paragraph 11; Case C‑295/95 Farrell  [1997] ECR I‑1683, paragraphs 12 and 13; Case C‑269/95 Benincasa  [1997] ECR I‑3767, paragraph 12; and Case C‑433/01 Blijdenstein  [2004] ECR I‑981, paragraph 24). Consequently, the application given to specific legal forms of substitution, such as a statutory assignment, provided for by Austrian law and in the legal systems of the Member States, cannot have an effect on the interpretation of the provisions of the regulation. A contrary interpretation would necessarily make the interpretation of Regulation No 44/2001 dependent on the national law of the Member States and jeopardise the uniform application of that regulation in the Community.
36. In that regard, recital 11 in the preamble to Regulation No 44/2001 provides that the rules of jurisdiction must be highly predictable and founded on the principle that jurisdiction is generally based on the defendant’s domicile and that jurisdiction must always be available on this ground, save in a few well‑defined situations in which the subject‑matter of the litigation or the autonomy of the parties warrants a different linking factor.
37. Thus, that the courts of the Member State in which the defendant is domiciled are to have jurisdiction, whatever their nationality, constitutes, in the general scheme of the regulation, the general principle laid down in Article 2(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 (Case C‑89/91 Shearson Lehman Hutton  [1993] ECR I‑139, paragraph 14; Case C‑265/02 Frahuil  [2004] ECR I‑1543, paragraph 23; Case C‑103/05 Reisch Montage  [2006] ECR I‑6827, paragraph 22; and Case C‑98/06 Freeport  [2007] ECR I‑8319, paragraph 34).
38. Article 3(1) of that regulation derogates from that general principle. It provides that persons domiciled in a Member State may be sued in the courts of another Member State, but only by virtue of the rules laid down in Sections 2 to 7 of Chapter II of Regulation No 44/2001 ( Reisch Montage , paragraph 22, and Freeport , paragraph 34).
39. Consequently, the rules on jurisdiction derogating from the general principle cannot result in an interpretation which goes beyond the situations expressly envisaged in Regulation No 44/2001 (see, inter alia, Case 150/77 Bertrand  [1978] ECR 1431, paragraph 17; Case C‑26/91 Handte  [1992] ECR I‑3967, paragraph 14; Shearson Lehman Hutton , paragraph 16; Case C‑412/98 Group Josi  [2000] ECR I‑5925, paragraph 49; and Freeport , paragraph 35).
40. Section 3 of Chapter II of that regulation establishes an autonomous system for the conferral of jurisdiction in matters of insurance (Case C‑112/03 Société financière et industrielle du Peloux  [2005] ECR I‑3707, paragraph 29). The purpose of that section, according to recital 13 in the preamble to Regulation No 44/2001, is to protect the weaker party by rules of jurisdiction more favourable to his interests than the general rules provide for.
41. The protective role fulfilled by those provisions implies that the application of the rules of special jurisdiction laid down to that end by Regulation No 44/2001 should not be extended to persons for whom that protection is not justified.
42. It has not been argued that a social security institution, such as VGKK, is an economically weaker party and less experienced legally than a civil liability insurer such as WGV‑SAV. In general, the Court has already held that no special protection is justified where the parties concerned are professionals in the insurance sector, none of whom may be presumed to be in a weaker position than the others (Case C‑77/04 GIE Réunion européenne and Others  [2005] ECR I‑4509, paragraph 20).
44. In contrast, where the statutory assignee of the rights of the directly injured party may himself be considered to be a weaker party, such an assignee should be able to benefit from special rules on the jurisdiction of courts laid down in those provisions. This is particularly the situation, as the Spanish Government states, of the heirs of the person injured in an accident.
45. Moreover, the conclusion set out in paragraph 43 above finds support in the case‑law of the Court concerning special rules on consumer contracts laid down in Section 4 of Title II of Regulation No 44/2001, which also has as its objective the protection of the weaker party. The Court has held that where, in the exercise of its professional activity, a statutory assignee of rights brings proceedings in order to pursue the assignor’s claim under a contract concluded by a consumer, it may not enjoy the benefit of the rules of special jurisdiction concerning consumer contracts, since the purpose of those rules is to protect the economically weaker and legally less experienced party ( Shearson Lehman Hutton , paragraphs 20 to 24).
46. Additional confirmation of the conclusion set out in paragraph 43 above is provided by the judgment in Blijdenstein . In paragraph 34 of that judgment, the Court interpreted Article 5(2) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 1978 L 388, p. 36), as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1, and – amended version – p. 77), by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1) and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1), as not permitting a public body to bring in the courts of the contracting State in which it is established an action for recovery seeking reimbursement of sums paid under public law to a maintenance creditor, to whose rights it is subrogated, against the maintenance debtor domiciled in another contracting State, since that body is not a weaker party in relation to the maintenance debtor.