EUPillar BGH, 15.2.2012

Summary

The plaintiff, a British insurance company, claimed damages because of breach of contract. It initiated a proceeding concerning a settlement (Scheme of Arrangement) pursuant to p. 425 of the British Companies Act 1985. The defendant claims that the claimant didn’t have permission to claim for damages because the Scheme also had its effects towards him. The court held that the recognition couldn’t be granted because of Art. 8 et seq., 12 (1), 35 Brussels I. Judgments could only be recognized when there was no infringement of a rule of chapter II. One of these rules was Art. 12 (1) Brussels I that applied to insurance issues. The court founded its decision on the purpose of Art. 8 et seq. Brussels I: these specific rules were based on socio-political deliberations and were made in order to protect the economically weaker party. According to the court Art. 8 Brussels I had to be interpreted in an extensive way. The court stated that otherwise the insurer would be able to change the insured person’s rights fundamentally without being obliged to respect the venue of Art. 12 (1) Brussels I. The court interpreted Art. 8 Brussels I extensively. This interpretation promotes the protection of policyholders in the EU in terms of international jurisdiction. Art. 8 Brussels I concerns the conclusion of the insurance contract, its interpretation as well as its execution. It is in accordance with the necessary autonomous interpretation that the international jurisdiction was denied.