EUPillar LG Mönchengladbach, 17.8.2012

Summary

The plaintiff is a travel company. The defendant is a provider in the local traffic in Belgium which is exempted from compulsory insurance. In 2011 there has been an accident in Brussels between the plaintiff’s coach and the defendant’s service bus. The plaintiff brought an action for damages. The court discussed the international jurisdiction pursuant to Art. 11 (2), 9 (1) (b) Brussels I. It denied the application of these rules directly as well as by analogy. Firstly, the defendant was not an insurance company. This was also valid given the fact that the defendant was exempted from compulsory insurance. The court also denied the application by analogy stating that the rules concerning special jurisdiction had to be interpreted in a restrictive way in view of the general rule of jurisdiction (actor sequitur forum rei, Art. 2 (1) Brussels I). Also, according to the court the rules had to be interpreted in a way that takes into account the requirement of legal security. The court based his statement on the recitals of Brussels I and the jurisdiction of the CJEU. The court found that the reason for the defendant’s exemption from compulsory insurance was her economic capacity. Therefore there was no need to consider the defendant as the economical more powerful party in order to activate the purpose of the special rules on jurisdiction and justify an application by analogy. The court’s judgment is in accordance with the requirement of a restrictive interpretation of special jurisdiction rules. In the present case the defendant wasn’t in a situation similar to an insurance company’s situation. The defendant solely handled accidental damages herself because of her economic capacity. It wouldn’t have been in accordance with the purpose of the weaker party’s protection to extend the rule in Art. 11 (2), 9 (1) (b) Brussels I to the present case. The judgment is correct.