PIL instrument(s)

Case number and/or case name

OLG Frankfurt a.M., 23.6.2014 – 16 U 224/13

Details of the court

Germany, Second Instance

Articles referred to by the court

Date of the judgement

22 June 2014

Appeal history

CJEU's case law cited by the court

Summary

The parties argued about damage claims resulting from an insurance contract. The claimant was a leasing company having its registered office in Germany. The defendant was an insurance company established in Belgium. It was doubtful whether German courts had international jurisdiction pursuant to Art. 9 (1) (b), 11 (2) Brussels I. The court held that the leasing company’s action could be considered under international jurisdiction of German courts pursuant to Art. 9 (1) (b), 11 (2) Brussels I. First, a company as legal entity could generally be the ‘insured’ within the meaning of Art. 9 Brussels I. The rule wasn’t constrained to private persons. Further, the claimant needed the same protection as a private person because it didn’t have any special knowledge in the field of Belgian insurance law. It’s correct that legal entities can sue under Art. 9 (1) (b), 11 (2) Brussels I because the rule neither by its wording nor by its purpose is limited to private persons. In general it is required that the claimant’s position in dispute calls for the same protection as granted by Art. 9 (1) (b) Brussels I for the parties named there. It doesn’t seem relevant whether the plaintiff has special knowledge in exactly the insurance law of the country where the defendant has its registered office as it was stated by the court. It is decisive whether the plaintiff in international proceedings requires a special protection within the different venues established by the regulation because of a lack of legal or economic experience. In the present case the claimant wasn’t an insurance company which could indicate its need for protection, but it operated throughout Europe. It therefore probably has established certain knowledge in legal and economic issues, being a leasing company maybe even especially as regards car accidents. It is not sure whether this knowledge would suffice to deny a special need for protection by Art. 9 Brussels I. It therefore seems unclear if the judgment can be considered correct.