EUPillar BGH, 6.5.2008 – VI ZR 200/05

Summary

The plaintiff having its domicile in Germany brought an action for damages against the defendant who is an insurer based in the Netherlands. The plaintiff has had a car accident in the Netherlands with a person insured by the defendant. The Local Court denied the international jurisdiction while the second instance court affirmed it. The Federal Court of Justice made a preliminary reference to the CJEU in 2006 regarding the question: Is the reference to Article 9(1)(b) in Article 11(2) to be understood as meaning that the injured party may bring an action directly against the insurer in the courts for the place in a Member State where the injured party is domiciled, provided that such a direct action is permitted and the insurer is domiciled in a Member State? The CJEU answered the question in C-463/06 (Odenbreit): The reference in Article 11(2) Brussels I to Article 9(1)(b) of that regulation is to be interpreted as meaning that the injured party may bring an action directly against the insurer before the courts for the place in a Member State where that injured party is domiciled, provided that such a direct action is permitted and the insurer is domiciled in a Member State. The Federal Court of Justice applied the judgment to the present case. Therefore the German courts had international jurisdiction.