EUPillar K.D. v MMA IARD - 11A212 - Pol. Brugge, 27 January 2012

Summary

The plaintiff sues for damages in the amount of €3.496,50 as compensation for a traffic accident which occurred in Steenvoorde, France. The accident occurred in France between the Belgian plaintiff and a Frenchman. The plaintiff claims against the liability insurer of the French driver. Art. 9(1)(b) of the Brussels I Regulation allows for a motor vehicle liability insurer domiciled in a Member State to be sued in the courts of the place where the plaintiff is domiciled, in the case of actions brought by the policyholder, the insured or a beneficiary. According to Art. 11(2) of the Regulation, Art. 9 is also applicable to actions brought by the injured parties directly against the liability insurer, where such direct actions are permitted. Recital 16a of Directive 2000/26/EC confirms that injured parties may bring legal proceedings against the civil liability insurance provider in the Member State in which they are domiciled. Since Belgian law allows for direct actions by the injured party (Art. 86 Wet Landverzekeringsovereenkomst – Art. 12 §4 WAM-wet), the Police Court has jurisdiction. The Court then goes on to consider the question of the applicable law. Regulation 864/2007 (Rome II), also applies to traffic accidents. However, The Hague Convention of 4 May 1971 on the Law Applicable to Traffic Accidents still applies in Member States, such as Belgium, that are party to this Convention. According to Art. 3 of the Hague Convention the law of the State where the accident happened, is applicable (lex loci delicti commissi). Since in the present case the accident occurred in France, French law is applicable. The Court correctly applies Brussels I and Rome II.