EUPillar J.M.T. v NV A.S. - 11A44 - Pol. Brugge, 16 September 2011

Summary

The plaintiff claims damages in the amount of 2.139,68 EUR as compensation for a traffic accident which occurred in Spijkenisse in The Netherlands. The accident occurred in The Netherlands between the Belgian plaintiff and a Dutchman. The plaintiff claims against the liability insurer of the Dutch driver. Art. 9(1)(b) of Regulation 44/2001 allows 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. Consideration 16a merely interprets Articles 9 and 11 of Regulation 44/2001 and therefore needs no further measures for implementation in the Member States. 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 The Netherlands, Dutch law is applicable. The Court correctly applies Brussels I and Rome II.