EUPillar AG Frankenthal, 15.10.2014

Summary

The parties argued about damage claims from a traffic accident in Poland. The claimant was habitually resident in Germany; the defendant was a Polish insurance company. The parties agreed that the defendant was liable for the damage of the claimant’s car. The dispute concerned the compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The defendant had paid 300 euros for compensation, whereas the plaintiff claimed 2500 euros due to the ‘general circumstances of the dispute’. The court held that the claim for further compensation was justified to an amount of 2000 Euro. It stated that the dispute pursuant to Art 4 (1) Rome II was governed by Polish law as the law of the lex loci delicti. According to Polish law, immaterial damage can be claimed (Art 445 § 1 ZGB). The extent of the sum is to be assessed by the court according to the circumstances of the individual case. However, the price level is an aspect that is to be taken into consideration, too. Due to the higher price level in Germany as the state of the claimant’s habitual residence the compensation according to the court was to be increased to 2000 euros. In its decision the court considers the German rule of § 287 ZPO (German Law on Civil Procedure) applicable without explicitly justifying this application. This rule allows the court to define the extent of the damage in free discretion. Further, it applies the Polish rule on immaterial compensation by referring to the higher price level in Germany and therefore increasing the sum of the compensation claim. It justifies this interpretation by referring to the fact that courts according to Polish law can determine the amount of compensation in view of the specific circumstances of each individual case. The outcome of the decision seems reasonable as the facts are substantially influenced by the issue of the price level in the defendant’s home state. The Polish rule can be interpreted in a way that takes into account the circumstances in the country where the person receiving the compensation has his habitual residence. The application of § 287 ZPO further seems reasonable as the issue of the assessment of the damage is a procedural question. This also promotes the proceeding's economy.