Referring court and Member State
Italy, First Instance, Tribunale di Trieste
Summary
This case on Art 4(1) of Rome II was referred to the CJEU in proceedings between Mr Lazar (a Romanian national residing in Romania) and the Italian insurance company Allianz SpA concerning compensation in respect of material and non-material damage he sustained as a result of the death of his daughter (a Romanian national resident in Italy) in a road traffic accident in Italy caused by an unidentified vehicle. Allianz SpA was the company designated by the guarantee fund for road accident victims. The mother and grandmother of the victim (Romanian nationals residing in Italy) also intervened in the proceedings and sought compensation for material and non-material damage they had sustained on account of her death. Since the applicants claimed compensation for harm they personally had suffered on account of the death of a member of their family, the referring court was unsure whether this constitutes ‘damage’ under Art 4(1) of Rome II, or an indirect consequence of a tort or delict under the same provision. The question was referred to the CJEU. Citing C 26/13 Kásler and Káslerné Rábai, the CJEU firstly noted that an EU law provision which makes no express reference to the law of the MSs for the purpose of determining its meaning and scope must normally be given an independent and uniform interpretation throughout the EU due to the uniform application of EU law and the principle of equality. It also cited C 237/15 PPU Lanigan and case-law cited at para 35 of that judgment that in interpreting an EU law provision, it is necessary to consider not only its wording but also the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part. The CJEU observed that in identifying the law applicable to tort/delict, Art 4(1) adopts the law of the country in which the ‘damage’ occurs, irrespective of the country in which the event giving rise to the damage occurred, and irrespective of the country or countries in which the ‘indirect consequences’ of that event occur. In its interpretation, the CJEU also considered Recitals 16 and 17, and thus found that where it ispossible to identify the occurrence of direct damage, which is usually the case with a road traffic accident, the place where the direct damage occurred is the relevant connecting factor for the determination of the applicable law, regardless of the indirect consequences of that accident. It stated that, in the present case, the damage is constituted by the injuries resulting in the death of Mr Lazar’s daughter in Italy and thus the damage sustained by the close relatives of the deceased, must be regarded as indirect consequences of the accident under Art 4(1). It observed that this interpretation is also confirmed by Art 15(f) which confers on the applicable law the task of determining the persons entitled to claim damages, and which covers the situation of damage sustained by close relatives of the victim. In finding out the legislature’s intention, the CJEU also considered the Commission’s Draft Proposal for Rome II. Agreeing with AG Wahl, it found that the damage sustained by the close relatives of a person who died in a road traffic accident must be classified as ‘indirect consequences’ of that accident, under Art 4(1) of Rome II. It took the view that the application of the law of the place where the direct damage was suffered contributes to the objective set out in Recital 16, seeking to ensure the foreseeability of the applicable law, while avoiding the risk that the tort/delict is broken up in to several elements, each subject to a different law according to the places or the persons other than the direct victim who sustain damage. The CJEU gave a correct interpretation in this case that ensures the foreseeability and legal certainty as to the damage suffered by the close relatives of the deceased in personal injury cases. Recitals to Rome II and the Commission’s Proposal were helpful tools for the CJEU in reaching this decision.