Case number and/or case name
C-347/08 Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse v WGV-Schwäbische Allgemeine Versicherungs AG (Third Chamber) [2009] ECR I-08661
Referring court and Member State
Austria, Second Instance, Landesgericht Feldkirch
Summary
This case on Arts 9(1)(b) and 11(2) of Brussels I was referred to the CJEU regarding an action for recovery by the Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse ((‘VGKK’) a social security institution established in Austria) against WGV (established in Germany) . Ms Kerti was injured, as a driver, in a road traffic accident in Germany involving Ms Gaukel, the driver of another vehicle insured in Germany for civil liability with WGV. She had been domiciled in Austria at the time of the accident and she then was resident in Germany. VGKK provided benefits to her and, basing itself on the statutory assignment of her rights under Austrian law, applied for payment of the expenses from WGV. No payment was made and VGKK brought an action in Austria against WGV. The court dismissed the action on the lack of jurisdiction. During the appeal, the referring court asked the CJEU whether a social security institution, statutory assignee of the rights of the directly injured party, may bring an action directly before the courts of its MS of establishment against the insurer of the person allegedly liable for the accident, established in another MS, under the reference in Art 11(2) of Brussels I to Art 9(1)(b). In the affirmative, the referring court also asked whether jurisdiction exists even if at the time of bringing the action the directly injured party is not permanently or ordinarily resident in the MS in which the social security institution is established. The CJEU observed that there are differences between the different language versions of Art 11(2). It stated that the French version refers to the person who directly suffered the damage whereas the German, Spanish, Czech, Danish, Estonian, Italian, Polish, Slovak and Swedish versions use a term equivalent to ‘injured party’. It also cited C 463/06 FBTO where it had ruled that the purpose of the reference in Art 11(2) is to add injured parties to the list of plaintiffs contained in Art 9(1)(b), without restricting the category of persons having suffered damage to those suffering it directly. Thus, it found that Art 11(2) refers to the injured party. On the first question, it affirmed FBTO that that reference means that the courts for the place where an injured party is domiciled have jurisdiction as regards an action brought directly against the insurer of the person allegedly responsible, provided that such an action is permitted and that the insurer is domiciled in a MS. With regard to the insurance of the civil liability arising from motor accidents, it considered the relevant provisions of Directives 72/166 and 2000/26 and found that the injured party has the right to bring an action before the courts of his domicile against the insurer of the person allegedly responsible. It then examined whether a social security institution, acting as statutory assignee of the rights of the person injured in a motor accident, also has that right. It stated that, in order to ensure full effect and an autonomous interpretation of Brussels I, the application given to specific legal forms of substitution provided for by Austrian law cannot have an effect on the interpretation of the Brussels I provisions. It considered that the purpose of the jurisdiction rules in matters of insurance is to protect the weaker party, so their application should not be extended to persons for whom that protection is not justified. Affirming C 77/04 GIE, it did not regard the social security institution as an economically weaker party and less experienced legally than a civil liability insurer. Thus, it found that a social security institution, acting as statutory assignee of the rights of the directly injured party in a motor accident, cannot rely on Arts 9(1)(b) and 11(2) in order to bring an action directly before the courts of its MS of establishment against the insurer of the person allegedly responsible for the accident, where that insurer is established in another MS. There was no need to answer the second question.