Case number and/or case name
C-463/06 FBTO Schadeverzekeringen NV v Jack Odenbreit (Second Chamber) [2007] ECR I-11321
Referring court and Member State
Germany, Third Instance, Bundesgerichtshof
Summary
This reference concerning the interpretation of Arts 9(1)(b) and 11(2) of Brussels I was made in the course of proceedings between Jack Odenbreit, domiciled in Germany, the injured party in a road traffic accident which occurred in the Netherlands, and the insurance company of the person responsible for that accident, FBTO Schadeverzekeringen NV (‘FBTO’), established in the Netherlands. Odenbreit was involved in a road traffic accident in the Netherlands with a person insured with FBTO. As the injured party he brought a direct action against the insurer before the Amtsgericht Aachen, which is the court for the place where he is domiciled, on the basis of Arts 11(2) and 9(1)(b) of Brussels I. That court dismissed the action on account of the lack of jurisdiction of the German courts. Odenbreit brought an appeal before the Oberlandesgericht Köln. By interlocutory judgment the appeal court recognised the jurisdiction of German courts on the basis of Arts 11(2 and 9(1)(b). FBTO brought an appeal on a point of law against that interlocutory judgment before the referring court which takes the view that there are cogent grounds for allowing an injured party to bring an action directly against the insurer before the courts for the place where that injured party is domiciled. It referred to the CJEU the following question: ‘Is the reference to Art 9(1)(b) in Art 11(2) to be understood as meaning that the injured party may bring an action directly against the insurer in the courts for the place in a Member State where the injured party is domiciled, provided that such a direct action is permitted and the insurer is domiciled in a Member State?’ The CJEU noted that Art 9(1)(b) does not merely attribute jurisdiction to the courts for the place where the persons listed therein are domiciled, but, on the contrary, it lays down that the courts for the place where the plaintiff is domiciled have jurisdiction, thereby giving such persons the option of suing the insurer before the courts for the place of their own domicile. Thus, to interpret the reference in Art 11(2) to Art 9(1)(b) as permitting the injured party to bring proceedings only before the courts having jurisdiction under that latter provision, that is to say, the courts for the place of domicile of the policy holder, the insured or the beneficiary, would run counter to the actual wording of Art 11(2). Thus, the role of that reference is to add injured parties to the list of plaintiffs contained in Art 9(1)(b). The application of that rule of jurisdiction to a direct action brought by the injured party cannot depend upon the classification of that injured party as a ‘beneficiary’ within the meaning of Art 9(1)(b), since the reference to that provision in Art 11(2) thereof allows that rule of jurisdiction to be extended to such disputes without the plaintiff having to belong to one of the categories in Art 9(1)(b). That line of reasoning is also based on teleological interpretation. According to Recital 13 the Regulation aims to guarantee more favourable protection to the weaker party than the general rules of jurisdiction provide for. To deny the injured party the right to bring an action before the courts for the place of his own domicile would deprive him of the same protection as that afforded by Brussels I to other parties regarded as weak in disputes in matters relating to insurance and would thus be contrary to the spirit of the Regulation. Brussels I strengthened such protection as compared with the Brussels Convention. The CJEU ruled that the injured party may bring an action directly against the insurer before the courts for the place in a Member State where that injured party is domiciled, provided that a direct action is permitted and the insurer is domiciled in a Member State.