Tags

,

The Court of Justice delivered yesterday its judgment in joined cases ‘ERGO Insurance’ SE  v ‘If P&C Insurance’ AS (C‑359/14), and ‘Gjensidige Baltic’ AAS v ‘PZU Lietuva’ UAB DK (C‑475/14), which is notably about Rome I (Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations) and Rome II (Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations):

“[Rome I and Rome II] must be interpreted to the effect that the law applicable to an action for indemnity between the insurer of a tractor unit, which has compensated the victims of an accident caused by the driver of that vehicle, against the insurer of the trailer coupled to it at the time of that accident, is to be determined in accordance with Article 7 of Regulation No 593/2008 if the rules of liability in tort, delict and quasi-delict applicable to that accident by virtue of Article 4 et seq of Regulation No 864/2007 provide for an apportionment of the obligation to compensate for the damage ».

The Court also said:

« Article 14(b) of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability must be interpreted as meaning that that provision does not contain any specific conflict-of-law rule intended to determine the law applicable to the action for indemnity between insurers in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings”.

See http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=173687&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=809916