DIRECT ACTIONS AGAINST INSURERS IN CROSS-BORDER TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS IN AN EUROPEANISED PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW – WHAT PROTECTION FOR THE INJURED PARTIES?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25234/pv/10274Keywords:
cross-border traffic accidents, forum actoris, direct action, applicable law, European private international lawAbstract
This article offers a discussion of the law applicable to cross-border traffic accidents, from the perspective of the protection of injured parties. The introduction of principles like direct actions against insurers by injured third parties (forum actoris), mostly because of CJEU’s liberal approach, puts into question the relationship between European private international law and national Member State rules of conflict-of-laws. This article aims to propose an answer to the question “Does the European private international law set of rules offer an adequate protection for the injured parties?” with the view of offering also a few recommendations for the reformation of the Rome II Regulation.
References
Adensamer, M., Der Verkehrsunfall im Licht der Rom-II-Verordnung, Zeitschrift für Verkehrsrecht, Vol. 51, Issue 12, 2006.
Bona, M., Personal Injuries, Fatal Accidents and Rome II: Can the Law of the Country where the Victim Suffers Provide Full and Fair Compensation, In: A. Malatesta (ed.), The Unification of Choice of Law Rules on Torts and other Non-Contractual obligations in Europe: the “Rome II proposal”, CEDAM, Padova, 2006.
Brière, C., Les conflits de conventions internationales en droit privé, pro P. Courbe, Paris, L.G.D.J, 2001, pp. 68, 76.
Brière, C., Le règlement (CE) n 864/2007 du 11 juillet 2007 sur la loi applicable aux obligations non contractuelles (“Rome II”), JDI, 2008, pp. 31–74.
Carruthers, J. M., Crawford, E. B., Variations on a Theme of Rome II. Reflections on Proposed Choice of Law Rules for Non-Contractual Obligations: Part II, Edinburgh Law Review, Vol. 9, No. 2, 2005, pp. 238–266.
Cavers, D. F., A Critique of the Choice-of-law Problem, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 47, No. 2, 1933, pp.173–208.
Davies, G., Does the Court of Justice own the Treaties? Interpretative pluralism as a solution to overconstitutionalization, European Law Journal, Vol. 24, No. 6, 2018, pp. 358–375.
Dickinson, A., The Rome II Regulation: The Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008, pp. 7.
Dintilhac J. P., (ed.), Rapport du groupe de travail chargé d’élaborer une nomenclature des préjudices corporels, 2005. Available at: http://www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/rapports-publics/064000217/index.shtml [Last accessed March 11th, 2020].
Dominelli, S., Direct Actions of ‘Injured Parties’ in the Brussels Ia Regulation: The Paweł Hofsoe Case of the Court of Justice of the European Union as an Expression of Legal Pragmatism, The European Legal Forum (Forum iuris communis Europae), No. 2, 2018, pp. 29–60.
Dornis, T. W., When in Rome, do as Romans do? – A defense of lex domicilii communis in the Rome II Regulation, The European Legal Forum, 2007, pp. 152–159.
Ena, M., Choice of Law and Predictability of Decisions in Products Liability Cases, Fordham Urban Law Journal, Vol. 34, 2007, p. 1417.
Fentiman, R., “The Significance of Close Connection”, In: J. Ahern & W. Binchy (eds.), The Rome II Regulation on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations: A New International Litigation Regime, Brill Nijhoff, 2009, pp. 85–94.
Garcimartín Alférez, F. J., The Rome II Regulation: on the way towards a European private international law code, In: The European Legal Forum, 2007, pp. 77–91.
Garriga, G., Relationships between Rome II and other international instruments, a commentary on Article 28 of the Rome II Regulation, Yearbook of Private International Law, Volume 9, 2007, pp. 137–148.
Giardina, A., Italy: Law Reforming the Italian System of Private International Law, International Legal Materials, Vol. 35, No. 3, 1996, pp. 760–782.
Graziano, T. K., The Rome II Regulation and The Hague Conventions on Traffic Accidents and Product Liability – Interaction, conflicts and future perspectives, Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht (NIPR), 2008, pp. 425–429.
Graziano T. K., La responsabilité délictuelle en droit international privé européen, Bâle/Genève/Munich– Bruxelles – Paris: Helbing Lichtenhahn – Bruylant, L.G.D.J, 2004.
Graziano, T. K., General Principles of Private International Law of Tort in Europe, In: J Basedow, H. Baum and Y. Nishitani (eds.), Japanese and European private international law in comparative perspective, Vol. 48, 2008, Mohr Siebeck.
Graziano, T. K., Freedom to choose the applicable law in Tort – Articles 14 and 4 (3) of the Rome II Regulation, In: J. Ahern & W. Binchy (eds.), The Rome II Regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations: A New International Litigation Regime, Brill Nijhoff, 2009, pp. 113–132.
Graziano, T. K., Gemeineuropäisches internationales Privatrecht: Harmonisierung des IPR durch Wissenschaft und Lehre (am Beispiel des ausservertraglichen Haftung für Schäden), Mohr Siebeck, Vol 73, 2002, pp. 379–388.
Hay, P., Contemporary Approaches to Non-Contractual Obligations in Private International Law (Conflict of Laws) and the European Community’s “Rome II” Regulation, The European Legal Forum, 2007, pp. 137–152.
Hohloch, G., Place of Injury, Habitual Residence, Closer Connection and Substantive Scope – The Basic Principles, Yearbook of Private International Law, Vol. 9, 2007, pp. 1–18.
Joerges, C., The Challenges of Europeanization in the Realm of Private Law: A Plea for a New Legal Discipline, Duke Journal of Comparative and International law, Vol 14, No. 149, 2004, pp. 149–196.
Junker, A., Das Internationale Privatrecht der Straßenverkehrsunfälle nach der Rom II -Verordnung, Juristenzeitung, 2008, pp.169–178.
Kozyris, P. J., Rome II: Tort Conflicts on the Right Track! A Postscript to Symeon Symeonides’ “Missed Opportunity”, The American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 56, No. 2, 2008, pp. 471–498.
Knetsch, J., La réparation du dommage extracontractuel en droit international privé, Le droit à l’épreuve des sciècles et des frontières, Lextenso, 2018, pp. 979–1018.
Kuipers, J. J., Cartesio and Grunkin-Paul: Mutual recognition as a vested rights theory based on party autonomy in private law, European Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 2, 2008, pp. 66–96.
Malatesta, A. (ed.), The Unification of Choice of Law Rules on Torts and Other Non-Contractual Obligations in Europe, CEDAM, Milan, 2006.
Miaja de la Muela, A., Derecho internacional privado, Tomo segundo, parte especial, 10th ed. (by Bouza Vidal), Madrid, 1987.
Mills, A., The Application of Multiple Laws Under The Rome II Regulation. In: J. Ahern & W. Binchy (eds.), The Rome II Regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations: A New International Litigation Regime, Brill Nijhoff, 2009, pp. 133–152.
Mills, A., Rediscovering the public dimension of private international law, Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht (NIPR), Vol. 30, 2012, pp. 371–375.
Mornet, B., L’indemnisation des préjudices en cas de blessures ou de décès, 2018. Available at: http://www.ajdommagecorporel.fr/sites/www.ajdommagecorporel.fr/files/fichier-cv/RPC-BM-septembre%pdf [Last accessed March 11th, 2020].
Nagy, C., The Rome II Regulation and Traffic Accidents: Uniform Conflict Rules with some Room for Forum Shopping – How so? Journal of Private International Law, Vol. 6. No. 1, 2010, pp. 93–108.
Papettas, J., Direct Actions against Insurers of Intra-Community Cross-Border Traffic Accidents: Rome II and the Motor Insurance Directives, Journal of Private International Law, Vol. 8, No. 2, 2012, pp. 297–321.
Pataut, E., 2005. De Bruxelles à La Haye. Droit international privé communautaire et droit international privé conventionnel. Le droit international privé: esprit et méthodes, Mélanges en l’honneur de P. Lagarde, Paris 2005, pp. 675–676.
Reese, W. L., Choice of Law in Tort Cases. Chaplin v. Boys (England: Court of Appeal and House of Lords), The American Journal of Comparative Law, 1970, pp.189–194.
Reese, W. L., Dépeçage: a common phenomenon in choice of law, Columbia Law Review, 1973, pp. 58–75.
Rigaux, F.; Fallon, M., Droit international privé, Larcier: Bruxelles, 2005.
Sieghörtner, R., Internationaler Mietwagenunfall – Zulassungsort als relevantes Anknüpfungskriterium? Neue Zeitschrift für Verkehrsrecht (NZV), 2003, pp. 105–117.
Staudinger, A., Rome II and traffic accidents, The European Legal Forum, 2005, pp. 61–67.
Stevenson, C. G., Dépeçage: Embracing Complexity to Solve Choice-of-Law Issues, Indiana Law Review, Vol. 37, 2003, p. 303.
Stone, P., The Rome II Regulation on Choice of Law in Torts, Ankara Law Review, Vol. 4, 2007, pp. 95–130.
Symeonides, S., American Choice of Law at the Dawn of the 21st Century. Willamette Law Review, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2001, pp. 11–16.
Symeonides, S. C., The American Choice-of-Law Revolution: Past, Present and Future, Brill Nijhoff, 2006.
Symeonides, S. C., Rome II and tort Conflicts: A Missed opportunity. The American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 56, No. 1, 2008, pp. 173–222.
Van Calster, G., European Private International Law, Hart Publishing, 2010.
Von Hein, J., Something Old and Something Borrowed, but Nothing New-Rome II and the European Choice-of-Law Evolution, Tulane Law Review, Vol. 82, 2007, p.1663.
Von Hein, J., Article 4 and traffic accidents, In: J. Ahern & W. Binchy (eds.), The Rome II Regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations: A New International Litigation Regime, Brill Nijhoff, 2009, pp. 153–173.
Von Savigny, F. K., Private International Law (1849). A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws and the Limits of Their Operation in Respect of Place and Time, Translation by William Guthrie, Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1869.
Vyshka, K., Changing balances of PIL theories in a Europeanized Private International Law, Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, Vol. 25, No. 5, 2018, pp. 533–550.
Wasserer, S., Paradigmenwechsel in der internationalen Zuständigkeit für Direktklagen: Wohnsitzgerichtsstand des Geschädigten bei Klagen gegen ausländische Kfz-Haftpflichtversicherungen, European Law Reporter, 2008, p.143–147.
Weintraub, R., Discretion versus Strict Rules in the field of Cross-Border Torts, 2005, Available at: https://dianawallis.org.uk/cy/document/seminar-14-march/weintraub-discretion-vs-strict-rulesin-the-field-of-cross-border-torts#document. [Last accessed March 11th, 2020].
Wilde, C. L., Dépeçage in the Choice of Tort Law, Southern California Law Review, Vol. 41, No. 2, 1967–68, pp. 329–365.
Case C-148/02 Garcia Avello, EU:C:2003:539.
Case C-353/06 Grunkin-Paul, EU:C:2008:559.
Case C-106/16 Polbud, EU:C:2017:804.
Case C463/06 Odenbreit, ECLI:EU:C:2007:792.
Case C-364/93 Antonio Marinari v Lloyds Bank et al, [1995] ECR I-2719.
Case 21/76 Bier v Mines de Potasse d’Alsace [1976] ECR 1735.
Case (2001) 1 WLR 1003 (Queen’s Bench).
Case C-368/16 Assnes Havn v. Navigatos Management (UK) limited, ECLI:EU:C:2017:546.
Case C-112/03 Société financière et industrielle du Peloux, ECLI: EU: C:2005:280.
Case C-34/09 Ruiz Zambrano, EU:C:2011:124.
Case Cour de cassation, chambre civile Audience publique du mardi 19 Avril 1988 in France and Austrian Supreme Court (OGH) 26 January 1995, (1995) in Austria.
Case Boys v Chaplin [1971] AC 356.
Case C-159/02 Turner v Grovit ECLI:EU:C: 2004:228.
Case C-463/06 FBTO Schadeverzekeringen NV v Jack Odenbreit [2007] ECR I-11321
C-347/08 Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse v WGV-Schwäbische Allgemeine Versicherungs AG.
Case C-111/09, Ceská podnikatelská pojištovna as, Vienna Insurance Group v. Michal Bilas, Judgment of the European Court of Justice (Fourth Chamber) of 20 May 2010.
Case C-521/14 SOVAG – Schwarzmeer und Ostsee Versicherungs-Aktiengesellschaft v If Vahinkovakuutusyhtiö Oy.
CJEU, C-340/16, Landeskrankenanstalten-Betriebsgesellschaft – KABEG v. Mutuelles du Mans assurances – MMA, ECtHR, IARD SA.
Joined Cases C-359/14 and C-475/14, “ERGO Insurance” SE v “If P&C Insurance” AS and “Gjensidige Baltic” AAS v “PZU Lietuva” UAB DK.
Case C- 240/14, Eleonore Prüller-Frey v Norbert Brodnig and Axa Versicherung AG.
American Law Institute’s First Restatement of Conflict of Laws in 1934.
Amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (Fourth motor insurance Directive) OJL 181, 20. 7. 2000, p. 65–74.
Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001/EC on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, (2001) OJ L/12/1.
Article 40(1) of the German EGBGB (Einführungsgesetz zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch).
Explanatory Memorandum for the Commission’s draft for a Rome II Regulation of 2003, Brussels, 22. 7. 2003 COM (2003) 427 final 2003/0168 (COD).
Council Directives 72/166/EEC [1972] OJ L103 84/5/EEC [1984] OJ L8/17) 90/232/EEC [1990] OJ L129/33; 2000/26/EC [2000] OJ L181/65 and 2005/14/EC [2005] OJ L149/14, consolidated in Directive 2009/103/EC [2009] OJ L263/11.
Convention on the law applicable to traffic accidents; Concluded at The Hague on 4 May 1971.
Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001/EC on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, (2001) OJ L/12/1.
Convention on the law applicable to traffic accidents; Concluded at The Hague on 4 May 1971.
Convention of 2 October 1973 on the Law Applicable to Products Liability.
Convention on the law applicable to traffic accidents; Concluded at The Hague on 4 May 1971.
Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 May 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (Fourth motor insurance Directive).
The Hague Convention on product liability, Convention of 2 October 1973 on the Law Applicable to Products Liability.
Hague Conference on Private International Law, Overview of The Hague Convention of 4 May 1971 on the Law Applicable to Traffic Accidents (2008).
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 II) OJ L 199, 31. 7. 2007.
Report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (“Rome II”) (COM (2003)0427 – C5-0338/2003 – 2003/0168(COD)) Amendment 38.
Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast) (Brussels Ia) OJ L 351/1, 20. 12. 2012.
Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 6 July 2005 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EC) No .../2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (“ROME II”).
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations (“Rome II”) 22.7.2003 COM (2003) 427 final, 2003/0168.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Klea Vyshka
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors retain the copyright on the papers published in the Journal, but grant the right of first publication to the Journal. Papers accepted for publication or already published in Pravni vjesnik of the Faculty of Law in Osijek may be published by the author(s) in other publications only with proper notice of its previous publication in Pravni vjesnik.
