MILENA PETROVIĆ
4/2014
XXXXXX XXXXXXXX
12 domicil ili uobičajeno boravište u istoj državi u kojoj ga imaju i osiguravač i ugovarač osiguranja u vreme za- ključenja ugovora o osiguranju (Xxxxxx, Xxxxxxxxx, 2007, 296).
3. ZAKLJUČAK
Pravila Uredbe kojima se uređuje nadležnost sudova država članica EU u stvarima osiguranja predstavlja- ju celovit i nezavistan sistem nadležnosti uspostavljen specijalno za ovu vrstu sporova. Druga pravila Uredbe, sa izuzetkom čl. 4 i čl. 5(5) na ove sporove se ne primen- juju. Ratio legis za uspostavljanje ovog posebnog režima xx xxxxxxx da se ugovarači osiguranja, osiguranici, ko- risnici osiguranja i oštećena lica, kao slabija strana u sporu, zaštite takvim propisima o nadležnosti xxxx xxxx pogoduju ostvarenju njihovih interesa, nego što to omogućuju opšti propisi. Otuda je rezultat ovih poseb- nih propisa veći broj sudova pred kojima navedena lica mogu tužiti osiguravača i time olakšati sebi vođenje postupka. S druge strane, ugovaranje nadležnosti suda koje je karakteristično za ugovore, moguće xx xxxx u
posebnim i ograničenim slučajevima što, takođe, osigu- rava visok xxxxxx zaštite svih potrošača osiguranja koji se mogu smatrati slabijom stranom.
Pravila Uredbe za ovu vrstu sporova su, u principu, jasna i nisu izazivala xxxx probleme u primeni. Izuze- tak od ovog opšteg utiska predstavljalo je pitanje: Da li oštećeni, u slučajevima osiguranja od odgovornosti, imaju pravo na forum actoris, odnosno da li i oni mogu tužiti osiguravača u državi svog prebivališta? Xxxxxx u tumačenju razrešio je Sud EU pozitivnim odgovorom. Značajan oslonac za tu odluku Sud je našao u prilič- no harmonizovanim materijalnim pravilima (kroz di- rektive) u ovoj oblasti. Da i evropski zakonodavac ovo pitanje smatra rešenim, ukazuje činjenica da će ovo tu- mačenje kao pravilo važiti i u budućnosti budući da u Uredbi Xxxxxx I Recast ništa nije promenjeno.
U odnosu na rešenja iz Briselske konvencije, pravi- la Uredbe bez sumnje, predstavljaju napredak, budući da su osiguranika i korisnika osiguranja izjednačila sa ugovaračem osiguranja u pogledu prava na forum ac- toris.
Xxxxxx XXXXXXXX, PhD,
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Kragujevac
Jurisdiction of EU member states courts in matters relating to insurance: who and where may sue the insurer?
UDC: 341.645.5:368
Systematic scientifc work
SUMMARY
Brussels I Regulation lay down special rules on jurisdiction in respect of insurance contracts. These provisions are inspired by a concern to protect the party who is espected to be weaker than the other party to the contract. So, Recital 13 explains that, in relation to insurance, the weaker party should be protected by rules of jurisdiction more favourable to his interests than the general rules provide for. Accordingly, these provisions offer the weaker party (the policyholder, the insured or a beneficiary) a wide choice of fora in which to bring an action against an insurer who is domiciled in Member State. The choice of jurisdiction offered by Articles 8-14 of Regulation is available to the policyholder and third party beneficiaries. So, the insurer may be sued in the courts of the insurer (forum rei), in the courts of the policyholder (forum actoris),
in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred (forum delicti commissi). The choice offered by above mentioned articles is also available in relation to a direct action against a liability insurer brought by a third party victim of a tort covered by the insurance if such a direct action is permissible under the law governing the issue according to the conflict rules of the court seised. These provisions may be departed from only by an agreement on jurisdiction.
Key words: Brussels I Regulation, jurisdiction, court, insurer, policyowner, insured, beneficiary
LITERATURA (REFERENCES)
Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of
4/2014
Jurisdiction of EU member states courts in matters relating to insurance: who and where may...
judgements in civil and commercial matters, Official Journal
L 12.
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 lia- bility in respect of the use of motor vehicles and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (Fourth motor insurance Directive), Official Journal of the European Communities L 181/65.
Jenard Report on the Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1968). Official Journal No C59/1.
Xxxxx, X. Life after FBTO Schadeverzekeringen NV –v-xxxx Xxxxxxxxx, How will the domestic courts appoach litigation un- der Regulation 44/2001?- The German perspective, dostupno na: xxxx://xxxxxx-xx-xxxx.xx/xxx/xxxx-xxxxx-XXXX- Schadever- zekeringen-NV-Xxxxxxxx-Xxxxx.pdf, 1. 8. 2014.
Xxxxx, X. (2007). Gerichtsstand für die Direktklage am Wohnsitz des Verkehrsunfallopfers? IPRax, 4, 302–307.
Xxxxxx, U., Xxxxxxxxx, P. (2007). European Commen- taries on Private International Law, Brussels I Regulation, München: Sellier, European Law Publishers.
Xxxxxxx, X. (2012). Privredno pravo, Kragujevac: Institut za pravne i društvene nauke, Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Kragujevcu.
Mišljenje Opšteg pravobranioca Léger u slučaju C-420/97 Leathertex v. Bodetex, (1999) ECR I-6747.
Pocar Report on the Lugano Convention on jurisdiction 13
and the recognation and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. (2007). Official Journal C 319/1.
Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parlia- ment and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast), Official Journal of the Euro- pean Union L 351/1.
Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I), Official Journal of the Euro- pean Union L 177/6.
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), Official Journal of the European Union L 199/40.
Societefinanciere et industrielle du Peloux v. Axa Belgium et al., Case C-112/03 (2005) ECR I-3707, dostupno na: http:// xxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx/xxxxxxx/xxxxxxxxxx000.xxxx, 1. 8.
2014.
Xxxxx, X. (1976). Osiguranje u korist trećeg, Beograd: Sa- vremena administracija.
Xxxxx, X. (2010). EU Private International Law, Chelten- ham UK: Xxxxxx Xxxxx Publishing Limited.
Xxxxxxx, X. (2009). Poslovno pravo: trgovinsko pravo, Banja Luka: Besjeda BLC.