This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62019CA0020
Case C-20/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien — Austria) — kunsthaus muerz gmbh v Zürich Versicherungs AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide services — Direct life assurance — Directive 2002/83/EC — Articles 35 and 36 — Right of cancellation and cancellation period — Incorrect information concerning the detailed rules for exercising the right of cancellation — Formal requirements for the declaration of cancellation — Lapse of the right of cancellation — Relevance of the policy holder’s status as ‘consumer’)
Case C-20/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien — Austria) — kunsthaus muerz gmbh v Zürich Versicherungs AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide services — Direct life assurance — Directive 2002/83/EC — Articles 35 and 36 — Right of cancellation and cancellation period — Incorrect information concerning the detailed rules for exercising the right of cancellation — Formal requirements for the declaration of cancellation — Lapse of the right of cancellation — Relevance of the policy holder’s status as ‘consumer’)
Case C-20/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien — Austria) — kunsthaus muerz gmbh v Zürich Versicherungs AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide services — Direct life assurance — Directive 2002/83/EC — Articles 35 and 36 — Right of cancellation and cancellation period — Incorrect information concerning the detailed rules for exercising the right of cancellation — Formal requirements for the declaration of cancellation — Lapse of the right of cancellation — Relevance of the policy holder’s status as ‘consumer’)
OJ C 230, 13.7.2020, p. 9–9
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
13.7.2020 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 230/9 |
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien — Austria) — kunsthaus muerz gmbh v Zürich Versicherungs AG
(Case C-20/19) (1)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Direct life assurance - Directive 2002/83/EC - Articles 35 and 36 - Right of cancellation and cancellation period - Incorrect information concerning the detailed rules for exercising the right of cancellation - Formal requirements for the declaration of cancellation - Lapse of the right of cancellation - Relevance of the policy holder’s status as ‘consumer’)
(2020/C 230/11)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Oberlandesgericht Wien
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: kunsthaus muerz gmbh
Defendant: Zürich Versicherungs AG
Operative part of the judgment
Articles 35 and 36 of Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 concerning life assurance must be interpreted as meaning that they are also applicable to a policy holder who does not have the status of consumer and that that they do not preclude national legislation under which the period for exercising the right to cancel the effects of a life assurance contract starts to run from the date on which that contract was concluded, even though the information concerning the detailed rules for exercising that right of cancellation provided by the insurance company to that policy holder indicates formal requirements which are in fact not required by the national law applicable to that contract, provided that such information does not deprive that policy holder of the option of exercising that right, in essence under the same conditions as those which would have prevailed if the information had been correct. It is for the referring court to assess, on the basis of an overall assessment taking into account, inter alia, the national legislative context and the facts in the main proceedings, including that the policy holder may be a consumer, whether the error contained in the information provided to the policy holder deprived him of that option.