{"title":"Dejstvo prorogacione klauzule u ugovorima o osiguranju velikih rizika – Odluka Suda pravde Evropske unije u predmetu Balta","authors":"Mirjana B. Glintić","doi":"10.55836/pip_23212a","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"For the last couple of years ECJ`s point of view is that forum selection clause is not legally binding for the insured. Main reason for that is the need for protection of the weeker party. Тhis standpoint also found its place in the ECJ’s decision in Balta case, which concerned large risk insurance. Terefore the author devotes central part of the paper to the analysis of disputed aspects of this decision. Main shortcoming of the Court’s reasoning is the neglect of the fact that it is third-party insurance of large risks. The author points out two practical consequences of this decision. The frst is refected in the additional limitation of the autonomy of the will in contractual insurance law. Another consequence is an increase of premiums. To conclude with, the author shares the thoughts on „circumventing“ of this legally binding decision.","PeriodicalId":306662,"journal":{"name":"Pravo i privreda","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pravo i privreda","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55836/pip_23212a","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
For the last couple of years ECJ`s point of view is that forum selection clause is not legally binding for the insured. Main reason for that is the need for protection of the weeker party. Тhis standpoint also found its place in the ECJ’s decision in Balta case, which concerned large risk insurance. Terefore the author devotes central part of the paper to the analysis of disputed aspects of this decision. Main shortcoming of the Court’s reasoning is the neglect of the fact that it is third-party insurance of large risks. The author points out two practical consequences of this decision. The frst is refected in the additional limitation of the autonomy of the will in contractual insurance law. Another consequence is an increase of premiums. To conclude with, the author shares the thoughts on „circumventing“ of this legally binding decision.