Source: European Parliament
Question for written answer E-000442/2025/rev.1
to the Commission
Rule 144
Luděk Niedermayer (PPE)
For most personal insurance and some property insurance policies, the Solvency II Directive defines the country where the financial service is provided as the country where the policyholder is habitually resident, which is not the case with other financial services. However, this arrangement has in practice created obstacles to the effective cross-border provision of insurance, compounded by the CJEU judgment in Case C-243/11.
If the policyholder subsequently changes their habitual residence to another state during the course of the insurance policy, the insurer is compelled to have a tax specialist in the tax law of all EU states in order to be able to function properly in such a dynamic landscape.
The cross-border provision of insurance is further hampered by the fact that, in states that do not allow choice of jurisdiction and leave only the basic EU rule on determining jurisdiction in force, insurance companies cannot provide an insurance product intended for one state in another state, even on a cross-border basis, without establishing a branch.
Will the Commission help to address these obstacles to the cross-border provision of insurance:
- 1.By proposing a uniform system for defining the taxpayer, so that an insurance undertaking which has its registered office or branch in the policyholder’s state of habitual residence would be considered the taxpayer, while in other cases the policyholder would be considered the taxpayer?
- 2.By proposing an amendment to the current arrangements, so that the choice of applicable jurisdiction would be introduced first in insurance contracts, while the law of the policyholder’s state of habitual residence would only apply in cases where there is no choice of jurisdiction?
Submitted: 3.2.2025