- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-559/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Onix Asigurari SA v Istituto per la Vigilanza Sulle Assicurazioni (IVASS) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 73/239/EEC — Directive 92/49/EEC — Principle of single authorisation — Principle of supervision by the home Member State — Article 40(6) — Concept of ‘irregularities’ — Reputation of shareholders — Prohibition on insurance companies established in a Member State concluding new contracts within the territory of another Member State)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015CA0559
62015CA0559
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
26.6.2017
Official Journal of the European Union
C 202/4
(Case C-559/15) (<span class="super note-tag">1</span>)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 73/239/EEC - Directive 92/49/EEC - Principle of single authorisation - Principle of supervision by the home Member State - Article 40(6) - Concept of ‘irregularities’ - Reputation of shareholders - Prohibition on insurance companies established in a Member State concluding new contracts within the territory of another Member State))
(2017/C 202/05)
Language of the case: Italian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Onix Asigurari SA
Defendant: Istituto per la Vigilanza Sulle Assicurazioni (IVASS)
Operative part of the judgment
Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive) and, in particular, Article 40(6) thereof, must be interpreted as precluding the supervisory authorities of a Member State from taking emergency measures, as against an undertaking providing direct insurance other than life assurance operating in its territory under the freedom to provide services, in order to protect the interests of the insured persons and other persons who may benefit from the insurance cover taken out, such as prohibiting it from concluding new insurance contracts in that territory, on the grounds of the failure, whether pre-existing or otherwise, assessed discretionarily, to satisfy a subjective precondition laid down for the purpose of the issue of authorisation to engage in insurance business, such as the requirement of good repute. However, that directive does not preclude that Member State, in exercising the prerogatives it has in emergency situations, from establishing whether certain inadequacies or uncertainties relating to the good repute of the directors of the insurance undertaking concerned present a real and imminent danger that irregularities will occur to the detriment of the interests of the insured persons or other persons who may benefit from the insurance cover taken out and, if so, from taking appropriate measures immediately, such as, where appropriate, prohibiting the conclusion of new contracts in its territory.
(<span class="note">1</span>) OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.
* * *