- 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-521/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — SOVAG — Schwarzmeer und Ostsee Versicherungs-Aktiengesellschaft v If Vahinkovakuutusyhtiö Oy (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 6(2) — Jurisdiction — Action on a warranty or guarantee or other third party proceedings brought by a third party against a party to judicial proceedings before the court seised of the original proceedings)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014CA0521
62014CA0521
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
Official Journal of the European Union
C 98/14
(Case C-521/14) (1)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 6(2) - Jurisdiction - Action on a warranty or guarantee or other third party proceedings brought by a third party against a party to judicial proceedings before the court seised of the original proceedings))
(2016/C 098/17)
Language of the case: Finnish
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: SOVAG — Schwarzmeer und Ostsee Versicherungs-Aktiengesellschaft
Defendant: If Vahinkovakuutusyhtiö Oy
Operative part of the judgment
Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted to the effect that its scope includes an action brought by a third party, in accordance with national law, against the defendant in the original proceedings, and closely linked to those original proceedings, seeking reimbursement of compensation paid by that third party to the applicant in those original proceedings, provided that the action was not instituted solely with the object of removing that defendant from the jurisdiction of the court which would be competent in the case.
(1) OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.