- 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-340/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Landeskrankenanstalten-Betriebsgesellschaft — KABEG v Mutuelles du Mans assurances — MMA IARD SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 9(1) — Article 11(2) — Jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance — Direct action by the injured party against the insurer — Action brought by the employer, a public-law institution, statutory assignee of the rights of its employee, against the insurer of the vehicle involved — Subrogation)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016CA0340
62016CA0340
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 300/6
(Case C-340/16) (<span class="super note-tag">1</span>)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 9(1) - Article 11(2) - Jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance - Direct action by the injured party against the insurer - Action brought by the employer, a public-law institution, statutory assignee of the rights of its employee, against the insurer of the vehicle involved - Subrogation))
(2017/C 300/07)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Landeskrankenanstalten-Betriebsgesellschaft — KABEG
Defendant: Mutuelles du Mans assurances — MMA IARD SA
Operative part of the judgment
Article 9(1)(b) 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, read together with Article 11(2) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that an employer, established in one Member State, which continued to pay the salary of its employee absent as the result of a road traffic accident and to which have passed the employee’s rights with regard to the company insuring the civil liability resulting from the vehicle involved in that accident, which is established in a second Member State, may, in the capacity of ‘injured party’, within the meaning of Article 11(2), sue the insurance company before the courts of the first Member State, where a direct action is permitted.
(<span class="note">1</span>) OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.