- 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-372/07: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Nicole Hassett v South Eastern Health Board, Cheryl Doherty v North Western Health Board (Jurisdiction — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Point 2 of Article 22 — Disputes as to the validity of decisions of organs of companies — Exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the State where the company has its seat — Medical practitioners' mutual defence organisation)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62007CA0372
62007CA0372
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 301/10
(Case C-372/07)
(Jurisdiction - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Point 2 of Article 22 - Disputes as to the validity of decisions of organs of companies - Exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the State where the company has its seat - Medical practitioners' mutual defence organisation)
(2008/C 301/19)
Language of the case: English
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: Nicole Hassett, Cheryl Doherty
Defendants: South Eastern Health Board, North Western Health Board
In the presence of: Raymond Howard, Medical Defence Union Ltd, MDU Services Ltd, Brian Davidson
Re:
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Supreme Court — Interpretation of Article 22(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 (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Medical trade union constituted in the form of a company under the law of a Member State, which provides assistance and indemnity to its members practising in the Member State and in another Member State — Provision of the assistance/indemnity dependent on a decision taken by the board of directors of that company under an absolute discretionary power — Challenge to a decision refusing assistance or indemnity to a doctor practising in the other Member State — Exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the State in which the company has its seat on the basis of Article 22(2) of the regulation
Operative part of the judgment
Point 2 of Article 22 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 is to be interpreted as meaning that proceedings, such as those at issue before the referring court, in the context of which one of the parties alleges that a decision adopted by an organ of a company has infringed rights that it claims under that company's Articles of Association, do not concern the validity of the decisions of the organs of a company within the meaning of that provision.
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.