- 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-412/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Queen’s Bench Division) — United Kingdom) — Deo Antoine Homawoo v GMF Assurances SA (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Law applicable to non-contractual obligations — Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 — Scope ratione temporis)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62010CA0412
62010CA0412
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
28.1.2012
Official Journal of the European Union
C 25/15
(Case C-412/10) (1)
(Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Law applicable to non-contractual obligations - Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 - Scope ratione temporis)
(2012/C 25/23)
Language of the case: English
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Deo Antoine Homawoo
Defendant: GMF Assurances SA
Re:
Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice (Queen’s Bench Division) (United Kingdom) — Interpretation of Articles 15(c), 31 and 32 of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) (OJ 2007 L 199, p. 40) and of Article 297 TFEU — Temporal scope — Scope of the law applicable to the facts giving rise to damage
Operative part of the judgment
Articles 31 and 32 of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (‘Rome II’), read in conjunction with Article 297 TFEU, must be interpreted as requiring a national court to apply the Regulation only to events giving rise to damage occurring after 11 January 2009 and that the date on which the proceedings seeking compensation for damage were brought or the date on which the applicable law was determined by the court seised have no bearing on determining the scope ratione temporis of the Regulation.
(1) OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.