full screen background image

Events

29 April 2017 - Summer School on European Business Law, Corfu 2017, 24-28 Ιουλίου Το “Summer School” αποτε ... +++ 3 May 2016 - Εκδηλώσεις Τομέα Διεθνών Σπουδών – Κατεύθυνση Ι.Δ.Δ. ΑΝΑΚΟΙΝΩΣΗ Ο Καθηγ ... +++ 30 April 2016 - 9.5.2016: Ημερίδα – Το Πρόσωπο και η Οικογένεια στο Δίκαιο και την Κοινωνία   Το Ελληνικό Τμή ... +++ 30 March 2016 - 14th ICC Miami Conference on International Arbitration This conference provides an indispe ... +++ 29 March 2016 - ICC Japan Arbitration Week The ICC Japan Arbitration week, 26- ... +++ 28 March 2016 - 2nd ICC Asia Conference on International Arbitration The conference will offer a line-up ... +++

*PIL Case Law

Published on August 31st, 2017 | by Olga Papadopoulou

0

CJEU C-368/16, Reg.44/2001 Agreement on jurisdiction concluded between the insurer and the party which caused the damage

C‑368/16,

Assens Havn V. Navigators Management (UK) Limited

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Eighth Chamber), 13 July 2017 (*)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction in insurance matters — National legislation providing, on certain conditions, for an injured person’s right to bring legal proceedings directly against the insurer of the person responsible for an accident — Agreement on jurisdiction concluded between the insurer and the party which caused the damage)

It is in those circumstances that the Højesteret (Supreme Court, Denmark) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court for a preliminary ruling:

‘Must Article 13, point 5, read in conjunction with Article 14, point 2(a), of Regulation No 44/2001 be interpreted as meaning that an injured party who is permitted under national law to bring an action directly against the company providing insurance cover for the party which caused the harm is bound by an agreement on jurisdiction validly concluded between the insurer and the policyholder in accordance with Article 13, point 5, read in conjunction with Article 14, point 2(a), of that regulation?’

On those grounds, the Court (Eighth Chamber) hereby rules:

Point 5 of Article 13 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, considered in conjunction with Article 14, point 2(a), thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a victim entitled to bring a direct action against the insurer of the party which caused the harm which he has suffered is not bound by an agreement on jurisdiction concluded between the insurer and that party.

More…

 





About the Author


Back to Top ↑