# C_2016305EN.01001801.xml

| 22.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 305/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 16 June 2016 — Landeskrankenanstalten-Betriebsgesellschaft-KABEG v Mutuelles du Mans assurances IARD SA (MMA IARD)

(Case C-340/16)

(2016/C 305/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Landeskrankenanstalten-Betriebsgesellschaft-KABEG

Appellant on a point of law:

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Mutuelles du Mans assurances IARD SA (MMA IARD)

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the action brought by an employer established in Austria seeking compensation for the damage passed on to that employer as a result of the continued payment of remuneration to its employee domiciled in Austria a ‘matter relating to insurance’ within the meaning of Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, (1) in the case where






  (a) | the employee was injured in a road traffic accident in a Member State (Italy), |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Is the action brought by an employer established in Austria seeking compensation for the damage passed on to that employer as a result of the continued payment of remuneration to its employee domiciled in Austria a ‘matter relating to insurance’ within the meaning of Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, (1) in the case where

1

(a)

the employee was injured in a road traffic accident in a Member State (Italy),

| (b) | the action is brought against the civil-liability insurer, domiciled in another Member State (France), of the vehicle at fault, and |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the action is brought against the civil-liability insurer, domiciled in another Member State (France), of the vehicle at fault, and

| (c) | the employer is established as a public-law institution with legal personality? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the employer is established as a public-law institution with legal personality?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
  Should Article 9(1)(b), in conjunction with Article 11(2), of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 be interpreted as meaning that the employer which has continued to pay remuneration can, as an ‘injured party’, sue the civil-liability insurer of the vehicle at fault in the courts for the place where the employer is domiciled, in so far as such a direct action is permitted? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

Should Article 9(1)(b), in conjunction with Article 11(2), of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 be interpreted as meaning that the employer which has continued to pay remuneration can, as an ‘injured party’, sue the civil-liability insurer of the vehicle at fault in the courts for the place where the employer is domiciled, in so far as such a direct action is permitted?

---

(1)  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).

1

---