Case C-463/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 20 November 2006 — FBTO Schadeverzekeringen N.V. v Jack Odenbreit
Date: 2006-12-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: insurance occupation, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction, right of action

C 326/46

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2006

Question referred

Does the rule of special
jurisdiction stated in Article 6(1) 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 (1), by virtue of which a person
domiciled in a Member State may be sued ‘where he is one of a
number of defendants, in the courts for the place where any of
them is domiciled, provided the claims are so closely connected
that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to
avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from sepa-
rate proceedings’, apply to proceedings brought by an employee
before a court of a Member State against
two companies
belonging to the same group, one of which, being the one
which engaged that employee for the group and refused to re-
employ him, is domiciled in that Member State and the other,
for which the employee last worked in non-Member States and
which dismissed him, in another Member State, when that appli-
cant relies on a clause in the employment contract to claim that
the two defendants were his co-employers from whom he
claims compensation for his dismissal or does the rule in Article
18(1) of the regulation, by virtue of which, in matters relating
to individual contracts of employment,
jurisdiction is to be
determined by Section 5 of Chapter II, exclude the application
of Article 6(1), so that each of the two companies must be sued
before the courts of the Member State where it is domiciled?

(1) OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgericht-
shof (Germany) lodged on 20 November 2006 — FBTO
Schadeverzekeringen N.V. v Jack Odenbreit

(Case C-463/06)

(2006/C 326/93)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant and appellant on a point of law: FBTO Schadeverzeker-
ingen N.V.

Applicant and respondent on a point of law: Jack Odenbreit

Question referred

Is the reference in Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No
44/2001 (1) of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the

recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commer-
cial matters to Article 9(1)(b) of that regulation to be under-
stood as meaning that the injured party may bring an action
directly against the insurer in the courts for the place in a
Member State where the injured party is domiciled, provided
that such a direct action is permitted and the insurer is domi-
ciled in a Member State?

(1) OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein
hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 20 November 2006 —
Avena Nordic Grain Oy

(Case C-464/06)

(2006/C 326/94)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Avena Nordic Grain Oy

Defendant: Finnish Ministry of Land and Agriculture

Question(s) referred

Is Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999, (1) in
conjunction with the principles of proportionality and good
administration, to be interpreted as meaning that the competent
national authority may recognise an export declaration sent as a
fax copy prior to the loading operation if it takes the view that
there is not the least suspicion of fraud, the defect in the trans-
mission of the export declaration was based on an error which
was made in connection with advice given by the authority and
the latter was able to establish that the signed original export
declaration sent subsequently was identical in every way to the
faxed copy?

(1) of 15 April 1999 laying down common detailed rules for the appli-
cation of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ
1999 L 102, p. 11).