CELEX: 62006CA0463
Language: en
Date: 2007-12-13 00:00:00
Title: Case C-463/06: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — FBTO Schadeverzekeringen NV v Jack Odenbreit (Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance — Liability insurance — Action brought by the injured party directly against the insurer — Rule of jurisdiction of the courts for the place where the plaintiff is domiciled)

23.2.2008   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 51/23
            
         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — FBTO Schadeverzekeringen NV v Jack Odenbreit
   (Case C-463/06) (1)
   
   (Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance - Liability insurance - Action brought by the injured party directly against the insurer - Rule of jurisdiction of the courts for the place where the plaintiff is domiciled)
   (2008/C 51/37)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesgerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings
   
      Applicant: FBTO Schadeverzekeringen NV
   
      Defendant: Jack Odenbreit
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Articles 9(1)(b) and 11(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) — Legal proceedings against the civil liability insurance provider in the Member State in which the injured party is domiciled — Beneficiary of insurance
   Operative part of the judgment
   The reference in Article 11(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 to Article 9(1)(b) of that regulation is to be interpreted as meaning that the injured party may bring an action directly against the insurer before the courts for the place in a Member State where that injured party is domiciled, provided that such a direct action is permitted and the insurer is domiciled in a Member State.
   
      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.