CELEX: 62010CA0412
Language: en
Date: 2011-11-17 00:00:00
Title: 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)

28.1.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 25/15
            
         
      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
      (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
      
      High Court of Justice (Queen’s Bench Division)
      
         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.