CELEX: 62016CN0340
Language: en
Date: 2016-06-16 00:00:00
Title: Case C-340/16: 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)

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
   
   Oberster Gerichtshof
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Appellant on a point of law: Landeskrankenanstalten-Betriebsgesellschaft-KABEG
   
      Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Mutuelles du Mans assurances IARD SA (MMA IARD)
   
      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),
                        
                     
                           (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?
                        
                     
         
               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).