This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62009CN0111
Case C-111/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní Soud v Cheb (Czech Republic) lodged on 23 March 2009 — Česká podnikatelská pojišt’ovna, a.s., Vienna Insurance Group v Michal Bílas
Case C-111/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní Soud v Cheb (Czech Republic) lodged on 23 March 2009 — Česká podnikatelská pojišt’ovna, a.s., Vienna Insurance Group v Michal Bílas
Case C-111/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní Soud v Cheb (Czech Republic) lodged on 23 March 2009 — Česká podnikatelská pojišt’ovna, a.s., Vienna Insurance Group v Michal Bílas
OJ C 141, 20.6.2009, p. 25–26
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
20.6.2009 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 141/25 |
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní Soud v Cheb (Czech Republic) lodged on 23 March 2009 — Česká podnikatelská pojišt’ovna, a.s., Vienna Insurance Group v Michal Bílas
(Case C-111/09)
2009/C 141/45
Language of the case: Czech
Referring court
Okresní Soud v Cheb
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: Česká podnikatelská pojišt’ovna, a.s., Vienna Insurance Group
Defendant: Michal Bílas
Questions referred
|
1. |
Should Article 26 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) (‘the Regulation’) be interpreted as not authorising a court to review its international jurisdiction where the defendant partipates in the proceedings, even when the case is subject to the rules on compulsory jurisdiction under Section 3 of the Regulation and the application is brought contrary to those rules? |
|
2. |
Can the defendant, by the fact that he partipates in the proceedings, establish the international jurisdiction of the Court within the meaning of Article 24 of the Regulation even where the proceedings are otherwise subject to the rules of compulsory jurisdiction in Section 3 of the Regulation and the application is brought contrary to those rules? |
|
3. |
If the answer to question (2) is in the negative, may the fact that the defendant participates in the proceedings before a court which otherwise under the Regulation does not have jurisdiction in a case concerning insurance, be regarded as an agreement on jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the Regulation? |
(1) OJ 2001 L 12, 16.1.2001, p. 1