This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62010CA0293
Case C-293/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Innsbruck — Austria) — Gebhard Stark v DAS Österreichische Allgemeine Rechtsschutzversicherung AG (Legal expenses insurance — Directive 87/344/EEC — Article 4(1) — Freedom of the insured person to choose his lawyer — Limitation of the reimbursement allowed in respect of the costs relating to representation of the insured person in judicial proceedings — Reimbursement limited to the amount corresponding to that claimed by a lawyer established in the judicial district of the court having jurisdiction at first instance)
Case C-293/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Innsbruck — Austria) — Gebhard Stark v DAS Österreichische Allgemeine Rechtsschutzversicherung AG (Legal expenses insurance — Directive 87/344/EEC — Article 4(1) — Freedom of the insured person to choose his lawyer — Limitation of the reimbursement allowed in respect of the costs relating to representation of the insured person in judicial proceedings — Reimbursement limited to the amount corresponding to that claimed by a lawyer established in the judicial district of the court having jurisdiction at first instance)
Case C-293/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Innsbruck — Austria) — Gebhard Stark v DAS Österreichische Allgemeine Rechtsschutzversicherung AG (Legal expenses insurance — Directive 87/344/EEC — Article 4(1) — Freedom of the insured person to choose his lawyer — Limitation of the reimbursement allowed in respect of the costs relating to representation of the insured person in judicial proceedings — Reimbursement limited to the amount corresponding to that claimed by a lawyer established in the judicial district of the court having jurisdiction at first instance)
OJ C 211, 16.7.2011, p. 6–6
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
16.7.2011 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 211/6 |
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Innsbruck — Austria) — Gebhard Stark v DAS Österreichische Allgemeine Rechtsschutzversicherung AG
(Case C-293/10) (1)
(Legal expenses insurance - Directive 87/344/EEC - Article 4(1) - Freedom of the insured person to choose his lawyer - Limitation of the reimbursement allowed in respect of the costs relating to representation of the insured person in judicial proceedings - Reimbursement limited to the amount corresponding to that claimed by a lawyer established in the judicial district of the court having jurisdiction at first instance)
2011/C 211/08
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Landesgericht Innsbruck
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellant: Gebhard Stark
Respondent: DAS Österreichische Allgemeine Rechtsschutzversicherung AG
Re:
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landesgericht Innsbruck — Interpretation of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 87/344/EEC of 22 June 1987 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance (OJ 1987 L 185, p. 77) — Insurance contract providing that, in accordance with national legislation, the person taking out legal expenses insurance is required to choose a lawyer established at the place of the court before which the proceedings are to be conducted
Operative part of the judgment
Article 4(1) of Council Directive 87/344/EEC of 22 June 1987 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance must be interpreted as not precluding a national provision under which it may be agreed that a person covered by legal expenses insurance may select, in order to have his interests represented in administrative or judicial proceedings, only persons professionally authorised to represent parties who have their chambers at the place of the court or administrative authority having jurisdiction at first instance, on condition that, in order not to render meaningless the insured person’s freedom to choose the person instructed to represent him, that restriction relates only to the extent of the cover by the legal insurance provider in respect of costs linked to the involvement of a representative and that the reimbursement actually provided by that insurer is sufficient, this being a matter for the referring court to determine.