This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2006/326/93
Case C-463/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 20 November 2006 — FBTO Schadeverzekeringen N.V. v Jack Odenbreit
Case C-463/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 20 November 2006 — FBTO Schadeverzekeringen N.V. v Jack Odenbreit
Case C-463/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 20 November 2006 — FBTO Schadeverzekeringen N.V. v Jack Odenbreit
OJ C 326, 30.12.2006, p. 46–46
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
30.12.2006 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 326/46 |
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 20 November 2006 — FBTO Schadeverzekeringen N.V. v Jack Odenbreit
(Case C-463/06)
(2006/C 326/93)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Bundesgerichtshof
Parties to the main proceedings
Defendant and appellant on a point of law: FBTO Schadeverzekeringen N.V.
Applicant and respondent on a point of law: Jack Odenbreit
Question referred
Is the reference in Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) 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 to be understood as meaning that the injured party may bring an action directly against the insurer in the courts for the place in a Member State where the injured party is domiciled, provided that such a direct action is permitted and the insurer is domiciled in a Member State?