Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62016CN0542

Case C-542/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 26 October 2016 — Länsförsäkringar Sak Försäkringsaktiebolag and Others v Dödsboet efter Ingvar Mattsson, Länsförsäkringar Sak Försäkringsaktiebolag

OJ C 14, 16.1.2017, p. 25–26 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

16.1.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 14/25


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 26 October 2016 — Länsförsäkringar Sak Försäkringsaktiebolag and Others v Dödsboet efter Ingvar Mattsson, Länsförsäkringar Sak Försäkringsaktiebolag

(Case C-542/16)

(2017/C 014/31)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta domstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Länsförsäkringar Sak Försäkringsaktiebolag, Jan-Herik Strobel, Mona Strobel, Margareta Nilsson, Per Nilsson, Kent Danås, Dödsboet efter Tommy Jönsson, Stefan Pramryd, Stefan Ingemansson, Lars Persson, Magnus Persson, Anne-Charlotte Wickström, Peter Nilsson, Ingela Landau, Thomas Landau, Britt-Inger Ruth Romare, Gertrud Andersson, Eva Andersson, Rolf Andersson, Lisa Bergström, Bo Sörensson, Christina Sörensson, Kaj Wirenkook, Lena Bergquist Johansson, Agneta Danås, Hans Eriksson, Christina Forsberg, Christina Danielsson, Per-Olof Danielsson, Ann-Christin Jönsson, Åke Jönsson, Stefan Lindgren, Daniel Röme, Ulla Nilsson, Dödsboet efter Leif Göran Erik Nilsson

Defendants: Dödsboet efter Ingvar Mattsson, Länsförsäkringar Sak Försäkringsaktiebolag

Questions referred

1

(a)

Does Directive 2002/92 (1) cover activity where an insurance intermediary had no intention of concluding an actual insurance contract? Is it relevant whether such an intention was absent before the activity was commenced or came into being only subsequently?

(b)

In the situation envisaged in question 1(a), is it relevant if the intermediary has also carried out proper insurance mediation activity alongside the fictive activity?

(c)

Also in the situation envisaged in question 1(a), is it relevant that the activity appeared, prima facie, to the client to be work preparatory to the conclusion of an insurance contract? Is the client’s understanding, be it well founded or unfounded, of whether insurance mediation was involved of any relevance?

2

(a)

Does Directive 2002/92 govern advice, economic or other, given in connection with insurance mediation but which as such does not concern the actual signing or continuation of an insurance contract? In that regard, what does apply, in particular, as regards advice concerning the placing of capital in the context of capital assurance?

(b)

Is advice such as that referred to in question 2(a), where, by definition, it constitutes investment advice under Directive 2004/39, (2) also or instead covered by the provisions of that directive? If such advice is also covered by Directive 2004/39, does one set of rules take precedence over the other?


(1)  Directive 2002/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 December 2002 on insurance mediation (OJ 2003 L 9, p. 3).

(2)  Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC (OJ 2004 L 145, p. 1).


Top