Skip to content

GlobalLawDBby GenieAI

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Search the text of the law

Log in Get an API key

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Log in Get an API key

The Global Law Database. Free to read, built for people and AI agents.

Explore

All laws
Search the text
Sanctions
Map of connections
Compare UK and EU

Developers

AI agents (MCP)
REST API
Bulk data
API keys

Coverage

United Kingdom
European Union
United States
Canada
Australia
France
Germany
Netherlands
Spain
Austria
Norway
Finland
Switzerland
Ireland

GlobalLawDB is made by GenieAI, London. It is not legal advice: check the official text before relying on it. Text comes from official publishers under their licences, listed on the Data page.

ThemeMatch my systemLightDark

European Union
Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Mutua Madrileña Automovilista (C-536/23)
Consideration of the question referred
24

Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Mutua Madrileña Automovilista (C-536/23)

law://eu/cjeu/2023/c-536-23/para_24@2026-11-14

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Fourth Chamber
Case: C-536/23 · ECLI:EU:C:2025:293
Decided: 30 Apr 2025
Procedure: Preliminary reference · referred by the Landgericht München I (Regional Court, Munich I, Germany)
Applicant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Defendant: Mutua Madrileña Automovilista
Rapporteur: N. Jääskinen
Advocate General: J. Richard de la Tour
Bench: 5 judges
I. Jarukaitis, N. Jääskinen, A. Arabadjiev, M. Condinanzi, R. Frendo
Language: German
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62023CJ0536

Topics

Judicial cooperation in civil matters

History · 1 version

30 Apr 2025Reading

Connections

Interprets 1: Regulation (EU) No 1215/20122 provisions
Cited by 1: G.M.K.-Z.B.M. v S.O (C-99/24)2 provisions
Cites 12: Regulation (EU) No 1215/20123 provisions; Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters; Paweł Hofsoe v LVM Landwirtschaftlicher Versicherungsverein Münster AG (C-106/17)2 provisions; Landeskrankenanstalten-Betriebsgesellschaft - KABEG v Mutuelles du Mans assurances - MMA IARD SA (C-340/16); Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse v WGV-Schwäbische Allgemeine Versicherungs AG (C-347/08); CNP spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością v Gefion Insurance A/S (C-913/19); HW and Others v Allianz Elementar Versicherungs AG (C-652/20)2 provisions; FBTO Schadeverzekeringen NV v Jack Odenbreit (C-463/06); T.B. and D. sp. z. o. o. v G. I. A/S (C-393/20); QE and IJ v DP and EB (C-494/23); A1 and A2 v I (C-352/21); Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Mutua Madrileña Automovilista (C-536/23)

Judgment of 30 Apr 2025

24As a preliminary point, it should be noted that the Court’s interpretation of the provisions of the Brussels Convention and of those of Regulation No 44/2001 also applies to those of Regulation No 1215/2012, as is apparent from recital 34 thereof, whenever those provisions may be regarded as ‘equivalent’. Here, that is the case with, on the one hand, point 2 of the first paragraph of Article 8 of the Brussels Convention, Article 9(1)(b) of Regulation No 44/2001 and Article 11(1)(b) of Regulation No 1215/2012, and, on the other, Article 10(2) of the Brussels Convention, Article 11(2) of Regulation No 44/2001 and Article 13(2) of Regulation No 1215/2012 (see, to that effect, judgments of 31 January 2018, Hofsoe, C‑106/17, EU:C:2018:50, paragraph 36, and of 30 June 2022, Allianz Elementar Versicherung, C‑652/20, EU:C:2022:514, paragraphs 20 to 24 and 30).

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.