Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2004:74
Date: 2004-02-05
Language of the case: Danish
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968;Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968 - Jurisdiction
Concepts: Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict;Courts which may request preliminary rulings
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Denmark

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of judgments — Protocol on the 
Interpretation by the Court of justice of the Convention — National courts which 
may request the Court to give a preliminary ruling — Arbejdsret, court of first and last 
I -1417 
SUMMARY — CASE C-18/02 
instance under Danish law with jurisdiction over disputes relating to the legality of 
certain industrial action — Included 
(Protocol of 3 June 1971, Art. 2) 
2. Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments — Special jurisdic­
tion — Jurisdiction 'in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict' — Meaning — 
Case concerning the legality of industrial action which comes within the exclusive 
jurisdiction of a court other than the court which has jurisdiction to hear any associated 
claims for compensation — Included 
(Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968, Art. 5(3)) 
3. Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments — Special jurisdic­
tion — Jurisdiction 'in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict' — Place where 
the harmful event occurred — Damage caused by industrial action initiated by a union 
in a Contracting State which had admitted a ship registered in another Contracting 
State into its waters — Damage deemed to have occurred in flag State — Account 
taken of the nationality of the ship — Limits 
(Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968, Art. 5(3)) 
1. The Arbejdsret, a Danish court which 
has exclusive jurisdiction as a court of 
first and last instance in respect of 
certain disputes in the sphere of 
employment law, in particular those 
relating to the legality of industrial 
action seeking a collective agreement, 
may refer a question to the Court of 
Justice for a preliminary ruling under 
the second indent of Article 2(1) of the 
Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the Inter­
pretation by the Court of Justice of the 
Convention of 27 September 1968 on 
Jurisdiction and the Enforcements of 
Judgments in Civil and Commercial 
Matters. Although that court is not 
mentioned in Article 2(1) and does not 
sit in an appellate capacity, as required 
in Article 2(2), which lists the courts of 
the Contracting States which may 
request the Court of Justice to give 
preliminary rulings on questions of 
interpretation of the Brussels Conven­
tion, a ruling declaring that that court 
has no jurisdiction to refer questions to 
the Court of Justice for a preliminary 
ruling would have the unacceptable 
result that in Denmark questions con­
cerning the interpretation of the Brus­
sels Convention, arising in certain 
actions relating to employment law, 
could never be the subject of a refer­
ence for a preliminary ruling. 
(see paras 14-18) 
I - 1418 
DFDS TORLINE 
2. Article 5(3) of the Brussels Convention 
of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction 
and the Enforcement of Judgments in 
Civil and Commercial Matters must be 
interpreted as meaning that a case 
concerning the legality of industrial 
action, in respect of which exclusive 
jurisdiction belongs, in accordance 
with the law of the Contracting State 
concerned, to a court other than the 
court which has jurisdiction to try the 
claims for compensation for the dam­
age caused by that industrial action, 
falls within the definition of tort, delict 
or quasi-delict. 
For Article 5(3) of the Brussels Con­
vention to apply to such a situation, it 
is sufficient that the industrial action 
concerned is a necessary precondition 
of sympathy action which may result in 
harm. It is not essential that the harm 
incurred be a certain or probable con­
sequence of the industrial action in 
itself. 
Lastly, the application of that provision 
is not affected by the fact that the 
implementation of industrial action 
was suspended by the party giving 
notice of the action pending a ruling 
on its legality. 
(see paras 28, 29, 34, 38, operative part 1) 
3. Article 5(3) of the Convention of 
27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction 
and the Enforcement of Judgments in 
Civil and Commercial Matters must be 
interpreted as meaning that the damage 
resulting from industrial action taken 
by a trade union in a Contracting State 
to which a ship registered in another 
Contracting State sails must not necess­
arily be regarded as having occurred in 
the flag State with the result that the 
shipowner can bring an action for 
damages against that trade union in 
the flag State. 
In that connection, the State in which 
the ship is registered must be regarded 
as only one factor, among others, 
assisting in the identification of the 
place where the harmful event took 
place. However, the flag State must 
necessarily be regarded as the place 
where the harmful event caused dam­
age if the damage concerned arose 
aboard the ship in question. 
(see paras 44, 45, operative part 2) 
I - 1 4 1 9