Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 November 2000 in Case C-387/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Coreck Maritime GmbH v Handelsveem BV and Others (Brussels Convention — Article 17 — Clause conferring jurisdiction — Formal conditions — Effects)
Date: 2001-01-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: carriage of goods, carrier, contract, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction, maritime transport

C 28/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.1.2001

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

(Fifth Chamber)

of 9 November 2000

of 9 November 2000

in Case C-381/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Civil
Division)): Ingmar GB Ltd v Eaton Leonard Technologies
Inc. (1)

in Case C-387/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Coreck Maritime GmbH
v Handelsveem BV and Others (1)

(Directive 86/653/EEC — Self-employed commercial agent
carrying on his activity in a Member State — Principal
established in a non-member country — Clause submitting
the agency contract to the law of the country of establishment
of the principal)

(2001/C 28/06)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-381/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Court of Appeal
of England and Wales (Civil Division), United Kingdom, for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Ingmar GB Ltd and Eaton Leonard Technologies
Inc. — on the interpretation of Council Directive 86/653/EEC
of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the
Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents
(Fifth Chamber),
(OJ 1986 L 382, p. 17) — the Court
composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the First Chamber,
acting as President of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General;
P.
Jann (Rapporteur),
L. Hewlett, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 9 November 2000, in which it has ruled:

Articles 17 and 18 of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 Decem-
ber 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States
relating to self-employed commercial agents, which guarantee certain
rights to commercial agents after termination of agency contracts,
must be applied where the commercial agent carried on his activity in
a Member State although the principal is established in a non-
member country and a clause of the contract stipulates that the
contract is to be governed by the law of that country.

(1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.

(Brussels Convention — Article 17 — Clause conferring
jurisdiction — Formal conditions — Effects)

(2001/C 28/07)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-387/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Hoge Raad
der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Coreck Maritime GmbH and Handelsveem BV
and Others — on the interpretation of the first paragraph of
Article 17 of the abovementioned Convention of 27 September
1968 (OJ 1972 L 299, p. 32), as amended by the Convention
of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of
Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1, and — amended
text — p. 77), by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the
Accession of the Hellenic Republic (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1) and
by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the
Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic (OJ 1989
L 285, p. 1) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
D.A.O. Edward, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber,
P. Jann (Rapporteur) and L. Sevo´ n, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate
General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 9 November 2000, in which it has
ruled:

The first paragraph of Article 17 of the Convention of 27 September
1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and
Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October
1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the
Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic
Republic and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession
of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, must be
interpreted as follows:

27.1.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 28/5

1.

2.

It does not require that a jurisdiction clause be formulated in
such a way that the competent court can be determined on its
wording alone. It is sufficient that the clause state the objective
factors on the basis of which the parties have agreed to choose
a court or the courts to which they wish to submit disputes
which have arisen or which may arise between them. Those
factors, which must be sufficiently precise to enable the court
seised to ascertain whether it has jurisdiction, may, where
appropriate, be determined by the particular circumstances of
the case.

It applies only if, first, at least one of the parties to the original
contract is domiciled in a Contracting State and, secondly, the
parties agree to submit any disputes before a court or the courts
of a Contracting State.

3. A jurisdiction clause agreed between a carrier and a shipper
which appears in a bill of lading is enforceable against a third
party bearer of the bill of lading if he succeeded to the rights
and obligations of the shipper under the applicable national
law when he acquired the bill of lading. If he did not, it must
be ascertained whether he accepted that clause having regard to
the requirements laid down in the first paragraph of Article 17
of the Convention, as amended.

(1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.

Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security
schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and
to members of their families moving within the Community,
as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6) and
amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2332/89 of 18 July
1989 (OJ 1989 L 224, p. 1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
the Chamber,
composed of: C. Gulmann, President of
V. Skouris, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and
F. Macken, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 November 2000, in
which it has ruled:

Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council
of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 and
amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2332/89 of 18 July
1989, do not preclude application of provisions of an inter-State
convention on unemployment insurance which are more advantageous
for the insured, provided that the latter exercised his right to freedom
of movement before the date of entry into force of that regulation,
even if, as a result of the reference period prescribed by the national
legislation applicable to determination of the insured’s entitlement, it
is not possible for him to claim a right to benefits based entirely on
the period prior to that date.

(1) OJ C 121 of 1.5.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 9 November 2000

in Case C-75/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundessozialgericht): Edmund Thelen v Bundesanstalt
für Arbeit (1)

(Social security — Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EEC)
No 1408/71 — Applicability of a convention between
Member States on unemployment insurance)

(2001/C 28/08)

(Language of the case: German)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-75/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Bundessozialge-
richt (Federal Social Court), Germany, for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between Edmund
Thelen and Bundesanstalt für Arbeit — on the interpretation
of Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 9 November 2000

in Case C-126/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Pretore di Torino): Roberto Vitari v European
Training Foundation (1)

(Local staff — Article 79 of the Conditions of Employment
of other Servants — Fixed-term contract of employment —
Conversion into contract for an indefinite period — Whether
or not national legislation applicable)

(2001/C 28/09)

(Language of the case: Italian)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-126/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Pretore di Torino