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 (Social security — Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Applicability of a convention between Member States on unemployment insurance)
Date: 2001-01-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: free movement of workers, interpretation of the law, migrant worker, unemployment insurance

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