Case C-18/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbejdsret by order of 25 January 2002 in the case of Danmarks Rederiforening acting on behalf of DFDS Torline A/S against LO Landsorganisation i Sverige, acting on behalf of SEKO Sjöfolk Facket för Service och Kommunikation
Date: 2002-05-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: collective agreement, interpretation of the law, maritime transport, ship's flag, trade union

C 109/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

4.5.2002

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbejdsret by
order of 25 January 2002 in the case of Danmarks
Rederiforening acting on behalf of DFDS Torline A/S
against LO Landsorganisation i Sverige, acting on behalf
of SEKO Sjöfolk Facket för Service och Kommunikation

seamen on board that vessel can be regarded by the vessel’s
owners as having occurred in the flag State, with the result
that the vessel’s owners can, pursuant to Article 5(3), bring an
action for damages against the trade union in the flag State?

(Case C-18/02)

(2002/C 109/35)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Arbejdsret (Labour
Court) of 25 January 2002, received at the Court Registry on
29 January 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Danmarks Rederiforening (Danish Association of Shipping
Companies), acting on behalf of DFDS Torline A/S against
LO Landsorganisation i Sverige (Swedish Congress of Trade
Unions), acting on behalf of SEKO Sjöfolk Facket för Service
och Kommunikation (union representing maritime workers
in service and communications sectors) on the following
questions:

Question 1

a) Must Article 5(3) of the Convention (1) be construed
as covering cases concerning the legality of collective
industrial action for the purpose of securing an agreement
in a case where any harm which may result from the
illegality of such collective action gives rise to liability to
pay compensation under the rules on tort, delict or quasi-
delict, such that a case concerning the legality of notified
collective industrial action can be brought before the
courts of the place where proceedings may be instituted
for compensation in respect of any harm resulting from
that industrial action?

(1) 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of
judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ L 204, 1975,
p. 28) modified by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the
accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic
with the adjustments made to them by the Convention on the
accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, of Ireland and of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the
adjustments made to them by the Convention on the accession of
the Hellenic Republic (OJ L 285, 1989, p. 1).

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
Gerichtshof by order of that Court of 20 December 2001
in the case of Dr Viktor Hlozek against Roche Diagnostics
Gesellschaft mbH

(Case C-19/02)

(2002/C 109/36)

b)

Is it necessary, as the case may be, that any harm incurred
the
must be a certain or probable consequence of
industrial action concerned in itself, or is it sufficient that
that industrial action is a necessary condition governing,
and may constitute the basis for, sympathy actions which
will result in harm?

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof
(Supreme Court) of 20 December 2001, received at the Court
Registry on 29 January 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Dr Viktor Hlozek against Roche Diagnostics Gesell-
schaft mbH on the following questions:

c) Does it make any difference that implementation of
notified collective industrial action was, after the proceed-
ings had been brought, suspended by the notifying party
until the court’s ruling on the issue of its legality?

1.a)
Are Article 141 EC and Article 1 of Council Directive
75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of
the laws of the Member States relating to the application of
the principle of equal pay for men and women (OJ 1975 L 45,
p. 19) to be interpreted

Question 2

Must Article 5(3) of the Convention be construed as meaning
that damage resulting from collective industrial action
implemented by a trade union in a country to which a vessel
registered in another country (the flag State) sails for the
purpose of securing an agreement covering the work of

where an employer which dismisses a large group of employees
as a result of a merger with another company is required, on
account of its social obligation towards the entire workforce,
to agree with the works council a social plan, which is binding
in relation to the employees, in order to alleviate the effects of
dismissal, in particular the risk of age-related unemployment,