Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) 21 February 2002 in Case C-65/00: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations ﾔ Environment — Hazardous waste — Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/689/EEC)
Date: 2002-05-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, dangerous substance, environmental protection, waste recycling

C 109/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

4.5.2002

the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters
for a
by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Herbert Weber and Universal Ogden Services
Ltd, on the interpretation of Article 5(1) of the abovementioned
Convention of 27 September 1968 (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), 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 version — 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
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken, President of the
Chamber, N. Colneric, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporte-
ur) and V. Skouris, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General;
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 February
2002, in which it has ruled:

Failing other criteria, that will be the place where the employee
has worked the longest.

It will only be otherwise if, in light of the facts of the case, the
subject-matter of the dispute is more closely connected with a
different place of work, which would,
in that case, be the
relevant place for the purposes of applying Article 5(1) of the
convention.

In the event that the criteria laid down by the Court of Justice
do not enable the national court to identify the habitual place
of work, as referred to in Article 5(1) of the convention, the
employee will have the choice of suing his employer either in the
courts for the place where the business which engaged him is
situated, or in the courts of the Contracting State in whose
territory the employer is domiciled.

3. National law applicable to the main dispute has no bearing on
the interpretation of the concept of the place where an employee
habitually works, within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the
convention, to which the second question relates.

(1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.

1. Work carried out by an employee on fixed or

floating
installations positioned on or above the part of the continental
shelf adjacent to a Contracting State, in the context of the
prospecting and/or exploitation of its natural resources, is to be
regarded as work carried out in the territory of that State for the
purposes of applying Article 5(1) 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, the Convention of 25 Octo-
ber 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic and the
Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom
of Spain and the Portuguese Republic.

2. Article 5(1) of that convention must be interpreted as meaning
that where an employee performs the obligations arising under
his contract of employment in several Contracting States the
place where he habitually works, within the meaning of that
provision, is the place where, or from which, taking account of
all the circumstances of the case, he in fact performs the essential
part of his duties vis-à-vis his employer.

In the case of a contract of employment under which an
employee performs for his employer the same activities in more
than one Contracting State, it is necessary, in principle, to take
the employment
account of
relationship in order to identify the place where the employee
habitually works, within the meaning of Article 5(1).

the duration of

the whole of

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

21 February 2002

in Case C-65/00: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Italian Republic (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environ-
ment — Hazardous waste — Directives 75/442/EEC and
91/689/EEC)

(2002/C 109/12)

(Language of the case: Italian)

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

In Case C-65/00, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: L. Ström and M.G. Bisogni) v Italian Republic (Agent:
U. Leanza): Application for a declaration that, by exempting
undertakings and establishments which carry out hazardous
waste recovery operations covered by Council Directive
91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste (OJ
1991 L 377, p. 20) from the permit requirement laid down by

4.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 109/9

Article 10 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975
on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by Council
Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78,
p. 32), without making such exemption conditional upon
satisfaction of the requirements laid down by Article 3(2) of
Directive 91/689, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
obligations under Article 11 of Directive 75/442, as amended
by Directive 91/156, and under Article 3 of Directive 91/689,
(Second Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric,
the Court
President of
the Chamber, R. Schintgen and V. Skouris
(Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 February 2002, in
which it:

1. Declares that, by exempting undertakings and establishments
which carry out hazardous waste recovery operations covered by
Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on
hazardous waste from the permit requirement laid down by
Article 10 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975
on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of
18 March 1991, without making such exemption conditional
upon satisfaction of the requirements laid down by Article 3(2)
of Directive 91/689, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
obligations under the combined provisions of Article 11 of
Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156, and
Article 3 of Directive 91/689;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

7 March 2002

in Case C-107/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal du Travail de Mons): Caterina Insalaca v
Office national des pensions (ONP) (1)

(Social security — Articles 46 to 46c of Regulation (EEC)
No 1408/71 — National rules against overlapping —
Benefits of the same kind)

preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Caterina Insalaca and Office National des
Pensions (ONP), on the interpretation of Articles 46a and 46b
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 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), as amended by Council Regulation (EEC)
No 1248/92 of 30 April 1992 (OJ 1992 L 136, p. 7), the
Court (Second Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric, President
of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and V. Skouris,
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 March 2002, in which it
has ruled:

1.

The legislation of a Member State governing the calculation of
a survival pension and establishing a restriction of the ceiling
fixed for the overlapping of a retirement and a survivor’s pension
where the surviving spouse can claim a survivor’s pension
payable by another Member State is a provision on reduction
within the meaning of Articles 46a and 46b of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 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, as amended
by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 of 30 April 1992.

2. Articles 46a and 46b of Regulation No 1408/71 of 14 June
1971, as amended and updated by Regulation No 2001/83,
as amended by Regulation No 1248/92, preclude the appli-
cation of the legislation of a Member State containing a
provision against overlapping under which a survivor’s pension
received in that Member State must be reduced because of a
survivor’s pension acquired in another Member State, where the
benefits payable in application the legislation of
the first
Member State are less favourable than those determined in
application of Article 46 of that regulation.

(2002/C 109/13)

(Language of the case: French)

(1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.

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

In Case C-107/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Tribunal du Travail de Mons (Belgium) for a