Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 27 February 2002 in Case C-37/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Herbert Weber v Universal Ogden Services Ltd (Brussels Convention — Article 5(1) — Courts for the place of performance of the contractual obligation — Contract of employment — Place where the employee habitually carries out his work — Definition — Work performed partly at an installation positioned over the continental shelf adjacent to a Contracting State and partly in the territory of another Contracting State)
Date: 2002-05-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil law, commercial law, interpretation of the law, work contract

4.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 109/7

3. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland, the Commission of the European Communities, the
Fédération Européenne de la Santé Animale (Fedesa) and the
Stichting Kwaliteitsgarantie Vleeskalverensector (SKV) to bear
their own costs.

(1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

26 February 2002

in Case C-32/00 P: Commission of the European Com-
munities v Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH e.a. (1)

(Appeal — Veterinary medicinal products — Partial annul-
ment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1312/96 in so far
as, in fixing the maximum residue limits for clenbuterol
chlorhydrate, it further specifies the permissible therapeutic
indications for that substance — Possibility for the Com-
mission, in fixing the maximum residue limits of veterinary
medicinal products, to take into account Directive 96/22/EC
concerning the prohibition on the use of certain substances)

(2002/C 109/10)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-32/00 P, Commission of the European Communities
(agent: X. Lewis): Appeal against the judgment of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber)
of 1 December 1999 in Joined Cases T-125/96 and T-152/96
Boehringer v Council and Commission [1999] ECR II-3427,
seeking to have that judgment set aside in part, the other
parties to the proceedings being: Boehringer Ingelheim Vetme-
dica GmbH, C.H. Boehringer Sohn, established in Ingelheim
am Rheim (Germany) (agents: D. Waelbroeck and D. Fosselard),
Council of the European Union, Fédération européenne de la
Santé animale (Fedesa), established in Brussels (Belgium)
(agents: A. Vandencasteele and D. Brinckman), Stichting
Kwaliteistsgarantie Vleeskalverensector (SKV), established in
La Haye (Netherlands) (agents: G. van der Wal and L. Parret)
and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı´guez Iglesias, President,
P. Jann, F. Macken and N. Colneric (Presidents of Chambers),
A. La Pergola (Rapporteur),
J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet,
R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
on 26 February 2002, in which it:

1.

Sets aside points 2 and 5 of the operative part of the judgment
of the Court of First Instance of 1 December 1999 in Joined
Cases T-125/96 and T-152/96 Boehringer v Council and
Commission;

2. Dismisses the action for annulment brought by Boehringer
Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C.H. Boehringer Sohn
against Commission Regulation No 1312/96 of 8 July 1996
amending Annex III to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90
laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of
maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in
foodstuffs of animal origin;

3. Orders Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C.H.
Boehringer Sohn, both in the proceedings before the Court of
First Instance in Case T-152/96 and in those before the Court
of Justice, to bear their own costs and to pay the whole of the
costs incurred by the Commission of the European Communities;

4. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear the costs
which it has incurred in the proceedings before the Court of
First Instance in Case T-152/96;

5. Orders the Fédération Européenne de la Santé Animale (Fedesa)
and the Stichting Kwaliteitsgarantie Vleeskalverensector (SKV)
to bear
the costs which they have incurred both in the
proceedings before the Court of First Instance in Case T-152/96
and in those before the Court of Justice.

(1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

27 February 2002

in Case C-37/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Herbert Weber v
Universal Ogden Services Ltd (1)

(Brussels Convention — Article 5(1) — Courts for the place
of performance of the contractual obligation — Contract of
employment — Place where the employee habitually carries
out his work — Definition — Work performed partly at an
installation positioned over the continental shelf adjacent to
a Contracting State and partly in the territory of another
Contracting State)

(2002/C 109/11)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

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

In Case C-37/00: Reference to the Court under the Protocol of
3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of

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