Judgment of the Court of 17 September 2002 in Case C-334/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione): Fonderie Officine Meccaniche Tacconi SpA v Heinrich Wagner Sinto Maschinenfabrik GmbH (HWS) (Brussels Convention — Article 5(1) and (3) — Special jurisdiction — Pre-contractual liability)
Date: 2002-11-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil law, commercial law, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction

9.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 274/11

Community law precludes the retroactive application of a time-limit
that is shorter and, as the case may be, more restrictive for the
claimant than the period for initiating proceedings that was previously
applicable to claims for the recovery of national taxes contrary to
Community law where no adequate transitional period is provided
during which claims relating to sums paid before the entry into force
of the legislation introducing the new time-limit may still be brought
within the old period. Where a limitation period of five years is
replaced with a time-limit of three years, a transitional period of 90
days must be regarded as insufficient and six months must be
regarded as the minimum period required to ensure that the exercise
of rights of recovery is not rendered excessively difficult.

A situation such as that in the main proceedings, in which the
differences identified in the pay conditions of workers of different sex
performing equal work or work of equal value cannot be attributed to
a single source, does not come within the scope of Article 141(1) EC.

(1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.

( 1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 17 September 2002

in Case C-334/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Corte suprema di cassazione): Fonderie Officine
Meccaniche Tacconi SpA v Heinrich Wagner Sinto
Maschinenfabrik GmbH (HWS) (1)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Brussels Convention — Article 5(1) and (3) — Special
jurisdiction — Pre-contractual liability)

of 17 September 2002

in Case C-320/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division):
A.G. Lawrence and Others v Regent Office Care Ltd,
Commercial Catering Group, Mitie Secure Services Ltd (1)

(Principle of equal pay for men and women — Direct
effect — Comparison of the work performed for different
employers)

(2002/C 274/17)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-320/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Civil
Division) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between A. G. Lawrence and Others and
Regent Office Care Ltd, Commercial Catering Group, Mitie
Secure Services Ltd, on the interpretation of Article 141(1) EC,
the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,
P. Jann, F. Macken, N. Colneric (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr
(Presidents of Chambers), D. A. O. Edward, A. La Pergola,
J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and V. Skouris,
Judges; L. A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; H. A. Rühl, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
17 September 2002, in which it has ruled:

(2002/C 274/18)

(Language of the case: Italian)

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

In Case C-334/00: Reference to the Court under the Protocol
of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of
the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters
by the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Fonderie Officine Meccaniche Tacconi SpA and Heinrich
Wagner Sinto Maschinenfabrik GmbH (HWS), on the interpret-
ation of Article 5(1) and (3) 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 Octo-
ber 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, composed of:
G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr
(Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, A. La
Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen, J. N. Cunha
Rodrigues (Rapporteur) and C. W. A. Timmermans, Judges;
L. A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
given a judgment on 17 September 2002, in which it has
ruled:

C 274/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

9.11.2002

In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, characterised
by the absence of obligations freely assumed by one party towards
another on the occasion of negotiations with a view to the formation
of a contract and by a possible breach of rules of law, in particular
the rule which requires the parties to act in good faith in such
negotiations, an action founded on the pre-contractual liability of the
defendant is a matter relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict within the
meaning of Article 5(3) 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.

( 1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 19 September 2002

in Case C-336/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Oberster Gerichtshof): Republik Österreich v Martin
Huber (1)

(Agriculture — Part-financed aid — Repayment — Legal
basis — Protection of legitimate expectations — Legal
certainty — Procedural autonomy of Member States)

(2002/C 274/19)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-336/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Republik Österreich and Martin Huber, on the validity and
interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 of
30 June 1992 on agricultural production methods compatible
with the requirements of the protection of the environment
and the maintenance of the countryside (OJ 1992 L 215,
p. 85), as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of
accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland

and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the
Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 1994
C 241, p. 21 and OJ 1995 L 1, p. 1), the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
D. A. O. Edward, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and
C. W. A. Timmermans, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
M.-F. Contet, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 19 September 2002, in which it has ruled:

1.

Consideration of the first question has not disclosed any factor
of such a kind as to affect the validity of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2078/92 of 30 June 1992 on agricultural
production methods compatible with the requirements of the
protection of the environment and the maintenance of the
countryside, as amended by the Act concerning the conditions
of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland
and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties
on which the European Union is founded.

2. Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92, as amended by
the abovementioned Act of Accession, must be interpreted as
meaning that a Commission decision approving a national aid
programme also encompasses its content, without, however,
conferring on that programme
the nature of an act of
Community law.

3. A Commission decision approving a national aid programme
as referred to in Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92,
as amended by the Act of Accession, is addressed only to the
Member State concerned. It is for the national courts to decide,
in the light of national law, whether the publicity given to that
programme enabled it to become binding on agricultural and
rural operators,
in particular by ensuring compliance with
the requirement of appropriate information laid down in
Article 3(3)(f) of Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92.

4.

5.

Community law does not preclude the application of the
principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal
certainty in order to prevent the recovery of aid part-financed by
the Community which has been wrongly paid, provided that the
interest of the Community is also taken into consideration. The
application of the principle of the protection of
legitimate
expectations assumes that the good faith of the beneficiary of
the aid in question is established.

It
is open to Member States to implement national aid
programmes within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Regulation
(EEC) No 2078/92, as amended by the Act of Accession, by
private-sector measures or by forms of State action, in so far as
the national measures in question do not affect the scope and
effectiveness of Community law.

(1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.