Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 October 2002 in Case C-167/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Karl Heinz Henkel (Brussels Convention — Article 5(3) — Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict — Preventive action by associations — Consumer protection organisation seeking an injunction to prevent a trader from using unfair terms in consumer contracts)
Date: 2002-11-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, consumer movement, consumer protection, contract, interpretation of the law, unfair terms of contract

C 289/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

23.11.2002

General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a
judgment on 3 October 2002, in which it has ruled:

Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC)
is to be interpreted as precluding a Member State’s tax legislation
from restricting or disallowing the deductibility for income tax
purposes of contributions to voluntary pension schemes paid to
pension providers in other Member States while allowing such
contributions to be deducted when they are paid to institutions in the
first-mentioned Member State, if that legislation does not at the
same time preclude taxation of the pensions paid by the abovemen-
tioned pension providers.

( 1) OJ C 176 of 24. 6. 2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 1 October 2002

in Case C-167/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Oberster Gerichtshof): Verein für Konsumenteninfor-
mation v Karl Heinz Henkel (1)

(Brussels Convention — Article 5(3) — Jurisdiction in
matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict — Preventive
action by associations — Consumer protection organisation
seeking an injunction to prevent a trader from using unfair
terms in consumer contracts)

(2002/C 289/03)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-167/00: 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 Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between Verein
für Konsumenteninformation and Karl Heinz Henkel, on
the interpretation of Article 5(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 October 1982 on the Accession of the
Hellenic Republic (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1), 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) and by the
Convention of 29 November 1996 on the Accession of the

Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom
of Sweden (OJ 1997 C 15, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber, C. Gul-
mann,
J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General;
M.-F. Contet, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 1 October 2002, in which it has ruled:

The rules on jurisdiction laid down in the Convention of 27 September
1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and
Commercial Matters of 27 September 1968, 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, by the Convention of 26 May
1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese
Republic and by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the
Accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the
Kingdom of Sweden, must be interpreted as meaning that a preventive
action brought by a consumer protection organisation for the purpose
of preventing a trader from using terms considered to be unfair in
contracts with private individuals is a matter relating to tort, delict or
quasi-delict within the meaning of Article 5(3) of that convention.

(1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 3 October 2002

in Case C-347/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Juzgado de lo Social n 3 de Orense): Ángel Barreira
Pérez v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS),
Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS) (1)

(Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Articles 1(r) and (s)
and 46(2) — Award of pension rights — Periods of
insurance completed before the materialisation of the risk —
Periods of notional contribution)

(2002/C 289/04)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

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

In Case C-347/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Orense (Spain) for
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that