Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 November 2002 in Case C-271/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen): Gemeente Steenbergen v Luc Baten (Brussels Convention — Scope — Action under a right of recourse under national legislation providing for payment of allowances by way of social assistance — Concept of "civil matters" — Concept of "social security")
Date: 2002-12-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union, Netherlands, appeal, application of EU law, interpretation of the law, welfare

C 323/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21.12.2002

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

2.

(Fifth Chamber)

of 7 November 2002

The term ‘solely’ in Note 1(b) to Chapter 90 of the Combined
Nomenclature must be interpreted as meaning that the note
does not exclude from that chapter belts and supports of
which characteristics other than their elasticity contribute to a
significant extent to the intended effect on the organ to be
supported or held.

(1) OJ C 258 of 7.10.2000.

In Joined Cases C-260/00 to C-263/00 (Reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Finanzgericht,
Kassel): Lohmann GmbH & Co. KG and Others (1)

(Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Classifi-
cation in the Combined Nomenclature of wrist orthoses,
lumbar support belts, elbow supports and knee supports —
Note 1(b) to Chapter 90 of the Combined Nomenclature)

(2002/C 323/15)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Joined Cases C-260/00 to C-263/00: Reference to the Court
under Article 234 EC by the Hessisches Finanzgericht, Kassel
(Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Lohmann GmbH & Co. KG (C-260/
00 to C-262/00), medi Bayreuth Weihermüller & Voigtmann
GmbH & Co. KG (C-263/00) and Oberfinanzdirektion Ko-
blenz, on the interpretation of heading 9021 of the Combined
Nomenclature, contained in Annex I to Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical
nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987
L 256, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1734/96 of 9 September 1996 (OJ 1996 L 238, p. 1), the
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of
the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporte-
ur), S. von Bahr and A. Rosas, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate
General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 7 November 2002, in which it has
ruled:

1.

Tariff heading 9021 of the Combined Nomenclature, contained
in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of
23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on
the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission
Regulation (EC) No 1734/96 of 9 September 1996, must be
interpreted as meaning that products such as wrist orthoses,
lumbar support belts, elbow supports and knee supports fall
within that heading if
they display characteristics which
distinguish them, in particular by the materials of which they
are made, their method of operation or their adjustability to the
patient’s specific handicaps, from ordinary belts and supports
for general use. It is for the referring court to ascertain whether
that is the case in the main proceedings.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 14 November 2002

in Case C-271/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen): Gemeente
Steenbergen v Luc Baten (1)

(Brussels Convention — Scope — Action under a right of
recourse under national legislation providing for payment of
allowances by way of social assistance — Concept of ‘civil
matters’ — Concept of ‘social security’)

(2002/C 323/16)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

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

In Case C-271/00: Reference to the Court pursuant to the
Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of
Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdic-
tion and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commer-
cial Matters by the Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium),
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Gemeente Steenbergen and Luc Baten, on the
interpretation of Article 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) and by the Convention of
25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic
(OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
of: C. W. A. Timmermans, President of the Fourth Chamber,
acting as President of the Fifth Chamber, D. A. O. Edward,
A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges;
A. Tizzano, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 November
2002, in which it has ruled:

21.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 323/15

1.

The first paragraph of Article 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 and by the Convention of
25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic,
must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘civil matters’
encompasses an action under a right of recourse whereby a
public body seeks from a person governed by private law recovery
of sums paid by it by way of social assistance to the divorced
spouse and the child of that person, provided that the basis and
the detailed rules relating to the bringing of that action are
governed by the rules of
the ordinary law in regard to
maintenance obligations. Where the action under a right of
recourse is founded on provisions by which the legislature
conferred on the public body a prerogative of its own, that
action cannot be regarded as being brought in ‘civil matters’.

2.

Point 3 of the second paragraph of Article 1 of the Brussels
Convention must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of
‘social security’ does not encompass the action under a right of
recourse by which a public body seeks from a person governed
by private law recovery in accordance with the rules of the
ordinary law of sums paid by it by way of social assistance to
the divorced spouse and the child of that person.

( 1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.

assisted by E. Fitzsimons, and E. Galligan, BL): Application for
a declaration that:

— by failing to ensure compliance with microbiological
parameters 57 (total coliforms) and 58 (faecal coliforms)
of Annex I to Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July
1980 relating to the quality of water intended for human
consumption (OJ 1980 L 229, p. 11) in respect of certain
public water supplies and certain group water supplies
(other than those providing less than 10 m3 a day as an
average or serving fewer than 50 persons, unless the
water is supplied as part of a commercial or public
activity) identified in official drinking water reports and
in correspondence concerning Ballycroy (Ireland), and

— by failing, in its implementing legislation, to reflect the
binding character of the requirements of Annex I to the
directive in relation to group water supplies, Ireland has
failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 7(6), 18 and
19 of that directive and under the EC Treaty,

the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
J.-P. Puissochet,
President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, F. Macken
and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges; A. Tizzano,
Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has
given a judgment on 14 November 2002, in which it:

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 14 November 2002

1. Declares that:

in Case C-316/00: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Ireland (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 80/778/EEC — Quality of water intended for
human consumption — Incomplete implementation)

(2002/C 323/17)

(Language of the case: English)

— by failing to ensure compliance with microbiological
parameters 57 (total coliforms) and 58 (faecal coliforms)
of Annex I to Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July
1980 relating to the quality of water intended for human
consumption in respect of certain public water supplies
than those
and certain group water
providing less than 10 m3 a day as an average or serving
fewer than 50 persons, unless the water is supplied as
part of a commercial or public activity) identified in
official drinking water reports and in correspondence
concerning Ballycroy, Ireland, and

supplies (other

In Case C-316/00, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: R. B. Wainwright) v Ireland (Agent: D. J. O’Hagan,

— by failing, in its implementing legislation, to reflect the
binding character of the requirements of Annex I to the