Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 April 2003 in Case C-437/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht München): Giulia Pugliese v Finmeccanica SpA, Alenia Aerospazio Division (Brussels Convention — Article 5(1) — Court for the place of performance of the contractual obligation — Contract of employment — Place where the employee habitually carries out his work — First contract fixing the place of performance of the work in one Contracting State — Second contract concluded with reference to the first contract and under which the employee carries out his work in another Contracting State — First contract suspended during the performance of the second)
Date: 2003-06-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: free movement of workers, interpretation of the law, work contract, workplace

7.6.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/3

(Rapporteur) and A. Rosas, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 April 2003, in which it
has ruled:

The provisions of the sixth indent of Article 14(3) of Council
Regulation (EC) No 2100/94, of 27 July 1994, on Community
plant variety rights in conjunction with Article 8 of Commission
Regulation (EC) No 1768/95 of 24 July 1995 implementing rules
on the agricultural exemption provided for in Article 14(3) of
Regulation No 2100/94 cannot be construed as meaning that the
holder of a Community plant variety right can require a farmer to
provide the information specified in those provisions where there is no
indication that the farmer has used or will use, for propagating
purposes in the field, on his own holding, the product of the harvest
obtained by planting, on his own holding, propagating material of a
variety other than a hybrid or synthetic variety which is covered by
that right and belongs to one of the agricultural plant species listed
in Article 14(2) of Regulation No 2100/94.

the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters by
the Landesarbeitsgericht München (Germany) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Giulia Pugliese and Finmeccanica SpA, Alenia Aerospazio
Division, on the interpretation of Article 5(1) of the abovemen-
tioned 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,
composed of: D.A.O. Edward acting as President of the Fifth
Chamber, A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur), S. von Bahr and
A. Rosas, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 10 April 2003, in which it has ruled:

( 1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.

1. 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 Octo-
ber 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, must be interpreted as meaning that,
in a dispute between an employee and a first employer, the place
where the employee performs his obligations to a second
employer can be regarded as the place where he habitually
carries out his work when the first employer, with respect to
whom the employee’s contractual obligations are suspended,
has, at the time of the conclusion of the second contract of
employment, an interest in the performance of the service by the
employee to the second employer in a place decided on by the
latter. The existence of such an interest must be determined on
a comprehensive basis,
the
circumstances of the case.

taking into consideration all

2. Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention must be interpreted as
meaning that, in matters relating to contracts of employment,
the place where the employee carries out his work is the only
place of performance of an obligation which can be taken into
consideration in order to determine which court has jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 10 April 2003

in Case C-437/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Landesarbeitsgericht München): Giulia Pugliese v
Finmeccanica SpA, Alenia Aerospazio Division (1)

(Brussels Convention — Article 5(1) — Court for the place
of performance of the contractual obligation — Contract of
employment — Place where the employee habitually carries
out his work — First contract fixing the place of performance
of the work in one Contracting State — Second contract
concluded with reference to the first contract and under
which the employee carries out his work in another Con-
tracting State — First contract suspended during the per-
formance of the second)

(2003/C 135/04)

(Language of the case: German)

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

(1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.

In Case C-437/00: Reference to the Court under the Protocol
of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of