Case C-148/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesgericht München — Zivilsenate in Augsburg — by order of that Court of 27 March 2003 in the case of Nürnberger Allgemeine Versicherungs AG against Portbridge Transport International B.V.
Date: 2003-06-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil law, commercial law, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction

C 146/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.6.2003

4.

The Court of First Instance violated the right to effective
judicial protection.

( 1) OJ C 79, 10.3.2001, p. 23.
( 2) OJ C 79, 10.3.2001, p. 24.
( 3) OJ C 3, 5.1.2002, p. 39.
( 4) OJ C 3, 5.1.2002, p. 45.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesge-
richt München — Zivilsenate in Augsburg — by order of
that Court of 27 March 2003 in the case of Nürnberger
Allgemeine Versicherungs AG against Portbridge Trans-
port International B.V.

(Case C-148/03)

(2003/C 146/46)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht
München — Zivilsenate in Augsburg — (Munich Higher
Regional Court, Civil Chambers in Augsburg) of 27 March
2003, received at the Court Registry on 31 March 2003, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Nürnberger Allgemeine
Versicherungs AG against Portbridge Transport International
B.V. on the following question:

Do the provisions on jurisdiction contained in other conven-
tions take precedence over the general provisions on jurisdic-
tion in the Brussels Convention even where a defendant
domiciled in the territory of a State which is a party to the
Brussels Convention and against whom an action has been
brought before a court of another State which is a party to
that Convention fails to submit pleas as to the merits of the
case in the proceedings before that court?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de
Cassation of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg by judg-
ment of that Court of 6 March 2003 in the case of
Caisse Nationale des Prestations Familiales against Ursula
SCHWARZ, née WEIDE

(Case C-153/03)

(2003/C 146/47)

1. Must Article 76 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security
schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons
and to members of their families moving within the
Community (1) be interpreted as applying only where a
migrant worker is entitled to family benefits under the
legislation of the State of employment and under the
legislation of the State in which the members of his
family are resident?

2.

3.

If so, may the bodies of the State of employment suspend
entitlement to family benefits where they consider that a
refusal to grant family benefits in the State of residence is
incompatible with Community law?

If not, does Article 76 of Regulation No 1408/71 permit
the State of employment
to apply the rule against
aggregation of benefits where, under the law of the State
of residence of the family members, the worker’s spouse
receives or is entitled to similar family benefits?

(1) as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/

83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ L 230, p. 6).

Action brought on 3 April 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against Ireland

(Case C-154/03)

(2003/C 146/48)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Cour de Cassation
(Court of Cassation) of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg of
6 March 2003, received at the Court Registry on 3 April 2003,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Caisse Nationale des
Prestations Familiales against Ursula SCHWARZ, née WEIDE
on the following questions:

An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 3 April 2003 by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by
Karen Banks, acting as agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.