Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 February 2004 in Case C-18/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbejdsret ): Danmarks Rederiforening v LO Landsorganisationen i Sverige (Brussels Convention — Article 5(3) — Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict — Place where the harmful event occurred — Measure taken by a trade union in a Contracting State against the owner of a ship registered in another Contracting State)
Date: 2004-03-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: collective agreement, interpretation of the law, maritime transport, ship's flag, trade union

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/3

reimbursement of sums paid under public law by way of an education
grant to a maintenance creditor, to whose rights it is subrogated
against the maintenance debtor.

(1) OJ C 31 of 2.2.2002.

J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur),
the Sixth Chamber,
Judges;
J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and F. Macken,
F.G.
Jacobs, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 February 2004, in which
it has ruled:

1.

(a) Article 5(3) of the Brussels 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, 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 case concerning the legality
of industrial action, in respect of which exclusive jurisdic-
tion belongs, in accordance with the law of the Contracting
State concerned, to a court other than the court which has
jurisdiction to try the claims for compensation for the
damage caused by that industrial action, falls within the
definition of ‘tort, delict or quasi-delict’.

(b)

(c)

the application of Article 5(3) of

For
the Brussels
Convention to a situation such as that in the dispute in
the main proceedings, it is sufficient that that industrial
action is a necessary precondition of sympathy action
which may result in harm.

The application of Article 5(3) of the Brussels Convention
is not affected by the fact that the implementation of
industrial action was suspended by the party giving notice
pending a ruling on its legality.

2.

In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings,
Article 5(3) must be interpreted as meaning that the damage
resulting from industrial action taken by a trade union in a
Contracting State to which a ship registered in another
Contracting State sails can be regarded as having occurred in
the flag State, with the result that the shipowner can bring an
action for damages against that trade union in the flag State.

(1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 5 February 2004

in Case C-18/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Arbejdsret ): Danmarks Rederiforening v LO
Landsorganisationen i Sverige (1)

(Brussels Convention — Article 5(3) — Jurisdiction in
matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict — Place where
the harmful event occurred — Measure taken by a trade
union in a Contracting State against the owner of a ship
registered in another Contracting State)

(2004/C 71/04)

(Language of the case: Danish)

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

In Case C-18/02: 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 Arbejdsret (Denmark) for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between Danmarks
Rederiforening, acting on behalf of DFDS Torline A/S, and LO
Landsorganisationen i Sverige, acting on behalf of SEKO
för Service och Kommunikation, on the
Sjöfolk Facket
interpretation of Article 5(3) of the abovementioned Conven-
tion 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: V. Skouris, acting on behalf of the President of