Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 January 2004 in Case C-433/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof ): Freistaat Bayern v Jan Blĳdenstein (Brussels Convention — Special rules of jurisdiction — Article 5(2) — Maintenance — Action for recovery brought by a public body subrogated to the rights of the maintenance creditor)
Date: 2004-03-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: financial aid, interpretation of the law, maintenance obligation, parental responsibility, public law, student

C 71/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.3.2004

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 22 January 2004

in Case C-353/01 P: Olli Mattila (1)

(Appeal — Access to documents — Decisions 93/731/EC
and 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom — Exception relating to the
protection of the public interest in the field of international
relations — Partial access)

(2004/C 71/02)

(Fifth Chamber)

of 15 January 2004

in Case C-433/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Bundesgerichtshof ): Freistaat Bayern v Jan
Blijdenstein (1)

(Brussels Convention — Special rules of jurisdiction —
Article 5(2) — Maintenance — Action for recovery brought
by a public body subrogated to the rights of the maintenance
creditor)

(Language of the case: English)

(2004/C 71/03)

In Case C-353/01 P, Olli Mattila (Agent: Z. Sundström), with
an address for service in Luxembourg: Appeal against the
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities (Fifth Chamber) of 12 July 2001 in Case T-204/
99 Mattila v Council and Commission [2001] ECR II-2265,
seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other parties to
the proceedings being: Council of the European Union (Agents:
J. Aussant and M. Bauer), with an address for service in
Luxembourg, and Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: C. Docksey and U. Wölker) with an address for service
in Luxembourg, the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
C. Gulmann, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber,
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues
Puissochet,
R. Schintgen and F. Macken,
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate
General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a
judgment on 22 January 2004, in which it:

(Rapporteur),

J.-P.

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities of 12 July 2001 in Case T-204/99
Mattila v Council and Commission in so far as it rejects Mr
Mattila’s form of order seeking annulment of the decisions of
the Commission of the European Communities and the Council
of the European Union of 5 and 12 July 1999 respectively
refusing the appellant access to certain documents;

2. Annuls those decisions;

3. Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;

4. Orders the Council and the Commission to pay the costs

relating to both sets of proceedings.

(1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-433/01: 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 commercial
matters, by the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Freistaat Bayern and Jan Blijdenstein, on the interpretation of
Article 5(2) of the abovementioned Convention of 27 Septem-
ber 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 text— 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 (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), acting for the President of
the Fifth Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans and A. Rosas, Judges;
A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 15 January 2004, in which it has ruled:

Article 5(2) 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, 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 it cannot
be relied on by a public body which seeks, in an action for recovery,

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