Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 June 2004 in Case C-168/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof, (Austria)): Rudolf Kronhofer v Marianne Maier, Christian Möller, Wirich Hofius, Zeki Karan (Brussels Convention — Article 5(3) — Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict — Place where the harmful event occurred — Financial loss arising from capital investments in another Contracting State)
Date: 2004-07-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: damage, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction, legal domicile, personal effects

C 190/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.7.2004

1. Declares

that,

since

the Abruzzo Region failed to ascertain
whether the project to construct an outer ring road at Teramo (a
project known as ‘Lotto zero-Variante, tra Teramo e Giulianova,
alla strada statale SS 80’), of a type listed in Annex II to Council
Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the
effects of certain public and private projects on the environment,
required an environmental impact assessment in accordance with
Articles 5 to 10 of that directive, the Italian Republic has failed to
fulfil its obligations under Article 4(2) of that directive.

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 10 June 2004

in Case C-168/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Oberster Gerichtshof, (Austria)): Rudolf Kronhofer v
Marianne Maier, Christian Möller, Wirich Hofius, Zeki
Karan (1)

(Brussels Convention — Article 5(3) — Jurisdiction in
matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict — Place where
the harmful event occurred — Financial loss arising from
capital investments in another Contracting State)

(2004/C 190/03)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-168/02: 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
from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austrian Supreme Court) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
between Rudolf Kronhofer and Marianne Maier, Christian
Möller, Wirich Hofius, Zeki Karan - on the interpretation of
Article 5(3) of
abovementioned Convention of 27
September 1968 (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as amended by the
Convention of Accession of 9 October 1978 of the Kingdom
of Denmark, of Ireland and of 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),
by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the accession of the
Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Portugal (OJ 1989 L 285,
p. 1), and by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the

the

accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland
and the Kingdom of Sweden (OJ 1997 C 15, p. 1) - the Court
(Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, Presi-
dent of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues
(Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and N. Colneric, Judges; P. Léger,
Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 June 2004, in which it
has ruled:

Article 5(3) 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 Accession of 9 October 1978 of
the Kingdom of Denmark, of Ireland and of 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
Republic of Portugal, 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 the
expression ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ does not refer to
the place where the claimant is domiciled or where ‘his assets are
concentrated’ by reason only of the fact that he has suffered financial
damage there resulting from the loss of part of his assets which arose
and was incurred in another Contracting State.

(1) OJ C 169 of 13.7.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 8 June 2004

in Case C-220/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Österreichischer
Gerichtshof):
the
Gewerkschaftsbund, Gewerkschaft der Privatangestellten
v Wirtschaftskammer Österreich (1)

Oberster

(Principle of equal pay for men and women — Concept of
pay — Taking into account, for calculation of termination
payments, of periods of military service — Possibility of
comparing workers performing military service with women
workers who, after their maternity leave, take parental leave
the duration of which is not taken into account for calcu-
lating a termination payment)

(2004/C 190/04)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-220/02: REFERENCE to the Court under Article 234
EC from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary