Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 June 2004 in Case C-220/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund, Gewerkschaft der Privatangestellten v Wirtschaftskammer Österreich (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 calculating a termination payment)
Date: 2004-07-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal pay, interpretation of the law, labour law, national service, parental leave

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

24.7.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/3

ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund, Gewerkschaft der Priva-
tangestellten and Wirtschaftskammer Österreich - on the inter-
pretation of Article 141 EC and Article 1 of Council Directive
75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of the
laws of the Member States relating to the application of the
principle of equal pay for men and women (OJ 1975 L 45,
p. 19) - the Court, composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann,
C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur)
and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Presidents of Chambers, R.
Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and R. Silva de
Lapuerta, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,
Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 8
June 2004, in which it has ruled:

S. Schreiner) - application for a declaration that, by failing to
adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions neces-
sary to comply with Council Directive 98/50/EC of 29 June
1998 amending Directive 77/187/EEC on the approximation of
the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of
employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings,
businesses or parts of businesses (OJ 1998 L 201, p. 88) or, in
any event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations
under that directive - the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:
A. Rosas, acting for the President of
the Third Chamber,
R. Schintgen and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geel-
hoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judg-
ment on 10 June 2004, in which it:

1. The benefit, for persons performing military service or, as an alter-
native, compulsory civilian service which may be extended volunta-
rily, consisting in the taking into account, for calculation of a
termination payment they might subsequently be entitled to claim,
of the duration of that service is to be regarded as part of their
pay within the meaning of Article 141 EC.

2. Article 141 EC and Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10
February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the Member
States relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for
men and women do not preclude the calculation of a termination
payment from taking into account, as length of service, the dura-
tion of periods of military service or
the civilian equivalent
performed mainly by men but not of parental leave taken most
often by women.

(1) OJ C 202 of 24.8.2002.

the laws,

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt

regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Direc-
tive 98/50/EC of 29 June 1998 amending Directive
77/187/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member
States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event
of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses, the
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations
under that directive;

2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 213 of 6.9.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 10 June 2004

Action brought on 23 March 2004 by the Commission of
the Kingdom of
the European Communities against

Denmark

(Case C-150/04)

(2004/C 190/06)

in Case C-333/03: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
transpose Directive 98/50/EC — Transfer of undertakings —
Safeguarding of employees' rights)

An action against
the Kingdom of Denmark was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
23 March 2004 by the Commission of the European Commu-
nities, represented by R. Lyal and S. Tams, acting as Agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

(2004/C 190/05)

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(Language of the case: French)

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

In Case C-333/03: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: M.-J. Jonczy ) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent:

1) Declare that, by introducing and maintaining a system for
life insurance and pensions under which tax deductions and
tax exemptions for payments (sections 18 and 19 of the law
on pension tax) are granted only for payments under
contracts entered into with pension institutions established
in Denmark, whereas no such tax relief
is granted for
payments pursuant to contracts entered into with pension
institutions established in other Member States (sections
53A and 53B), the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil
its obligations under Articles 39, 43, 49 and 56 EC.