Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 October 2004 in Case C-55/02: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Member State's failure to fulfil obligations — Articles 1, 6 and 7 of Directive 98/59/EC — Concept of ‘collective redundancy’ — Rules governing dismissals assimilated to redundancies — Incomplete transposition)
Date: 2004-12-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Portugal, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, cessation of trading, collective dismissal, job cuts, worker consultation, worker information

C 300/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.12.2004

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 14 October 2004

3. A decision to establish a liability limitation fund, in the absence
of prior service on the claimant concerned, and even where the
latter has appealed against that decision in order to challenge the
jurisdiction of the court which delivered it, cannot be refused recog-
nition in another Contracting State pursuant to Article 27(2) of
that Convention, on condition that it was duly served on or noti-
fied to the defendant in good time.

in Case C-39/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Højesteret): Mærsk Olie & Gas A/S v Firma M. de
Haan en W. de Boer (1)

(1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.

(Brussels Convention — Proceedings to establish a fund to
limit liability in respect of the use of a ship — Action for
damages — Article 21 — Lis pendens — Identical parties —
Court first seised — Identical subject-matter and cause of
action — None — Article 25 — ‘Judgment’ — Article 27(2)
— Refusal to recognise)

(2004/C 300/06)

(Language of the case: Danish)

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

In Case C-39/02: 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,
brought by the Højesteret (Supreme Court) (Denmark), by deci-
sion of 8 February 2002, received at the Court on 13 February
2002,
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Mærsk Olie & Gas A/S and Firma M.
(Third Chamber),
de Haan en W. de Boer — the Court
the Third
composed of: A. Rosas, acting as President of
Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges; P.
Léger, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 October 2004, in
which it has ruled:

1. An application to a court of a Contracting State by a shipowner
for the establishment of a liability limitation fund, in which the
potential victim of the damage is indicated, and an action for
damages brought before a court of another Contracting State by
that victim against the shipowner do not create a situation of lis
pendens within the terms of Article 21 of the Convention of 27
September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judg-
ments 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.

2. A decision ordering the establishment of a liability limitation
fund, such as that in the main proceedings in the present case, is a
judgment within the terms of Article 25 of that Convention.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 12 October 2004

in Case C-55/02: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Portuguese Republic (1)

(Member State's failure to fulfil obligations — Articles 1, 6
and 7 of Directive 98/59/EC — Concept of ‘collective redun-
dancy’ — Rules governing dismissals assimilated to redun-
dancies — Incomplete transposition)

(2004/C 300/07)

(Language of the case: Portuguese)

In Case C-55/02: action under Article 226 EC for failure to
fulfil obligations, brought on 22 February 2002, between
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Sack and
M. França) and Portuguese Republic (Agents: L. Fernandes and
F. Ribeiro Lopes) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed
of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of
the Chamber, C.
Gulmann, F. Macken, N. Colneric (Rapporteur), and J.N. Cunha
Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Rodrigues,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 October 2004, in which
it:

1. Declares that, by restricting the concept of collective redundancies
to redundancies for structural, technological or cyclical reasons,
and by failing to extend that concept to dismissals for any reason
not related to the individual workers concerned, the Portuguese
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 and 6
of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approxi-
mation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective
redundancies;

4.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/5

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

3. Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002.

(First Chamber)

of 7 October 2004

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 21 October 2004

in Case C-64/02 P: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs), v Erpo Möbelwerk
GmbH (1)

(Appeal — Community trade mark — Phrase DAS PRINZIP
DER BEQUEMLICHKEIT — Absolute ground for refusal —
Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94)

(2004/C 300/08)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-64/02 P: appeal under Article 49 of the Statute of
the Court of Justice, brought on 27 February 2002, between
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl and G. Schneider),
supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Jackson, M. Bethell and M.
Ireland (Agent: P. Ormond, C.
Tappin, assisted by D. Alexander),
the other party to the
proceedings being: Erpo Möbelwerk GmbH (Lawyers: S. von
Petersdorff-Campen and H. von Rohr) — the Court (Second
Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur),
J.-P. Puissochet, R.
President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann,
Judges; M. Poiares
Schintgen and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,
Maduro, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 21
October 2004, in which it:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

in Case C-103/02: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Italian Republic (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directives
75/442/EEC and 91/689/EEC — ‘Quantity of waste’ —
Exemption from permit requirement)

(2004/C 300/09)

(Language of the case: Italian)

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

In Case C-103/02: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: R. Wainwright and R. Amorosi) v Italian Republic
(Agent: I.M. Braguglia, assisted by M. Fiorilli) — action under
Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on
20 March 2002 — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P.
Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, R. Silva de Lapuerta,
K. Lenaerts and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; Advocate
General: M. Poiares Maduro, Registrar: R. Grass, has given a
judgment on 7 October 2004, in which it:

1. Declares that, by failing to fix, in the Decree of 5 February 1998
relating to the identification of non-hazardous waste subject to
simplified recovery procedures under Articles 31 and 33 of Legis-
lative Decree No 22 of 5 February 1997, maximum quantities of
waste by type of waste which may be recovered under the permit
exemption scheme, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obli-
gations under Articles 10 and 11(1) of Council Directive
75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council
Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991;

2. Declares that, by failing to define precisely the types of waste
relating to technical standards 5.9 and 7.8 of Annex 1 to that
decree, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 11(1) of Directive 75/442, as amended, and Article 3 of
Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazar-
dous waste;

2. Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

(Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs;

3. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders

the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

Ireland to bear its own costs.

4. Orders each party to pay its own costs.

(1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.

(1) OJ C 118 of 18.5.2002.