Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 October 2004 in Case C-148/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München): Nürnberger Allgemeine Versicherungs AG v Portbridge Transport International BV (Brussels Convention — Articles 20 and 57(2) — Failure by the defendant to enter an appearance — Defendant domiciled in another Contracting State — Geneva Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road — Conflict between conventions)
Date: 2005-01-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil law, commercial law, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction

8.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/13

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 28 October 2004

(First Chamber)

of 11 November 2004

in Case C-148/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Oberlandesgericht München): Nürnberger Allgemeine
Versicherungs AG v Portbridge Transport International
BV (1)

(Brussels Convention — Articles 20 and 57(2) — Failure by
the defendant to enter an appearance — Defendant domiciled
in another Contracting State — Geneva Convention on the
Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road —
Conflict between conventions)

(2005/C 6/22)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case C-148/03: reference for a preliminary ruling pursuant
to 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, made by the Oberlandesgericht München
(Germany), by decision of 27 March 2003, received at the
Court on 31 March 2003, in the proceedings between Nürn-
berger Allgemeine Versicherungs AG and Portbridge Transport
International BV — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:
A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur)
and N. Colneric,
Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R.
Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 October 2004,
the operative part of which is as follows:

the Kingdom of Denmark,

Article 57(2)(a) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Juris-
diction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial
Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the
Accession of
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, should be inter-
preted as meaning that the court of a Contracting State in which a
defendant domiciled in another Contracting State is sued may derive
its jurisdiction from a specialised convention to which the first State is
a party as well and which contains specific rules on jurisdiction, even
where the defendant,
in the course of the proceedings in question,
submits no pleas on the merits.

(1) OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003.

in Case C-171/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven): Maatschap
Toeters, M.C. Verberk v Productschap Vee en Vlees (1)

(Beef and veal — Early marketing premium for calves —
Time-limit for lodging premium applications — Rules for
calculating time-limit — Validity of Regulation (EEC) No
3886/92)

(2005/C 6/23)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

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

In Case C-171/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfs-
leven (Netherlands), made by decision of 13 April 2003,
received at the Court on 14 April 2003, in the proceedings
between Maatschap Toeters, M.C. Verberk, trading as ‘Verberk-
Voeten’, and Productschap Vee en Vlees — the Court (First
Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
A. Rosas (Rapporteur) and R. Silva de Lapuerta,
Judges; M.
Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
given a judgment on 11 November 2004,
in which it has
ruled:

1.

(a) Article 3(2)(c) of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom)
No 1182/71 of 3 June 1971 determining the rules applic-
able to periods, dates and time-limits is to be interpreted as
meaning that a period expressed in weeks, such as that laid
down by Article 50a of Commission Regulation (EEC) No
3886/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules
for the application of the premium schemes provided for in
Council Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 on the common orga-
in beef and repealing Regulations
nisation of
(EEC) No 1244/82 and (EEC) No 714/89, as amended by
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2311/96 of 2 December
1996, ends with the expiry of the last hour of whichever day
in the last week is the same day of the week as the day on
which the slaughter took place.

the market

(b) When applying Article 50a of Regulation No 3886/92, a
Member State may not establish the time at which a premium
application was lodged pursuant to national procedural rules
which apply within its national legal system to comparable,
national periods for making applications.