Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 May 2005 in Case C-112/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel, Grenoble Société financière et industrielle du Peloux v Axa Belgium and Others (Brussels Convention — Jurisdiction in respect of contracts of insurance — Agreement conferring jurisdiction between a policy-holder and an insurer both domiciled in the same Contracting State — Enforceability of a jurisdiction clause against an insured who did not approve that clause — Insured domiciled in another Contracting State)
Date: 2005-07-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: contract terms, insurance contract, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction

C 182/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.7.2005

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 2 June 2005

in Case C-83/03 Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Italian Republic (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environ-
ment — Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of the effects
of projects on the environment — Construction of a marina
at Fossacesia)

(2005/C 182/07)

(Language of the case: Italian)

In Case C-83/03 Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: R. Amorosi and A. Aresu) v Italian Republic (Agent:
I.M. Braguglia, assisted by M. Fiorilli, avocat) — action under
Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 26
February 2003 — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of A.
Borg Barthet, President of
J.-P. Puissochet
(Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 2
June 2005, in which it:

the Chamber,

1. Declares that, since the Abruzzo Region did not properly deter-
mine whether the project
for the construction of a marina at
Fossacesia (Chieti) — a project covered by the list in Annex II to
Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assess-
ment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the
environment — had characteristics requiring it to be made subject
to a procedure to assess its effects on the environment, 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 112 of 10.05.2003

(Second Chamber)

of 12 May 2005

in Case C-112/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Cour d'Appel, Grenoble Société financière et indus-
trielle du Peloux v Axa Belgium and Others (1)

(Brussels Convention — Jurisdiction in respect of contracts of
insurance — Agreement conferring jurisdiction between a
policy-holder and an insurer both domiciled in the same
Contracting State — Enforceability of a jurisdiction clause
against an insured who did not approve that clause —
Insured domiciled in another Contracting State)

(2005/C 182/08)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case C-112/03: reference for a preliminary ruling 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 Cour d'Appel, Grenoble (France), made by
decision of 20 February 2003, received at the Court on 13
March 2003, in the proceedings between Société financière et
industrielle du Peloux and Axa Belgium and Others, Gerling
Konzern Belgique SA, Établissements Bernard Laiterie du Chate-
lard, Calland Réalisations SARL, Joseph Calland, Maurice Picard,
Abeille Assurances Cie, Mutuelles du Mans SA, SMABTP, Axa
Corporate Solutions Assurance SA, Zurich International France
SA — the Court
(Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A.
Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, J.
Makarczyk, P. Kūris and J. Klučka (Rapporteur),
Judges; A.
Tizzano, Advocate General, K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the,
Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 May 2005, the operative part
of which is as follows:

A jurisdiction clause conforming with Article 12(3) 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, 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, cannot be relied on against a beneficiary under that contract
who has not expressly subscribed to that clause and is domiciled in a
Contracting State other than that of the policy-holder and the insurer.

(1) OJ C 112 of 10.05.2003.