Case C-3/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  16 February 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'appello di Cagliari) — Gaetano Verdoliva v J.M. Van der Hoeven BV, Banco di Sardegna, San Paolo IMI SpA (Brussels Convention — Judgment authorising the enforcement of a judgment given in another Contracting State — Failure of, or defective, service — Notice — Time for appealing)
Date: 2006-06-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European convention, Italy, enforcement of ruling, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction

3.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/23

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 February
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte
d'appello di Cagliari) — Gaetano Verdoliva v J.M. Van der
Hoeven BV, Banco di Sardegna, San Paolo IMI SpA

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 February
2006 — Commission of the European Communities v
Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-3/05) (1)

(Case C-43/05) (1)

(Brussels Convention — Judgment authorising the enforce-
ment of a judgment given in another Contracting State —
Failure of, or defective, service — Notice — Time for
appealing)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Direc-
tive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment in employment and
occupation — Failure to transpose within the prescribed
period)

(2006/C 131/40)

Language of the case: Italian

(2006/C 131/41)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Corte d'appello di Cagliari

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gaetano Verdoliva

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: V. Kreuschitz, D. Martin and H. Kreppel, Agents,
acting as Agents)

Defendants: J.M. Van der Hoeven BV, Banco di Sardegna, San
Paolo IMI SpA

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: U.
Forsthoff, acting as Agent)

Intervener: Pubblico Ministero

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte d'appello di Cagliari
— Interpretation of Article 36 of the Brussels Convention —
Enforcement of judgments — Defective service of a decision
authorising enforcement — Meaning of ‘notice of procedural
documents’

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to
transpose, within the prescribed period, Council Directive
2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general
framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation
(OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 36 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 9 October 1978 on the accession of
the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland, the Convention of 25 October 1982
on the accession of the Republic of Greece and the Convention of 26
May 1989 on the accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portu-
guese Republic, is to be interpreted as requiring due service of the deci-
sion authorising enforcement in accordance with the procedural rules
of the Contracting State in which enforcement is sought, and therefore,
in cases of failure of, or defective, service of the decision authorising
enforcement, the mere fact that the party against whom enforcement is
sought has notice of that decision is not sufficient to cause time to run
for the purposes of the time-limit fixed in that article.

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Direc-
tive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general
framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, as
far as concerns discrimination based on religion or belief, disability
and sexual orientation, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed
to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 69, 19.03.2005.

(1) OJ C 82 of 02.04.2005.