CELEX: C2002/274/18
Language: en
Date: 2002-11-09 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court of 17 September 2002 in Case C-334/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione): Fonderie Officine Meccaniche Tacconi SpA v Heinrich Wagner Sinto Maschinenfabrik GmbH (HWS) (Brussels Convention — Article 5(1) and (3) — Special jurisdiction — Pre-contractual liability)

9.11.2002                EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 274/11
Community law precludes the retroactive application of a time-limit           A situation such as that in the main proceedings, in which the
that is shorter and, as the case may be, more restrictive for the             differences identified in the pay conditions of workers of different sex
claimant than the period for initiating proceedings that was previously       performing equal work or work of equal value cannot be attributed to
applicable to claims for the recovery of national taxes contrary to           a single source, does not come within the scope of Article 141(1) EC.
Community law where no adequate transitional period is provided
during which claims relating to sums paid before the entry into force
of the legislation introducing the new time-limit may still be brought        (1 ) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.
within the old period. Where a limitation period of five years is
replaced with a time-limit of three years, a transitional period of 90
days must be regarded as insufficient and six months must be
regarded as the minimum period required to ensure that the exercise
of rights of recovery is not rendered excessively difficult.
( 1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                                      of 17 September 2002
                                                                              in Case C-334/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                              the Corte suprema di cassazione): Fonderie Officine
                                                                              Meccaniche Tacconi SpA v Heinrich Wagner Sinto
                                                                                             Maschinenfabrik GmbH (HWS) ( 1)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       (Brussels Convention — Article 5(1) and (3) — Special
                                                                                           jurisdiction — Pre-contractual liability)
                       of 17 September 2002                                                               (2002/C 274/18)
in Case C-320/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                                           (Language of the case: Italian)
the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division):
A.G. Lawrence and Others v Regent Office Care Ltd,
Commercial Catering Group, Mitie Secure Services Ltd (1)                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                                   in the European Court Reports)
(Principle of equal pay for men and women — Direct
effect — Comparison of the work performed for different
                               employers)                                     In Case C-334/00: 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
                           (2002/C 274/17)
                                                                              by the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) for a preliminary
                                                                              ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                              Fonderie Officine Meccaniche Tacconi SpA and Heinrich
                     (Language of the case: English)                          Wagner Sinto Maschinenfabrik GmbH (HWS), on the interpret-
                                                                              ation of Article 5(1) and (3) of the abovementioned Convention
                                                                              of 27 September 1968 (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as amended by
                                                                              the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the
                                                                              Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of
In Case C-320/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                    Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1 and
EC by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Civil                         — amended version — p. 77), by the Convention of 25 Octo-
Division) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                 ber 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic (OJ 1982
before that court between A. G. Lawrence and Others and                       L 388, p. 1) and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the
Regent Office Care Ltd, Commercial Catering Group, Mitie                      Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese
Secure Services Ltd, on the interpretation of Article 141(1) EC,              Republic (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1), the Court, composed of:
the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,                  G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr
P. Jann, F. Macken, N. Colneric (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr                  (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, A. La
(Presidents of Chambers), D. A. O. Edward, A. La Pergola,                     Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen, J. N. Cunha
J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and V. Skouris,                   Rodrigues (Rapporteur) and C. W. A. Timmermans, Judges;
Judges; L. A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; H. A. Rühl, Principal               L. A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                     given a judgment on 17 September 2002, in which it has
17 September 2002, in which it has ruled:                                     ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- C 274/12                EN                         Official Journal of the European Communities                                           9.11.2002
In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, characterised         and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the
by the absence of obligations freely assumed by one party towards             Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 1994
another on the occasion of negotiations with a view to the formation          C 241, p. 21 and OJ 1995 L 1, p. 1), the Court (Fifth
of a contract and by a possible breach of rules of law, in particular         Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
the rule which requires the parties to act in good faith in such              D. A. O. Edward, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and
negotiations, an action founded on the pre-contractual liability of the       C. W. A. Timmermans, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
defendant is a matter relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict within the     M.-F. Contet, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
meaning of Article 5(3) of the Convention of 27 September 1968                judgment on 19 September 2002, in which it has ruled:
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, by the                  1.    Consideration of the first question has not disclosed any factor
Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic                      of such a kind as to affect the validity of Council Regulation
Republic and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession                      (EEC) No 2078/92 of 30 June 1992 on agricultural
of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic.                                production methods compatible with the requirements of the
                                                                                    protection of the environment and the maintenance of the
                                                                                    countryside, as amended by the Act concerning the conditions
( 1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.
                                                                                    of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland
                                                                                    and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties
                                                                                    on which the European Union is founded.
                                                                              2.    Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92, as amended by
                                                                                    the abovementioned Act of Accession, must be interpreted as
                                                                                    meaning that a Commission decision approving a national aid
                                                                                    programme also encompasses its content, without, however,
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                              conferring on that programme the nature of an act of
                                                                                    Community law.
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                              3.    A Commission decision approving a national aid programme
                                                                                    as referred to in Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92,
                      of 19 September 2002                                          as amended by the Act of Accession, is addressed only to the
                                                                                    Member State concerned. It is for the national courts to decide,
                                                                                    in the light of national law, whether the publicity given to that
in Case C-336/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                           programme enabled it to become binding on agricultural and
the Oberster Gerichtshof): Republik Österreich v Martin                             rural operators, in particular by ensuring compliance with
                              Huber ( 1)                                            the requirement of appropriate information laid down in
                                                                                    Article 3(3)(f) of Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92.
(Agriculture — Part-financed aid — Repayment — Legal
basis — Protection of legitimate expectations — Legal
     certainty — Procedural autonomy of Member States)                        4.    Community law does not preclude the application of the
                                                                                    principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal
                                                                                    certainty in order to prevent the recovery of aid part-financed by
                          (2002/C 274/19)                                           the Community which has been wrongly paid, provided that the
                                                                                    interest of the Community is also taken into consideration. The
                                                                                    application of the principle of the protection of legitimate
                   (Language of the case: German)                                   expectations assumes that the good faith of the beneficiary of
                                                                                    the aid in question is established.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                             5.    It is open to Member States to implement national aid
                                                                                    programmes within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Regulation
                                                                                    (EEC) No 2078/92, as amended by the Act of Accession, by
                                                                                    private-sector measures or by forms of State action, in so far as
In Case C-336/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                          the national measures in question do not affect the scope and
EC by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary                          effectiveness of Community law.
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Republik Österreich and Martin Huber, on the validity and
interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 of
30 June 1992 on agricultural production methods compatible                    (1 ) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.
with the requirements of the protection of the environment
and the maintenance of the countryside (OJ 1992 L 215,
p. 85), as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of
accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland