CELEX: C2002/109/12
Language: en
Date: 2002-05-04 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) 21 February 2002 in Case C-65/00: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations ﾔ Environment — Hazardous waste — Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/689/EEC)

C 109/8                  EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                              4.5.2002
the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the                         Failing other criteria, that will be the place where the employee
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters                            has worked the longest.
by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                           It will only be otherwise if, in light of the facts of the case, the
court between Herbert Weber and Universal Ogden Services                            subject-matter of the dispute is more closely connected with a
Ltd, on the interpretation of Article 5(1) of the abovementioned                    different place of work, which would, in that case, be the
Convention of 27 September 1968 (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as                          relevant place for the purposes of applying Article 5(1) of the
amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the                                  convention.
Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978                              In the event that the criteria laid down by the Court of Justice
L 304, p. 1 and — amended version — p. 77), by the                                  do not enable the national court to identify the habitual place
Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the                               of work, as referred to in Article 5(1) of the convention, the
Hellenic Republic (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1) and by the Convention                       employee will have the choice of suing his employer either in the
of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain                             courts for the place where the business which engaged him is
and the Portuguese Republic (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1), the Court                        situated, or in the courts of the Contracting State in whose
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken, President of the                           territory the employer is domiciled.
Chamber, N. Colneric, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporte-
ur) and V. Skouris, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General;                    3.    National law applicable to the main dispute has no bearing on
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 February                            the interpretation of the concept of the place where an employee
2002, in which it has ruled:                                                        habitually works, within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the
                                                                                    convention, to which the second question relates.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.
1.    Work carried out by an employee on fixed or floating
      installations positioned on or above the part of the continental
      shelf adjacent to a Contracting State, in the context of the
      prospecting and/or exploitation of its natural resources, is to be
                                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      regarded as work carried out in the territory of that State for the
      purposes of applying Article 5(1) of the Convention of
      27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of                                          (Second Chamber)
      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                                              21 February 2002
      Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Convention of 25 Octo-
      ber 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic and the              in Case C-65/00: Commission of the European Communi-
      Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom                                      ties v Italian Republic (1)
      of Spain and the Portuguese Republic.
                                                                              (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environ-
                                                                              ment — Hazardous waste — Directives 75/442/EEC and
                                                                                                            91/689/EEC)
2.    Article 5(1) of that convention must be interpreted as meaning                                      (2002/C 109/12)
      that where an employee performs the obligations arising under
      his contract of employment in several Contracting States the                                  (Language of the case: Italian)
      place where he habitually works, within the meaning of that
      provision, is the place where, or from which, taking account of
      all the circumstances of the case, he in fact performs the essential    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      part of his duties vis-à-vis his employer.                                                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                              In Case C-65/00, Commission of the European Communities
      In the case of a contract of employment under which an                  (Agents: L. Ström and M.G. Bisogni) v Italian Republic (Agent:
      employee performs for his employer the same activities in more          U. Leanza): Application for a declaration that, by exempting
      than one Contracting State, it is necessary, in principle, to take      undertakings and establishments which carry out hazardous
      account of the whole of the duration of the employment                  waste recovery operations covered by Council Directive
      relationship in order to identify the place where the employee          91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste (OJ
      habitually works, within the meaning of Article 5(1).                   1991 L 377, p. 20) from the permit requirement laid down by
 ---pagebreak--- 4.5.2002                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 109/9
Article 10 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975                 preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by Council                     court between Caterina Insalaca and Office National des
Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78,                       Pensions (ONP), on the interpretation of Articles 46a and 46b
p. 32), without making such exemption conditional upon                     of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on
satisfaction of the requirements laid down by Article 3(2) of              the application of social security schemes to employed persons,
Directive 91/689, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its            to self-employed persons and to members of their families
obligations under Article 11 of Directive 75/442, as amended               moving within the Community, as amended and updated by
by Directive 91/156, and under Article 3 of Directive 91/689,              Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ
the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric,                      1983 L 230, p. 6), as amended by Council Regulation (EEC)
President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and V. Skouris                      No 1248/92 of 30 April 1992 (OJ 1992 L 136, p. 7), the
(Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass,               Court (Second Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric, President
Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 February 2002, in                    of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and V. Skouris,
which it:                                                                  Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
                                                                           Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 March 2002, in which it
1.    Declares that, by exempting undertakings and establishments          has ruled:
      which carry out hazardous waste recovery operations covered by
      Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on
      hazardous waste from the permit requirement laid down by
      Article 10 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975
      on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of
      18 March 1991, without making such exemption conditional
      upon satisfaction of the requirements laid down by Article 3(2)      1.   The legislation of a Member State governing the calculation of
      of Directive 91/689, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its        a survival pension and establishing a restriction of the ceiling
      obligations under the combined provisions of Article 11 of                fixed for the overlapping of a retirement and a survivor’s pension
      Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156, and                     where the surviving spouse can claim a survivor’s pension
      Article 3 of Directive 91/689;                                            payable by another Member State is a provision on reduction
                                                                                within the meaning of Articles 46a and 46b of Council
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                             Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the
                                                                                application of social security schemes to employed persons, to
                                                                                self-employed persons and to members of their families moving
(1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.                                                      within the Community, as amended and updated by Council
                                                                                Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, as amended
                                                                                by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 of 30 April 1992.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    2.   Articles 46a and 46b of Regulation No 1408/71 of 14 June
                                                                                1971, as amended and updated by Regulation No 2001/83,
                         (Second Chamber)                                       as amended by Regulation No 1248/92, preclude the appli-
                                                                                cation of the legislation of a Member State containing a
                            7 March 2002                                        provision against overlapping under which a survivor’s pension
                                                                                received in that Member State must be reduced because of a
                                                                                survivor’s pension acquired in another Member State, where the
in Case C-107/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                       benefits payable in application the legislation of the first
the Tribunal du Travail de Mons): Caterina Insalaca v                           Member State are less favourable than those determined in
             Office national des pensions (ONP) (1)                             application of Article 46 of that regulation.
(Social security — Articles 46 to 46c of Regulation (EEC)
No 1408/71 — National rules against overlapping —
                     Benefits of the same kind)
                           (2002/C 109/13)
                                                                           (1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.
                     (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-107/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Tribunal du Travail de Mons (Belgium) for a