CELEX: C2004/071/03
Language: en
Date: 2004-03-20 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 January 2004 in Case C-433/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof ): Freistaat Bayern v Jan Blĳdenstein (Brussels Convention — Special rules of jurisdiction — Article 5(2) — Maintenance — Action for recovery brought by a public body subrogated to the rights of the maintenance creditor)

C 71/2                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                             20.3.2004
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                                              (Fifth Chamber)
                       of 22 January 2004                                                           of 15 January 2004
              in Case C-353/01 P: Olli Mattila (1)
                                                                           in Case C-433/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                           from the Bundesgerichtshof ): Freistaat Bayern v Jan
(Appeal — Access to documents — Decisions 93/731/EC                                                    Blijdenstein (1)
and 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom — Exception relating to the
protection of the public interest in the field of international
                   relations — Partial access)                             (Brussels Convention — Special rules of jurisdiction —
                                                                           Article 5(2) — Maintenance — Action for recovery brought
                                                                           by a public body subrogated to the rights of the maintenance
                          (2004/C 71/02)                                                                   creditor)
                   (Language of the case: English)                                                     (2004/C 71/03)
                                                                                               (Language of the case: German)
In Case C-353/01 P, Olli Mattila (Agent: Z. Sundström), with
an address for service in Luxembourg: Appeal against the                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                                        in the European Court Reports)
Communities (Fifth Chamber) of 12 July 2001 in Case T-204/
99 Mattila v Council and Commission [2001] ECR II-2265,
seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other parties to
the proceedings being: Council of the European Union (Agents:
J. Aussant and M. Bauer), with an address for service in                   In Case C-433/01: Reference to the Court, pursuant to the
Luxembourg, and Commission of the European Communities                     Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of
(Agents: C. Docksey and U. Wölker) with an address for service             Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdic-
in Luxembourg, the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:                     tion and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial
C. Gulmann, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber,                 matters, by the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) for a preliminary
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet,                       ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate                     Freistaat Bayern and Jan Blijdenstein, on the interpretation of
General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a                    Article 5(2) of the abovementioned Convention of 27 Septem-
judgment on 22 January 2004, in which it:                                  ber 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
1.   Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the         Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1, and
     European Communities of 12 July 2001 in Case T-204/99                 — amended text— p. 77), by the Convention of 25 October
     Mattila v Council and Commission in so far as it rejects Mr           1982 on the accession of the Hellenic Republic (OJ 1982
     Mattila’s form of order seeking annulment of the decisions of         L 388, p. 1), and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the
     the Commission of the European Communities and the Council            accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese
     of the European Union of 5 and 12 July 1999 respectively              Republic (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber),
     refusing the appellant access to certain documents;                   composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), acting for the President of
                                                                           the Fifth Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans and A. Rosas, Judges;
2.   Annuls those decisions;                                               A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
                                                                           judgment on 15 January 2004, in which it has ruled:
3.   Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;
                                                                           Article 5(2) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction
4.   Orders the Council and the Commission to pay the costs                and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters,
     relating to both sets of proceedings.                                 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
(1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.                                                1982 on the accession of the Hellenic Republic and by the Convention
                                                                           of 26 May 1989 on the accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the
                                                                           Portuguese Republic must be interpreted as meaning that it cannot
                                                                           be relied on by a public body which seeks, in an action for recovery,
 ---pagebreak--- 20.3.2004               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                   C 71/3
reimbursement of sums paid under public law by way of an education           the Sixth Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur),
grant to a maintenance creditor, to whose rights it is subrogated            J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges;
against the maintenance debtor.                                              F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
                                                                             Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 February 2004, in which
                                                                             it has ruled:
(1) OJ C 31 of 2.2.2002.
                                                                             1.    (a)   Article 5(3) of the Brussels 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
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                   Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom
                                                                                         of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                                 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
                        of 5 February 2004                                               Republic and by the Convention of 29 November 1996
                                                                                         on the Accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic
in Case C-18/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling                                      of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, must be
from the Arbejdsret ): Danmarks Rederiforening v LO                                      interpreted as meaning that a case concerning the legality
               Landsorganisationen i Sverige (1)                                         of industrial action, in respect of which exclusive jurisdic-
                                                                                         tion belongs, in accordance with the law of the Contracting
                                                                                         State concerned, to a court other than the court which has
(Brussels Convention — Article 5(3) — Jurisdiction in                                    jurisdiction to try the claims for compensation for the
matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict — Place where                           damage caused by that industrial action, falls within the
the harmful event occurred — Measure taken by a trade                                    definition of ‘tort, delict or quasi-delict’.
union in a Contracting State against the owner of a ship
            registered in another Contracting State)
                          (2004/C 71/04)                                           (b) For the application of Article 5(3) of the Brussels
                                                                                         Convention to a situation such as that in the dispute in
                                                                                         the main proceedings, it is sufficient that that industrial
                   (Language of the case: Danish)                                        action is a necessary precondition of sympathy action
                                                                                         which may result in harm.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                   (c)   The application of Article 5(3) of the Brussels Convention
                                                                                         is not affected by the fact that the implementation of
                                                                                         industrial action was suspended by the party giving notice
In Case C-18/02: Reference to the Court under the Protocol of
                                                                                         pending a ruling on its legality.
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
by the Arbejdsret (Denmark) for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                             2.    In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings,
proceedings pending before that court between Danmarks
                                                                                   Article 5(3) must be interpreted as meaning that the damage
Rederiforening, acting on behalf of DFDS Torline A/S, and LO
                                                                                   resulting from industrial action taken by a trade union in a
Landsorganisationen i Sverige, acting on behalf of SEKO
                                                                                   Contracting State to which a ship registered in another
Sjöfolk Facket för Service och Kommunikation, on the
                                                                                   Contracting State sails can be regarded as having occurred in
interpretation of Article 5(3) of the abovementioned Conven-
                                                                                   the flag State, with the result that the shipowner can bring an
tion of 27 September 1968 (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as
                                                                                   action for damages against that trade union in the flag State.
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 (OJ 1978
L 304, p. 1, and — amended version — p. 77), by the
Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the
Hellenic Republic (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1), by the Convention of                (1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and
the Portuguese Republic (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1) 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 (OJ 1997 C 15, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: V. Skouris, acting on behalf of the President of