CELEX: C2002/109/11
Language: en
Date: 2002-05-04 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 27 February 2002 in Case C-37/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Herbert Weber v Universal Ogden Services Ltd (Brussels Convention — Article 5(1) — Courts for the place of performance of the contractual obligation — Contract of employment — Place where the employee habitually carries out his work — Definition — Work performed partly at an installation positioned over the continental shelf adjacent to a Contracting State and partly in the territory of another Contracting State)

4.5.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 109/7
3.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern             1.    Sets aside points 2 and 5 of the operative part of the judgment
      Ireland, the Commission of the European Communities, the                  of the Court of First Instance of 1 December 1999 in Joined
      Fédération Européenne de la Santé Animale (Fedesa) and the                Cases T-125/96 and T-152/96 Boehringer v Council and
      Stichting Kwaliteitsgarantie Vleeskalverensector (SKV) to bear            Commission;
      their own costs.
                                                                          2.    Dismisses the action for annulment brought by Boehringer
                                                                                Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C.H. Boehringer Sohn
(1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.                                                       against Commission Regulation No 1312/96 of 8 July 1996
                                                                                amending Annex III to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90
                                                                                laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of
                                                                                maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in
                                                                                foodstuffs of animal origin;
                                                                          3.    Orders Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C.H.
                                                                                Boehringer Sohn, both in the proceedings before the Court of
                                                                                First Instance in Case T-152/96 and in those before the Court
                                                                                of Justice, to bear their own costs and to pay the whole of the
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                          costs incurred by the Commission of the European Communities;
                                                                          4.    Orders the Council of the European Union to bear the costs
                        26 February 2002                                        which it has incurred in the proceedings before the Court of
                                                                                First Instance in Case T-152/96;
in Case C-32/00 P: Commission of the European Com-                        5.    Orders the Fédération Européenne de la Santé Animale (Fedesa)
munities v Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH e.a. (1)                         and the Stichting Kwaliteitsgarantie Vleeskalverensector (SKV)
                                                                                to bear the costs which they have incurred both in the
                                                                                proceedings before the Court of First Instance in Case T-152/96
(Appeal — Veterinary medicinal products — Partial annul-                        and in those before the Court of Justice.
ment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1312/96 in so far
as, in fixing the maximum residue limits for clenbuterol
chlorhydrate, it further specifies the permissible therapeutic            (1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.
indications for that substance — Possibility for the Com-
mission, in fixing the maximum residue limits of veterinary
medicinal products, to take into account Directive 96/22/EC
 concerning the prohibition on the use of certain substances)
                                                                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (2002/C 109/10)
                                                                                                     (Sixth Chamber)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                                    27 February 2002
                                                                          in Case C-37/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                          the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Herbert Weber v
In Case C-32/00 P, Commission of the European Communities                                  Universal Ogden Services Ltd (1)
(agent: X. Lewis): Appeal against the judgment of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber)               (Brussels Convention — Article 5(1) — Courts for the place
of 1 December 1999 in Joined Cases T-125/96 and T-152/96                  of performance of the contractual obligation — Contract of
Boehringer v Council and Commission [1999] ECR II-3427,                   employment — Place where the employee habitually carries
seeking to have that judgment set aside in part, the other                out his work — Definition — Work performed partly at an
parties to the proceedings being: Boehringer Ingelheim Vetme-             installation positioned over the continental shelf adjacent to
dica GmbH, C.H. Boehringer Sohn, established in Ingelheim                 a Contracting State and partly in the territory of another
am Rheim (Germany) (agents: D. Waelbroeck and D. Fosselard),                                        Contracting State)
Council of the European Union, Fédération européenne de la
Santé animale (Fedesa), established in Brussels (Belgium)                                             (2002/C 109/11)
(agents: A. Vandencasteele and D. Brinckman), Stichting
Kwaliteistsgarantie Vleeskalverensector (SKV), established in
                                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
La Haye (Netherlands) (agents: G. van der Wal and L. Parret)
and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
P. Jann, F. Macken and N. Colneric (Presidents of Chambers),                                   in the European Court Reports)
A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet,
R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment               In Case C-37/00: Reference to the Court under the Protocol of
on 26 February 2002, in which it:                                         3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of
 ---pagebreak--- 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