CELEX: C1999/366/17
Language: en
Date: 1999-12-18 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court of 28 September 1999 in Case C-440/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation): GIE Groupe Concorde and Others v The Master of the vessel 'Suhadiwarno Panjan' and Others (Brussels Convention - Jurisdiction in contractual matters - Place of performance of the obligation)

18.12.1999               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 366/11
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       of 28 September 1999
                                                                                                    (Sixth Chamber)
in Case C-440/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Cour de Cassation): GIE Groupe Concorde and Others
v The Master of the vessel ‘Suhadiwarno Panjan’ and
                              Others (1)                                                         of 29 September 1999
(Brussels Convention — Jurisdiction in contractual matters
           — Place of performance of the obligation)
                                                                           in Case C-231/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                           (1999/C 366/17)                                 the Nederlandse Raad van State): A.M.L. van Rooij v
                                                                              Dagelijks bestuur van het waterschap de Dommel (1)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           (Environment — Directive 76/464/EEC — ‘Discharge’ —
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     Possibility for a Member State to adopt a wider definition of
                    in the European Court Reports)                                       ‘discharge’ than that in the directive)
In Case C-440/97: 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                                          (1999/C 366/18)
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters
by the Cour de Cassation, France, for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between GIE
Groupe Concorde and Others and The Master of the vessel
‘Suhadiwarno Panjan’ and Others — on the interpretation of                                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
Article 5(1) of the abovementioned Convention of 27 Sep-
tember 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
Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
and — amended version — p. 77), by the Convention of                                          in the European Court Reports)
25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic
(OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1) and by the Convention of 26 May 1989
on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese
Republic (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1) — the Court, composed                       In Case C-231/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P.J.G. Kapteyn,                   the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Nederlandse
J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann (Rapporteur) (Presidents           Raad van State, Netherlands, for a preliminary ruling in the
of Chambers), J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, J.L. Mur-              proceedings pending before that court between A.M.L. van
ray, D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón, M. Wathelet                   Rooij and Dagelijks bestuur van het waterschap de Dommel,
and R. Schintgen, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate                 third party: Gebr. Van Aarle BV — on the interpretation of
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 Sep-              Article 1(2) of Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976
tember 1999, in which it has ruled:                                        on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances dis-
                                                                           charged into the aquatic environment of the Community
On a proper construction of Article 5(1) of the Convention of              (OJ 1976 L 129, p. 23) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), compo-
27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judg-             sed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch
ments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the                   (Rapporteur) and R. Schintgen, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate
Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of            General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and               a judgment on 29 September 1999, in which it has ruled:
Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 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           1. The term ‘discharge’ in Article 1(2)(d) of Council Directive
Republic, the place of performance of the obligation, within the               76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain
meaning of that provision, is to be determined in accordance with the          dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of
law governing the obligation in question according to the conflict             the Community must be interpreted as covering the emission of
rules of the court seized.                                                     contaminated steam which is precipitated on to surface water.
                                                                               The distance between those waters and the place of emission of
                                                                               the contaminated steam is relevant only for the purpose of
(1) OJ No C 55 of 20.2.1998.
                                                                               determining whether the pollution of the waters cannot be
                                                                               regarded as foreseeable according to general experience, so that
                                                                               the pollution is not attributable to the person causing the steam.