You are on page 1of 1

7.6.

2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 135/3

(Rapporteur) and A. Rosas, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the
Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters by
Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 April 2003, in which it the Landesarbeitsgericht München (Germany) for a preliminary
has ruled: ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Giulia Pugliese and Finmeccanica SpA, Alenia Aerospazio
Division, on the interpretation of Article 5(1) of the abovemen-
The provisions of the sixth indent of Article 14(3) of Council tioned Convention of 27 September 1968 (OJ 1978 L 304,
Regulation (EC) No 2100/94, of 27 July 1994, on Community
p. 36), as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on
plant variety rights in conjunction with Article 8 of Commission the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the
Regulation (EC) No 1768/95 of 24 July 1995 implementing rules
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ
on the agricultural exemption provided for in Article 14(3) of
1978 L 304, p. 1 and — amended version — p. 77), by the
Regulation No 2100/94 cannot be construed as meaning that the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the
holder of a Community plant variety right can require a farmer to
Hellenic Republic (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1) and by the Convention
provide the information specified in those provisions where there is no of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain
indication that the farmer has used or will use, for propagating and the Portuguese Republic (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1), the Court,
purposes in the field, on his own holding, the product of the harvest
composed of: D.A.O. Edward acting as President of the Fifth
obtained by planting, on his own holding, propagating material of a Chamber, A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur), S. von Bahr and
variety other than a hybrid or synthetic variety which is covered by
A. Rosas, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
that right and belongs to one of the agricultural plant species listed Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
in Article 14(2) of Regulation No 2100/94. on 10 April 2003, in which it has ruled:

( 1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.

1. Article 5(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on


Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and
Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 Octo-
ber 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark,
Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 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
(Fifth Chamber) the Portuguese Republic, must be interpreted as meaning that,
in a dispute between an employee and a first employer, the place
of 10 April 2003 where the employee performs his obligations to a second
employer can be regarded as the place where he habitually
carries out his work when the first employer, with respect to
in Case C-437/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from whom the employee’s contractual obligations are suspended,
the Landesarbeitsgericht München): Giulia Pugliese v has, at the time of the conclusion of the second contract of
Finmeccanica SpA, Alenia Aerospazio Division (1) employment, an interest in the performance of the service by the
employee to the second employer in a place decided on by the
latter. The existence of such an interest must be determined on
(Brussels Convention — Article 5(1) — Court for the place
a comprehensive basis, taking into consideration all the
of performance of the contractual obligation — Contract of
circumstances of the case.
employment — Place where the employee habitually carries
out his work — First contract fixing the place of performance
of the work in one Contracting State — Second contract
concluded with reference to the first contract and under
which the employee carries out his work in another Con- 2. Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention must be interpreted as
tracting State — First contract suspended during the per- meaning that, in matters relating to contracts of employment,
formance of the second) the place where the employee carries out his work is the only
place of performance of an obligation which can be taken into
consideration in order to determine which court has jurisdiction.
(2003/C 135/04)

(Language of the case: German)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published (1 ) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.


in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-437/00: Reference to the Court under the Protocol


of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of