diff --git a/libguile/ChangeLog b/libguile/ChangeLog
index 90dec9bb1..746842857 100644
--- a/libguile/ChangeLog
+++ b/libguile/ChangeLog
@@ -1,3 +1,7 @@
+2003-10-11  Dirk Herrmann  <D.Herrmann@tu-bs.de>
+
+	* eval.c (scm_m_case): Allow empty lists of case labels.
+
 2003-10-11  Dirk Herrmann  <D.Herrmann@tu-bs.de>
 
 	* tags.h (SCM_IM_ELSE, SCM_IM_ARROW): New memoizer codes.
diff --git a/libguile/eval.c b/libguile/eval.c
index 25f435468..ba3972043 100644
--- a/libguile/eval.c
+++ b/libguile/eval.c
@@ -741,6 +741,13 @@ scm_m_case (SCM expr, SCM env)
                            s_bad_case_labels, labels, expr);
           all_labels = scm_append_x (scm_list_2 (labels, all_labels));
         }
+      else if (SCM_NULLP (labels))
+        {
+          /* The list of labels is empty.  According to R5RS this is allowed.
+           * It means that the sequence of expressions will never be executed.
+           * Therefore, as an optimization, we could remove the whole
+           * clause.  */
+        }
       else
         {
           ASSERT_SYNTAX_2 (SCM_EQ_P (labels, scm_sym_else) && else_literal_p,
diff --git a/test-suite/ChangeLog b/test-suite/ChangeLog
index d5f6646d0..17b5d572c 100644
--- a/test-suite/ChangeLog
+++ b/test-suite/ChangeLog
@@ -1,3 +1,8 @@
+2003-10-11  Dirk Herrmann  <D.Herrmann@tu-bs.de>
+
+	* tests/syntax.test: Fixed and activated test of empty case label
+	support.
+
 2003-10-11  Dirk Herrmann  <D.Herrmann@tu-bs.de>
 
 	* tests/syntax.test (exception:bad-expression,
diff --git a/test-suite/tests/syntax.test b/test-suite/tests/syntax.test
index 20e9a44a5..c46d615df 100644
--- a/test-suite/tests/syntax.test
+++ b/test-suite/tests/syntax.test
@@ -509,6 +509,9 @@
 
 (with-test-prefix "case"
 
+  (pass-if "clause with empty labels list"
+    (case 1 (() #f) (else #t)))
+
   (with-test-prefix "case is hygienic"
 
     (pass-if-exception "bound 'else is handled correctly"
@@ -558,11 +561,6 @@
       (eval '(case 1 ("foo" "bar"))
 	    (interaction-environment)))
 
-    ;; According to R5RS, the following one is syntactically correct.
-    ;; (pass-if-exception "(case 1 (() \"bar\"))"
-    ;;   exception:bad/missing-clauses
-    ;;   (case 1 (() "bar")))
-
     (pass-if-exception "(case 1 ((2) \"bar\") . \"foo\")"
       exception:bad-expression
       (eval '(case 1 ((2) "bar") . "foo")