ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Actions for annulment - Time-limits - Mandatory - Examination by the Court of First Instance of its own motion

(EC Treaty, Art. 173, fifth para.)

2 Acts of the institutions - Individual decision - Notification - Concept

(EC Treaty, Art. 191(3))

3 Agriculture - Common agricultural policy - Food aid - Actions for the free supply of agricultural products to the peoples of Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan - Conditions of carriage - Costs relating to discharge of vessels - Obligation to pay `dispatch money'

(Council Regulation No 1975/95; Commission Regulations Nos 2009/95 and 449/96)

Summary

4 The time-limit prescribed for bringing an action under Article 173 of the Treaty is a matter of public policy and is not subject to the discretion of the parties or the Court, since it was established in order to ensure that legal positions are clear and certain and to avoid any discrimination or arbitrary treatment in the administration of justice. Since, pursuant to Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure, failure to observe the time-limit constitutes an absolute bar to the admissibility of the action, the Court of First Instance must ascertain of its own motion whether it was observed.

5 A decision is duly notified if it is notified to the person to whom it is addressed and that person is placed in a position to become aware of the existence of the decision and the reasons given by the institution to justify it.

6 It is clear from Council Regulation No 1975/95 on actions for the free supply of agricultural products to the peoples of Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, Regulations Nos 2009/95 and 449/96 adopted by the Commission within the framework established by that regulation, the decision of 27 March 1996 awarding the contract and the Memorandum drawn up on 10 October 1995 between the Commission and the Georgian authorities, that undertakings which submitted successful tenders for the transport were required to pay `dispatch money' to the Georgian authorities, where necessary. Since the successful tenderer was able to examine those provisions, neither the fact that a `no dispatch' clause was contained in the charter-party entered into between the successful tenderer and the shipowner, nor the fact that no `dispatch' rate was notified when the contract was awarded is such as to relieve the applicant of that obligation. On the one hand, the charter-party is intended only to govern the relationship between the successful tenderer and the shipowner and does not in any way affect the applicant's legal position vis-à-vis the Commission, and on the other hand, no provision of the regulations applicable in the instant case requires the Commission to determine the `dispatch' rate before or at the time of awarding the various contracts of carriage.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Procedure - Application initiating proceedings - Procedural requirements - Statement of the subject-matter of the proceedings - Summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based - Application for compensation for damage caused by a Community institution

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c))

2 Actions for damages - Capacity to act - Trade association - Interest of its own or assignment of entitlement to compensation

(EC Treaty, Art. 215)

3 Non-contractual liability - Conditions - Unlawfulness - Damage - Causal link - Concept - Burden of proof

(EC Treaty, Art. 215, second para.)

Summary

1 Under Article 19 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, any application must state the subject-matter of the proceedings and contain a summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based. Those particulars must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court to rule on the application, where appropriate, without any other information in support. In order to guarantee legal certainty and the sound administration of justice it is necessary, in order for an action to be admissible, that the basic legal and factual particulars on which the action is founded be indicated coherently and intelligibly, if only in summary form, in the application itself.

In order to satisfy those requirements, an application seeking compensation for damage caused by a Community institution must state the evidence from which, inter alia, the damage allegedly sustained by the applicant and, in particular, the nature and extent of that damage can be identified.

2 An association has the right to bring proceedings for damages under Article 215 of the Treaty only where it is able to assert in law either a particular interest of its own which is distinct from that of its members or a right to compensation which has been assigned to it by others.

3 The Community's non-contractual liability under the second paragraph of Article 215 of the Treaty is dependent on the fulfilment of a series of conditions as regards the unlawfulness of the acts alleged against the Community institutions, the fact of damage and the existence of a causal link between the conduct of the institution concerned and the damage complained of.

There is a causal link for the purposes of the second paragraph of Article 215 of the Treaty where there is a direct causal nexus between the fault committed by the institution concerned and the injury pleaded, the burden of proof of which rests on the applicants.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Lawful act — Actual damage, causal link and unusual and special damage — Cumulative nature — (Art. 215 EC (now Art. 288 EC))

2. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Actual and certain damage — Burden of proof — (Art. 215 EC (now Art. 288 EC))

Summary

1. For the Community to incur non-contractual liability for an unlawful act, a number of conditions must be satisfied concerning the illegality of the conduct alleged against the Community institutions, the fact of the damage allegedly suffered and the existence of a causal link between that conduct and the damage complained of. Moreover, if the principle of non-contractual liability on the part of the Community as a result of a lawful act were to be recognised under Community law, the Community would not in any event incur liability unless three conditions were cumulatively met, namely the fact of the alleged damage, the existence of a causal link between that damage and the act of the Community institutions complained of, and the unusual and special nature of that damage.

see paras 59-60

2. In an action based on the non-contractual liability of the Community, which can be validly brought only if the applicant has in fact incurred actual and certain loss, the onus is on the applicant to produce the evidence before the Community judicature to establish the existence and extent of such loss.

see para. 67
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Interest in bringing proceedings - Claim by tenderer whose bid was not accepted - Admissibility

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC)

2. European Community public procurement - Conclusion of a contract following an invitation to tender - Discretion of the institutions - Judicial review - Limits

3. Procedure - Introduction of new pleas in law in the course of the proceedings - Conditions - New plea - Concept

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 44(1)(c) and 48(2))

Summary

1. An action brought by a natural or legal person is admissible only if that person can show a legal interest in bringing proceedings. In the context of a procedure for the award of public contracts, the awarding institution cannot claim that the tenderer whose bid was not accepted has no legal interest in bringing proceedings on the ground that it submitted a tender which was in any event unacceptable. Inasmuch as annulment of the contested decision would entail reopening the tender procedure under different conditions, the applicant does indeed have a legal interest in bringing the proceedings in order to be able to submit a fresh tender without being faced by competition from the previously successful tenderer.

( see paras 28, 33 )

2. Like the other institutions, the Parliament has a wide discretion in assessing the factors to be taken into account for the purpose of deciding to award a contract following an invitation to tender and the Court's review should be limited to checking that there has been no serious and manifest error. Nevertheless, in accordance with the principles of sound administration and solidarity as between the Community institutions and the Member States, the institutions are required to ensure that the conditions laid down in an invitation to tender do not induce potential tenderers to infringe the national legislation applicable to their business.

( see paras 39, 41 )

3. It is clear from the provisions of Articles 44(1)(c) and 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, taken together, that the application initiating proceedings must indicate the subject-matter of the dispute and set out in summary form the pleas raised and that no fresh issue may be raised in the course of proceedings unless it is based on matters of law or of fact which come to light in the course of the written procedure. However, the fact that the applicant became aware of a factual matter during the course of the procedure before the Court of First Instance does not mean that that element constitutes a matter of fact coming to light in the course of the procedure. A further requirement is that the applicant was not in a position to be aware of that matter previously.

( see paras 59, 62 )
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber)

9 March 2000

Case T-10/99

Miguel Vicente Nunez

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Promotion — Examination of comparative merits — List of officials deemed the most deserving — List of officials promoted — Periodic report — Failure to state reasons’

Full text in French II-203

Application for:

annulment of the list of officials promoted to Grade A 5 and the list of officials deemed the most deserving of promotion to that grade under the 1998 promotions procedure, in so far as those lists do not contain the applicant's name, and of the implied decision rejecting the applicant's complaint, and also for damages.

Held:

The decision of the Commission, confirmed by the implied decision rejecting the complaint, not to include the applicant's name on the list of officials promoted to Grade A 5 under the 1998 promotions procedure, published in Administrative notices of 6 April 1998, is annulled. The remainder of the application is dismissed. The Commission shall bear the costs.

Summary
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Single Judge)

27 September 2000

Case T-317/99

Franz Lemaître

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Expatriation allowance — Installation allowance — Article 4(1)(b) and Article 5 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations’

Full text in French II-867

Application for:

annulment of the decisions contained in the Commission's letters of 18 February 1999 and 12 March 1999 refusing the applicant an expatriation allowance and installation allowance, respectively.

Held:

The Commission's decision of 12 March 1999 refusing the applicant an installation allowance is annulled. The remainder of the action is dismissed. The Commission is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay one half of the applicant's costs. The applicant is ordered to bear one half of his costs.

Summary

The concept of expatriation depends on the personal situation of an official, notably, in the case of an official who is a national of the Member State of his place of employment, on whether he has actually broken his social and professional ties with that State by moving completely and on a long-term basis his habitual residence outside the European territory of that State. The exception provided for in Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations covers only persons who had to move their permanent centre of interests outside the State where they are employed and can therefore be regarded as no longer having permanent links with that State. It is clear from the wording of Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and its interpretation in the case-law that it is for the official concerned to reverse a simple presumption of ‘non-expatriation’ by showing that he severed all permanent ties with the State in which he is employed. The fact, referred to in Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, of having habitually resided, during the period of 10 years expiring on his entry into the service, outside the European territory of the State in which he is employed is therefore evidence that such ties were severed. (see paras 49 and 50) See: 330/85 Richter v Commission [1986] ECR 3439, para. 6

Under Article 5(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, any established official who qualifies for expatriation allowance is thereby also entitled to the installation allowance. An official who is granted an expatriation allowance is, at least in principle, in a situation characterised by the absence of permanent and lasting installation at the place of employment. An official who is not entitled to the expatriation allowance, because, for example, he is a national of the State of employment, may also be in the situation of being required to instai himself at his place of employment on a permanent basis. It is for that reason that Article 5(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations provides, as a second condition, that an installation allowance is to be paid to an official who furnishes evidence of having been obliged to change his place of residence in order to comply with Article 20 of the Staff Regulations. (see paras 62 and 63)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (FIFTH Chamber)

16 January 2001

Joined Cases T-97/99 and T-99/99

Michael Charnier and Eoghan O'Hannrachain

v

European Parliament

‛Officials — Grade A 1 post — Article 29(2) of the Staff Regulations — Notice of vacancy — Manifest error of assessment — Misuse of powers’

Full text in French II-1

Application for:

annulment of the decisions of the Parliament not to appoint the applicants to the post of Director-General for Finance and Financial Control and of the decision appointing another candidate to that post and, second, for damages

Held:

The actions are dismissed. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.

Summary

As regards recruitment to fill a Grade A 1 post, when comparing the merits of candidates for such a post which entails great responsibilities and in assessing the interests of the service, the appointing authority has a wide discretion. That assessment may be called in question only if it is vitiated by a manifest error. In addition, it may lawfully prefer one qualified candidate over another qualified candidate for reasons which take account of the interests of the service. In that regard, the review to be carried out by the Court does not imply that it is entitled to undertake independently a comparison of the merits of the candidates, and still less that it is entitled to substitute its own assessment of those merits for that of the appointing authority. The Court thus verifies whether, in the light of the qualifications required by the vacancy notice, the administration, in adopting the decision to appoint one candidate rather than another, has remained within reasonable bounds and has not used its power in a manifestly incorrect way. (see paras 77-79) See: Kotzonis v ESC, cited above, para. 81; Anacoreta Correia v Commission, cited above, para. 75
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Officials - Promotion - Examination of comparative merits - Prior consideration of personal files by each Directorate-General - Whether permissible - Consideration to be undertaken subsequently by the Promotions Committee then by the appointing authority - Scope

(Staff Regulations, Art. 45(1))

Summary

$$The discretion allowed to the administration in matters of promotion is subject to the need to undertake a comparative consideration of all officials eligible for promotion with care and impartiality, in the interests of the service and in accordance with the principle of equal treatment. In practice, such consideration must be undertaken on a basis of equality, using comparable sources of information. Against that background, while prior consideration within each Directorate-General of the personal files of officials eligible for promotion is not likely to hinder proper consideration of their comparative merits and, on the contrary, is in accordance with the principle of good administration, it must not take the place of the comparative consideration which must be undertaken subsequently by the Promotions Committee, where provision is made for such consideration. Every official eligible for promotion is therefore entitled to expect the Promotions Committee to compare his merits with those of other officials eligible for promotion to the grade concerned. The appointing authority cannot be allowed simply to consider the merits of those officials who are placed at the top of the lists prepared by the various Directorates-General, since that would render consideration of the comparative merits of all the officials eligible for promotion redundant.

( see paras 32-34 )
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)

13 September 2001

Case T-160/99

Gunnar Svantesson and Others

v

Council of the European Union

‛Officials — Internal competition — Composition of selection board’

Full text in French II-799

Application for:

annulment of the decisions of the selection board for Internal Competition COUNCIL/LA/262 not to mark the optional papers sat by the applicants and not to admit them to the oral tests for that competition, and annulment of the whole of that competition.

Held:

The decisions of the selection board for Internal Competition COUNCIL/LA/262 not to admit the applicants to the oral tests and not to mark their optional papers for the competition are annulled. The remainder of the application is dismissed. The Council is ordered to pay the costs.

Summary

Officials — Competitions — Selection board — Composition — Qualification of members to assess tests objectively — Competition for translator-revisers — Use of qualified examiners — Conditions (Staff Regulations, Annex III, Art. 3) Officials — Actions — Judgment annulling decision — Effects — Annulment of decision of selection board in competition not to admit candidate to the oral test — Results of competition not called into question in their entirety (Staff Regulations, Art. 91)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Actionable measures - Definition - Measures with binding legal effects - Preparatory measures - Excluded

(EC Treaty, Art. 173 (now, after amendment, Art. 230 EC))

Summary

$$Only measures which produce binding legal effects and are capable of affecting the interests of the applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position constitute measures challengeable by an action for annulment under Article 173 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 230 EC). In the case of acts or decisions adopted by a procedure involving several stages, in particular where they are the culmination of an internal procedure, in principle, an act is reviewable only if it is a measure definitively establishing the position of the Commission at the conclusion of that procedure, and not a provisional measure intended to pave the way for the final decision.

In those circumstances, where the Commission makes it clear in a letter to the complainant which constitutes the contested measure that the assessments contained therein are of a provisional nature, the content of the contested measure confirms that statement, and the Commission makes it clear that its comments are subject to any further observations that the applicant might wish to make, it must be concluded that the contested measure is to be regarded as a preparatory statement of position. Since the contested measure is not one which definitively establishes the Commission's position, it does not produce binding legal effects capable of affecting the complainant's interests, and is not therefore a reviewable act for the purposes of Article 173 of the Treaty.

( see paras 32, 34, 36-38, 41 )
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber)

11 July 2002

Joined Cases T-137/99 and T-18/00

Natalia Martínez Páramo and Others

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Temporary staff contract — Admissibility — Act adversely affecting an official — Compliance with time-limits set by Staff Regulations — Second renewal of a temporary staff contract — Articles 2(a) and (b), 3(a), 8, 9, 10(1), 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants — Termination of a fixed-term contract — Notice provided for in Articles 47(2) and 74 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants’

Full text in French II-639

Application for:

first, annulment of the decisions of the Commission of 23 March, 18 May and 31 May 1999 confirming the termination of the applicants' contracts of engagement on 30 June 1999 and the expiry date for each of those contracts and, secondly, annulment of the legal characterisation of the applicants' contracts.

Held:

The application in Case T-137/99 is declared admissible in so far as it was made by Mr Marenne. The application in Case T-137/99 is inadmissible in so far as it was made by the other applicants. The application in Case T-137/99 is dismissed. The application in Case T-18/00 is inadmissible. The parties shall bear their own costs, including those incurred in the proceedings for interim relief.

Summary
Case T-319/99





Federación Nacional de Empresas de Instrumentación Científica, Médica, Técnica y Dental (FENIN)

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Competition – Abuse of a dominant position – Public health service – Late payment of invoices – Complaint submitted by suppliers – Definition of undertaking)»

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition), 4 March 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Competition – Community rules – Undertaking – Definition

(Arts 81 EC and 82 EC)

2.. Competition – Community rules – Undertaking – Definition – Organisations responsible for managing national health systems – Not included – Conditions

(Arts 81 EC and 82 EC)

3.. Competition – Administrative procedure – Examination of complaints – Examination only of the facts and points of law brought to the Commission's attention

(Arts 81 EC and 82 EC; Council Regulation No 17(3))

4.. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision applying competition rules

(Art. 253 EC)

1.

2.

3.

4.