ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Officials ° Recruitment ° Probationary period ° Decision not to establish the probationer ° Communication to the probationer of the opinion of the Reports Committee ° Observance of the rights of the defence

(Staff Regulations, Art. 34(2))

2. Officials ° Recruitment ° Probationary period ° Purpose ° Conditions of service

(Staff Regulations, Art. 34)

3. Officials ° Recruitment ° Probationary period ° Assessment of outcome ° Appreciation of the probationer' s suitability ° Review by the Court ° Limits

(Staff Regulations, Art. 34)

Summary

1. Where it is decided not to establish a probationer, forwarding the opinion of the Reports Committee to the probationer constitutes a sufficient safeguard of the rights of the defence. The question whether the proceedings of the committee were properly conducted may be assessed by the probationer and by the Court on the basis of that opinion alone, without its being necessary for the minutes of the meetings of that committee to be made available.

2. In contrast to competitions giving access to the Community civil service, designed to permit the selection of candidates on the basis of general criteria directed to the candidate' s future suitability, the purpose of the probationary period provided for in Article 34 of the Staff Regulations is to enable the administration to make a more concrete assessment of a candidate' s suitability for a particular post, the manner in which he performs his duties and his efficiency in the service.

Although the probationary period cannot be considered to be equivalent to a training period, the fact remains that the probationer must be put in a position during that period to demonstrate his abilities. That condition cannot be separated from the concept of probationary period and in addition satisfies the requirements relating to respect for the general principles of proper administration and equal treatment and the duty to have regard for the interests of officials. Accordingly, the probationer must be given not only adequate physical conditions but also appropriate instructions and advice in the light of the duties performed to enable him to adapt to the specific needs of the post he fills.

However, the duty to have regard for the interests of officials cannot require the administration to allocate to the probationer tasks which take greater account of his special qualifications than of the requirements of the department to which he is assigned.

3. By virtue of the principles laid down by the Staff Regulations governing recruitment and probation, the administration has a wide discretion to assess the abilities and performance of a probationer in the light of the interests of the service. Accordingly it is not for the Court to substitute its own judgment for that of the institutions in so far as concerns their assessment of the outcome of a probationary period and their appreciation of the suitability of a probationer for a permanent appointment in the Community civil service, unless there has been a manifest error of assessment or an abuse of power.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Officials ° Career ° Article 45(2) of the Staff Regulations ° Systematic distinction between categories and services ° Transfer from the Language Service to Category A ° Requirement for a competition ° Discrimination against officials in the Language Service ° No

(Staff Regulations, Art. 45(2))

2. Officials ° Actions ° Interest in bringing proceedings ° Plea of infringement of an essential procedural requirement ° Non-discretionary power of the administration ° Plea inadmissible

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

Summary

1. Article 45(2) of the Staff Regulations formulates a fundamental rule corresponding to the organization of the Community public service into different categories requiring distinct qualifications. It is clear from the various provisions of the Staff Regulations concerning the career and situation of officials that a systematic distinction between category and service is fundamental to them; a service places together officials who carry out particular duties for which specific qualifications are required, in order to make possible a separate career structure taking account of those special features. This distinction is also to be found in Article 45(2) which shows that transfer from the Language Service to Category A is possible only on the basis of a competition. That provision leaves no discretion whatsoever to the administration to proceed otherwise.

It follows that the fact that it is impossible for an official in the Language Service to be transferred to a post in Category A other than on the basis of a competition does not constitute discrimination against officials in the Language Service

2. An official has no legitimate interest in securing the annulment of a decision for a procedural defect where the administration has no discretion and is bound to act as it did.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Officials ° Pensions ° Acquisition of pension rights ° Member of the auxiliary staff who has become a member of the temporary staff ° Taking into account of periods of service completed as a member of the auxiliary staff ° Conditions

(Staff Regulations, Art. 83(2); Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 70)

2. Officials ° Administration' s duty of assistance ° Scope

(Staff Regulations, Art. 24)

3. Officials ° Members of the temporary staff ° Severance grant ° Calculation ° Member of the auxiliary staff who has become a member of the temporary staff ° Deduction of the contribution payable by the employee to the Community pension scheme and of the employer' s contributions paid to the national pension scheme

(Staff Regulations, Art. 83(2); Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 39)

Summary

1. For the purpose of calculating the pension rights acquired by an auxiliary servant who has become a temporary servant and who leaves the service of the Communities in that capacity, there is nothing to prevent an institution from making the assimilation of the period of auxiliary employment equivalent to a period of temporary employment subject to the two-fold condition that the person concerned pay to the institution the amounts which he would have had to pay to the Community pension scheme by way of the contribution referred to in Article 83(2) of the Staff Regulations and that he repay to the institution the employer' s share of the social security contributions paid to the national pension scheme under Article 70 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants.

2. The duty of assistance laid down in Article 24 of the Staff Regulations is concerned with the defence of officials against the acts of third parties and not against the acts of the Administration itself, the review of which is governed by other provisions of the Staff Regulations.

3. Article 39 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, concerning the severance grant, cannot be interpreted as meaning that, apart from payments made in pursuance of Article 42 thereof, no other amounts may be deducted from the grant. Accordingly, that provision does not prevent the grant paid to an auxiliary servant who has become a temporary servant and who leaves the service of the Communities in that capacity from being reduced by both the amount of the contributions which the person concerned would have had to pay to the Community pension scheme if he had been immediately employed as a temporary servant and the amount of the employer' s contributions paid by the institution to the national pension scheme.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Officials ° Remuneration ° Family allowances ° Education allowance ° Conditions for granting ° Training received in an educational establishment but connected to a contract of apprenticeship

(Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 3)

Summary

The distinction between educational training and vocational training in Article 2(3)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations allows payment of the education allowance provided for in Article 3 of that annex to be withheld where the dependent child in respect of whom the education allowance is sought is receiving vocational training with no connection with an educational establishment. On the other hand, the distinction does not prevent payment of the education allowance where a dependent child is receiving vocational training provided by an educational establishment at which he is in regular full-time attendance. In that respect, the purpose of the first paragraph of Article 3 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations allows training provided outside the establishment to be treated as regular full-time attendance at an educational establishment if such training is regarded as an integral part of the programme of instruction laid down by that establishment.

Consequently, entitlement to the education allowance arises in respect of a child receiving vocational training given by an educational establishment which is approved as such by the national authorities, including where part of that training takes place under a contract of apprenticeship concluded under the aegis of the educational establishment.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Procedure ° Submission of new pleas in law during the course of the proceedings ° Relevant provisions of the Rules of Procedure laying down neither a time-limit nor any particular formality ° No time bar

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 48(2))

2. Actions for annulment ° Pleas in law ° Infringement of essential procedural requirements ° Notification, in breach of the Commission' s Rules of Procedure, of a decision not previously authenticated

(EEC Treaty, Art. 173; Commission' s Rules of Procedure, Art. 12)

3. Actions for annulment ° Pleas in law ° Infringement of essential procedural requirements ° Regularization after an action has been brought ° Not permissible

(EEC Treaty, Art. 173)

Summary

1. Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance lays down neither a time-limit nor any particular formality for the submission of a new plea in law, where such a submission is admissible; in particular, it does not provide that, if it is not to be time-barred, such a submission must be made immediately, or within a particular period, after the matters of fact or of law to which it refers come to light. Since the submission of a plea in law is involved, a time bar, restricting the ability of the party concerned to put forward all matters necessary for the success of its claims, should not in principle be admitted unless it is the subject of express, unequivocal rules.

2. The authentication of acts provided for in the first paragraph of Article 12 of the Commission' s Rules of Procedure, which must take place after their adoption by the college of Commissioners and before their notification or publication, is intended to guarantee legal certainty by ensuring that the text adopted by the college of Commissioners becomes fixed in the languages which are binding. Accordingly, in the event of a dispute, authentication enables it to be verified that the texts notified or published correspond precisely to the text adopted and so with the intention of the author. It therefore follows that authentication constitutes an essential procedural requirement within the meaning of Article 173 of the EEC Treaty and that a decision notified without having been authenticated is vitiated by a material defect, irrespective of whether there is any discrepancy between the text adopted and the one published or notified.

3. Once an action contesting a measure vitiated by infringement of essential procedural requirements has been lodged, it is not possible for the institution which adopted that measure to cure that defect simply by taking the step of retroactive regularization, for example by authenticating a measure which had been notified without completion of that formal step.

That is especially true where a decision is involved which imposes a fine on the applicant, because regularization carried out after the action had been brought would remove ex post facto any basis for a plea alleging such a defect. Such an approach would impair legal certainty and be contrary to the interests of persons affected by a decision imposing a fine.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Officials ° Competitions ° Competition based on tests ° Admission to the oral test dependent on attaining the pass mark in the written tests ° Duties of the Selection Board ° Compliance with the terms of the notice of competition

(Staff Regulations, Annex III)

2. Officials ° Competitions ° Selection Board ° Independence ° Limits ° Adoption of illegal decisions ° Duties of the appointing authority

3. Officials ° Competitions ° Competition based on tests ° Ambiguity in the notice of competition as to the results required in the written tests for admission to the oral test ° Procedural irregularity irrelevant to the legality of the decision of the Selection Board drawing up the list of candidates to be admitted to the oral test in accordance with a correct interpretation of the notice of competition

Summary

1. While the appointing authority has a wide discretion in determining the conditions for a competition, the Selection Board, for its part, is bound by the wording of the notice of competition as published. It has no power to depart from a strict interpretation of that notice and admit to the oral test candidates who have not attained in the written tests the pass mark required by the notice of competition, since to do so would be to alter substantively the conditions of the competition.

2. In view of the independence of Selection Boards in competitions, the administration has no authority to amend or annul their decisions. If it considers that a Selection Board has illegally prevented certain candidates from sitting a test, its role is to take formal note of that situation by means of a reasoned decision and recommence the whole procedure by publishing a new notice of competition. Under no circumstances has it the power to respond to a complaint by admitting the complainant to that test.

3. Ambiguity in a notice of competition concerning the marks required in the written tests for admission to the oral test cannot invalidate the decision of the Selection Board concerning such admission, reached on the basis of a correct interpretation of that notice, where there is no evidence to suggest that, in the absence of such ambiguity, the candidates would have performed better in the written tests. A procedural irregularity cannot invalidate an act unless it is established that, without it, the result of the decision might have been different.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Officials ° Assignment ° Re-assignment under a staff rotation system ° Distinguished from the filling of a vacant post ° Administration' s obligations to comply with the principles of equal treatment and the protection of legitimate expectations

(Staff Regulations, Arts 4, 29 and 45)

2. Officials ° Assignment ° Re-assignment under a staff rotation system ° Administration obliged to select one of the officials who has submitted an application ° No such obligation

Summary

1. The existence of a vacant post, within the meaning of Articles 4 and 29 of the Staff Regulations, presupposes that a post is not filled amongst the total number of permanent posts referred to in the list of posts appended, in accordance with Article 6 of the Staff Regulations, to the section of the budget relating to the institution in question and indicating, for each category and each service, the number of posts in each grade for each career bracket. A procedure for the rotation of staff within an institution, under which officials are re-assigned together with their posts, does not constitute a procedure for the filling of a vacant post. It follows that Articles 4, 29 and 45 of the Staff Regulations do not apply to a procedure of that kind.

However, the organization of the Community civil service is governed by certain general principles of law, including equality of treatment and protection of legitimate expectations, which may not be disregarded in the context of a procedure, such as that for the rotation of staff, which is not explicitly provided for by the Staff Regulations. The application of those principles implies, on the one hand, that the administration is obliged to undertake a proper comparative examination of the merits of the candidates and, on the other, that once it has decided to fill a specific post by means of that procedure, it must carry it through properly, observing the terms of the notice which it has published, before calling for applications from external candidates under a different procedure.

2. The decision to terminate a staff rotation procedure without filling a particular job by appointing an internal candidate falls within the discretion enjoyed by the appointing authority in this context. Although the administration is not obliged to carry through a recruitment procedure initiated pursuant to Article 29 of the Staff Regulations with a view to filling a vacant post, that principle must, a fortiori, apply by analogy in cases where the administration calls for internal applications in the context of a staff rotation procedure.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Actions for annulment ° Jurisdiction of the Community judicature ° Directions issued to an institution ° Not permissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 173)

2. Competition ° Agreements, decisions and concerted practices ° Agreements between undertakings ° Concept ° Agreements between a parent company and a subsidiary that has no freedom to determine its conduct ° Not falling within the scope of that concept

(EC Treaty, Art. 85(1))

3. Procedure ° Application ° Requirements as to form ° Summary of the pleas in law on which it is based

(Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC, Art. 19, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1))

4. Acts of the institutions ° Statement of reasons ° Obligation ° Scope ° Decision implementing the competition rules

(EC Treaty, Art. 190)

Summary

1. The Community judicature has no jurisdiction to issue directions to the Community institutions in connection with an action for annulment under Article 173 of the Treaty.

2. Where a subsidiary, although having a separate legal personality, does not freely determine its conduct on the market but carries out the instructions given to it directly or indirectly by the parent company by which it is wholly controlled, Article 85(1) does not apply to the relationship between the subsidiary and the parent company with which it forms an economic unit. Conduct adopted unilaterally on the market by such an economic unit cannot, even if it consists of prohibiting subsidiaries from supplying products to customers established in Member States other than that of the subsidiary, be brought within the scope of and be made the subject of sanctions under Article 85 without causing that article to apply to circumstances for which it is not intended.

3. The application must contain a summary of the pleas in law on which it is based. It must accordingly specify the nature of the grounds on which the action is based, so that a mere abstract statement of the grounds does not satisfy the requirements of the Statute of the Court of Justice or the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance.

4. The statement of reasons on which a decision is based must enable the addressee to recognize the reasons for the measure adopted, so that it may, if necessary, enforce its rights and verify whether or not the decision is well founded and must enable the Community judicature to exercise its power of review.

When stating the reasons for the decisions which it is required to take in order to ensure the application of the competition rules, the Commission is not obliged to adopt a position on all the arguments on which the parties rely in proceedings before it. It is sufficient if the Commission sets out the facts and the legal considerations having decisive importance in the context of the decision adopted.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Procedure ° Time-limits for bringing actions ° Time-bar ° Excusable error ° Concept

2. Actions for annulment of measures ° Action challenging a decision confirming a decision not challenged within the time-limit ° Inadmissibility

(EC Treaty, Art. 173)

3. Actions for damages ° Independent of action for annulment ° Action aimed at securing withdrawal of an individual decision which has become definitive ° Inadmissibility

(EC Treaty, Art. 178 and second para. of Art. 215)

4. Non-contractual liability ° Conditions ° Administrative fault ° Lack of care in correcting an error of which the relevant department was aware

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

Summary

1. On the question of time-limits for bringing proceedings, which are at the discretion of neither the court nor the parties and are a matter of public policy, the concept of excusable error must be interpreted narrowly and can apply only to exceptional circumstances where, in particular, the conduct of the institution concerned was, either alone or to a decisive extent, such as to give rise to understandable confusion in the mind of a person acting in good faith and exercising normal care and attention. Verbal assurances allegedly given by Commission officials, even assuming them to have been proven, cannot, given the duties which a person exercising an ordinary degree of care must fulfil, amount to an exceptional circumstance such as to excuse the failure by the addressee of a decision not allowing his claims to bring a timeous action against it.

2. Where an applicant lets the time-limit for bringing an action against a decision unequivocally laying down a measure with legal effects affecting his interests and binding on him expire, he cannot start time running again by asking the institution to reconsider its decision and bringing an action against the refusal confirming the decision previously taken.

3. The fact that an application for annulment is inadmissible does not in itself render a claim for damages inadmissible, since the action provided for in Articles 178 and 215 of the Treaty is an independent form of action in the system of remedies available in Community law. That is not, however, the case where the action for damages is actually aimed at securing withdrawal of an individual decision which has become definitive and would, if upheld, have the effect of nullifying the legal effects of that decision.

4. The obvious lack of care on the part of the Commission indicated by the fact that, although perfectly aware of the error which it had made in calculating the level of investment eligible for Community aid, it took fifteen months to rectify it, subjecting the payment of the aid to its recipient to the same delay, constitutes an administrative fault of a kind for which the Community incurs non-contractual liability.