ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Officials ° Actions ° Action challenging the organization of annual medical check-ups ° No act adversely affecting the official ° Obligation to submit a request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations

(Staff Regulations, Arts 59(4), 90 and 91)

2. Officials ° Actions ° Claim for compensation linked with a claim for annulment ° Inadmissibility of the claim for annulment rendering the claim for compensation inadmissible

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

Summary

1. Since Article 59(4) of the Staff Regulations, which requires officials to undergo a medical check-up every year, does not provide for any measure to be taken by the institution concerning the check-up, an official who alleges an irregularity or fault on the part of the medical department committed at the time of that check-up must, if unable to establish the existence of any measure ranking as a decision which adversely affected him within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, commence the pre-litigation procedure by making a request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations. It is only against the decision rejecting that request that the official may complain to the administration under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.

2. Where an official, pursuant to Article 179 of the EEC Treaty, brings an action seeking at the same time the annulment of an act of an institution and the award of compensation for damage caused by that act, the claims are so closely linked that the inadmissibility of the claim for annulment entails the inadmissibility of the action for compensation.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Application for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Conditions for granting - Serious and irreparable damage - Strictly pecuniary damage

(EEC Treaty, Art. 185; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2) )

Summary

The urgency of an application for interim measures, as referred to in Article 104(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, must be assessed in relation to the need for an interim decision in order to prevent the party applying for the interim measures from suffering serious and irreparable damage.

Purely pecuniary damage cannot in principle be regarded as irreparable, since it can form the subject-matter of financial compensation at a later date. However, it is incumbent upon the Court hearing an application for interim measures to investigate the individual circumstances of each case and to determine in accordance therewith whether the immediate implementation of the decision causes the applicant any damage which is incapable of being repaired even if the decision falls to be annulled in the main proceedings.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Officials ° Actions ° Action brought against decision of a selection board ° Pleas alleging irregularities in the notice of competition not contested in good time ° Inadmissible ° Limits ° Irregularities appearing during the course of the competition

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

2. Officials ° Actions ° Action brought against the non-inclusion of a person on a list of suitable candidates ° Admissible ° Pleas which may be relied on

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

Summary

1. An official may not, in support of an action brought against a decision of a selection board, rely on pleas based on the alleged irregularity of the notice of competition when he has failed to challenge in good time the provisions of those notice which he considers to affect him adversely. Were it otherwise, it would be possible to challenge a competition notice long after it had been published and after most, or all, of the operations carried out in connection with the competition had already taken place, which would be contrary to the principles of legal certainty, the protection of legitimate expectations and sound administration. The situation is not the same in the case of an official who relies on irregularities which may originate in the wording of the notice of competition but which also occur in the course of the competition.

2. An action against a decision not to include a candidate' s name on the list of suitable candidates drawn up by a selection board is in principle admissible. However, if the non-inclusion follows from the candidate' s failure in the tests to obtain the minimum number of points required by the notice of competition, the applicant can validly put forward only one plea in law, namely manifest error by the selection board in assessing his abilities and in particular that the selection board was wrong to award him an insufficient mark at the tests. As the applicant has not argued that the selection board was wrong to award him an insufficient mark, the claim for the annulment or amendment of the list of suitable candidates is inadmissible.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Officials ° Actions ° Act adversely affecting an official ° Definition ° Decision to close without further action a disciplinary proceeding ° Excluded

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

2. Officials ° Disciplinary measures ° Action taken ° Discretion of the appointing authority ° Opinion of the Disciplinary Board ° Scope ° Limits

(Staff Regulations, Art. 86(2))

3. Officials ° Actions ° Action for damages ° Separate from action for annulment ° Limits ° Pre-litigation procedure different according to whether or not there is an act adversely affecting the official

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

Summary

1. The decision by which the appointing authority decides to close without further action disciplinary proceedings does not constitute an act adversely affecting the official against whom the proceedings were initiated within the meaning of Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, since the operative part of such a decision is not capable of altering the legal situation of that official.

2. The powers of the appointing authority in disciplinary matters permit it only to order one of the measures provided for in Article 86(2) of the Staff Regulations or to close the disciplinary proceedings without ordering a disciplinary measure, regardless of the opinion of the Disciplinary Board, which in any event is not binding on the appointing authority.

3. When, under Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, the question of the admissibility of an action for damages is being examined, a distinction must be drawn between two types of cases. Where the claims for damages are closely linked to an action for annulment, the inadmissibility of the latter entails the inadmissibility of the action for damages. If there is no close link between the two actions, the admissibility of the claims for damages must be assessed separately from that of the action for annulment and is subject, in particular, to the pre-litigation procedure provided for under Articles 90 and 91 having been properly carried out.

In that connection, where an action for damages is seeking redress for harm suffered as a result of an act which adversely affected the official, it is for the person concerned to lodge, within the prescribed period, a prior administrative complaint against that act, and then to bring an action within a period of three months from the date on which the complaint is rejected. Conversely, if the alleged harm has resulted from conduct which, since it had no legal effects, cannot be characterized as acts adversely affecting the official, the pre-litigation procedure must begin with a request for compensation. Only an express or implied rejection of that request constitutes a decision adversely affecting the official against which a complaint may be directed, and it is only after a decision rejecting, expressly or impliedly, that complaint that an action for damages may be brought before the Court of First Instance.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Procedure ° Intervention ° Actions concerning the civil service ° Intervention by an official in an action for annulment brought by another official ° Admissibility ° Conditions

(EEC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 37, second para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 115)

Summary

In the case of an application by an official to intervene in an action for annulment brought by another official, the concept of an interest in the result of the case within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 37 of the Statute of the Court of Justice must be construed as a direct interest in the decision on the claims relating specifically to the act whose annulment is sought.

Consequently, in an action brought by an official for the annulment of his salary statement, leave cannot be granted for the intervention of another official who did not bring an action in relation to his own salary statement, although he could have done so, and who can establish only an indirect interest in the result of the case, relating to the success of an objection of illegality raised indirectly by the applicant and deriving from the similarities between his situation and that of the applicant.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Officials ° Actions ° Conditions for admissibility ° Actionable measures ° Questions which the Court may consider of its own motion

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

2. Officials ° Actions ° Act adversely affecting an official ° Meaning ° Communication sent to an official informing him that the procedure for transfer to the Community pension scheme of rights acquired by him under a national scheme has been suspended until the national authorities have established detailed rules for transfers ° Not an act adversely affecting him

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91; Annex VIII, Art. 11(2))

3. Officials ° Actions ° Subject-matter ° Issue of directions to the Commission to bring infringement proceedings ° Inadmissible

(EEC Treaty, Arts 169 and 179; Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

4. Actions for annulment ° Actionable measures ° Refusal by the Commission to bring infringement proceedings ° Not an actionable act

(EEC Treaty, Arts 169 and 173)

Summary

1. The existence of the measure whose annulment is sought under Article 91 of the Staff Regulations is an essential requirement for admissibility, the absence of which may be considered by the Court of its own motion.

2. Measures producing binding effects capable of affecting the applicant' s interests by clearly altering his legal position and by definitively laying down the position of the institution constitute measures open to challenge under Article 91 of the Staff Regulations.

A communication sent by the authorities to an official informing him that a national pension fund has refused to transfer to the Community scheme pension rights acquired by him under the national scheme and that they themselves intend to defer consideration of the official' s request is not such a measure.

Inasmuch as it follows from Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations that the Community institution cannot itself transfer the pension rights, or acknowledge any entitlement and ascertain the number of years of pensionable service to be credited until the relevant Member State has established detailed rules for transfers, such a deferral does not amount to a definitive decision rejecting the applicant' s request, as the institution has left open the possibility of taking further steps in the procedure initiated under Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations pending establishment by the relevant Member State of the detailed rules necessary for the transfer of pension rights.

3. The Community judicature lacks jurisdiction to hear actions based on Article 91 of the Staff Regulations and Article 179 of the EEC Treaty in which the claims seek not to contest the legality of an act adversely affecting an official within the meaning of Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations but to have the Commission ordered to use the powers which it possesses as an institution under Article 169 of the Treaty.

4. An action for annulment brought by a natural or legal person against a Commission decision not to bring proceedings against a Member State for failure to fulfil its obligations is inadmissible.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Applications for interim measures ° Interim measures ° Conditions for granting ° Serious and irreparable damage ° Damage strictly pecuniary

(EEC Treaty, Art. 186; Rules of Procedure of Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

Summary

The urgent nature of an application for interim measures under Article 104(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance must be assessed by reference to the need for an interim ruling in order to avoid serious and irreparable damage to the party seeking the interim measure.

In this connection, in principle, purely pecuniary damage cannot be regarded as irreparable or even as difficult to repair since ex hypothesi it may be the subject of subsequent financial compensation. However, it is for the judge hearing the application for interim measures to assess the factors which, in the particular circumstances of each case, are such as to establish whether the absence of the interim measures sought is likely to expose the applicant to the risk of damage which cannot be repaired even if the contested measures are subsequently annulled in the main proceedings.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Procedure ° Costs ° Application for the annulment of Regulation No 2187/93 providing for an offer of compensation to certain producers of milk and milk products temporarily prevented from carrying on their trade ° Withdrawal of proceedings following a statement made in court by the defendant concerning its position should the regulation be annulled in the context of other proceedings ° Criteria for an order that costs be borne by the other party not satisfied ° Parties to bear own costs

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 87(5); Council Regulation No 2187/93)

Summary

The statement of the institutions' position entered in the minutes of a hearing before the Court of First Instance concerning the consequences to be drawn from any annulment by the Community judicature of Regulation No 2187/93 providing for an offer of compensation to certain producers of milk and milk products temporarily prevented from carrying on their trade, namely that all those concerned, even if they were not parties to the action resulting in such annulment, would be entitled to claim compensation free of the restrictions provided for in Articles 8 and 14 of that regulation, is likely to have prompted the decision by certain of the applicants in the annulment proceedings to withdraw, inasmuch as that position statement provided elucidation of the Council' s position as to the consequences of acceptance of the offer of compensation contained in the contested regulation should it be annulled.

However, that statement is not of such a nature as to be capable of justifying, under Article 87(5) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, an order that the applicants' costs should be borne by the defendant institution. Under those circumstances each party must bear its own costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Actions for annulment of measures ° Measures against which actions may be brought ° Definition ° Measures having binding legal effects ° Letter from the Commission rejecting an application for Community financial aid

(EEC Treaty, Art. 173)

2. Actions for annulment of measures ° Time-limits ° Point from which time starts to run ° Notification ° Definition

(EEC Treaty, Art. 173, third para.)

3. Actions for annulment of measures ° Powers of the Community judicature ° Forms of order seeking a declaration of an applicant' s entitlement ° Inadmissibility

(EEC Treaty, Art. 173 and Art. 176, first para.)

4. Action for damages ° Forms of order seeking damages linked to forms of order which are inadmissible on the ground that they are for a declaration of an applicant' s entitlement ° Inadmissibility

Summary

1. Any measure, regardless of the form in which it is cast, the legal effects of which are binding on, and capable of affecting the interests of, the applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position is an act or a decision against which an action for annulment may be brought.

That definition applies to a letter, drafted in precise and unequivocal terms, in which the Commission takes a definitive position with regard to the applicant' s application for Community financial aid.

2. A decision should be regarded as having been properly notified to an applicant, within the meaning of the third paragraph of Article 173, where it is established that the applicant received a precise and unequivocal letter which contained that decision.

Where it is not possible to determine on which date the said letter was received, the time-limit for bringing an action is regarded as starting to run at the latest on the date appearing on a letter from the applicant which refers to that letter.

3. In actions for annulment brought under Article 173 of the Treaty, an application based on the first paragraph of Article 176 of the Treaty for recognition by the Community judicature of the applicant' s rights is inadmissible since it exceeds the powers conferred on it in that regard.

4. Where an applicant has brought an action for both a declaration from the Community judicature of his entitlement to Community financial aid and for compensation in the form of interest for late payment of the requested aid, the claim for compensation cannot stand alone and accordingly is inadmissible as a consequence of the inadmissibility of the claim for a declaration.
Keywords



Keywords

++++

Procedure ° Costs ° Withdrawal not justified by the conduct of the other party

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 87(5))
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Actions for annulment of measures ° Natural or legal persons ° Measures of direct and individual concern to them ° Directive harmonizing the fees collected for controls and health inspections of meat and replacing a decision addressed to the Member States ° Inadmissibility

(EC Treaty, Art. 173, para. 4; Council Directive 93/118)

2. Actions for annulment of measures ° Natural or legal persons ° Body set up for the defence of collective interests ° Right of action against a legislative measure by reason of its participation in the preparation of that measure ° No right of action

(EC Treaty, Art. 173, para. 4)

Summary

1. The fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the EC Treaty makes no provision ° for the benefit of individuals ° for an action before the Community judicature against directives or against decisions adopted in the form of directives. The justification for that exclusion lies in the fact that, in the case of directives, the judicial protection of individuals is duly and sufficiently assured by the national courts, which review the transposition of directives into the domestic law of the various Member States.

Furthermore, even supposing that it were possible ° contrary to the wording of the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty ° to treat directives as regulations in order to allow proceedings against a decision "in the form of" a directive, Directive 93/118 on the financing of health inspections and controls of fresh meat and poultry meat neither constitutes a "disguised" decision nor contains any specific provision which has the character of an individual decision. On the contrary, it is a normative measure of general application since it is directed in a general and abstract manner to all traders in the Member States who fulfil as from a given date the conditions set out in a previous directive and since, moreover, its application within the Member States requires its transposition into each national legal system by means of national implementing measures. The fact that the directive at issue replaced a decision addressed to the Member States does not in any way affect the general and abstract nature of its content and consequently cannot invalidate that analysis.

2. The fact that a body set up for the defence of collective interests has taken part in the preparation of a legislative measure such as a directive does not per se give that body a right of action against that measure.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Action brought by a coal producer against an implied decision of refusal by the Commission after it had been put on formal notice under Article 35 of the ECSC Treaty - Decision alleged to result from the Commission's failure to reject outright a complaint alleging breaches by that producer of the competition rules in the ECSC Treaty - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law

(ECSC Treaty, Arts 4(d), 35, 65 and 66(7))

Summary

An action brought by a coal producer against an implied decision of refusal by the Commission allegedly resulting from the latter's failure, after being put on formal notice under Article 35 of the ECSC Treaty, to reject outright a complaint alleging that that producer breached Articles 4(d), 65 and 66(7) of the ECSC Treaty must be dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

When such a complaint is brought before it, the Commission is not only not under an obligation to dismiss it without prior examination but is in fact required to carry out such an examination. The obligation on the Commission to examine carefully the issues of fact and law which a complainant has brought to its attention in order to decide whether those elements point to conduct likely to distort competition within the common market must in particular be complied with where the Commission is acting within the context of the ECSC Treaty, in which it has exclusive jurisdiction.

Furthermore, if the Commission were, following that examination, to adopt a decision rejecting the complaint, it would, in any event, be required to set out the facts and considerations underlying its conclusions, and any review as to legality would then have to consist of verifying that the decision was not based on substantively inaccurate facts or vitiated by an error of law, manifest error of assessment, misuse of powers or abuse of process.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 8 July 1998. - Eugénio Branco Ldª v Commission of the European Communities. - Taxation of costs. - Joined cases T-85/94 (92) and T-85/94 (122) (92).



European Court reports 1998 Page II-02667



Summary



Keywords

Procedure - Costs - Taxation - Recoverable costs - Concept - Factors to be taken into consideration - Travel and subsistence expenses of persons other than the parties' lawyers - Fees of an economist - Conditions for reimbursement

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 91(b) and 92(1))

Summary

The Community judicature is not empowered to tax the fees payable by the parties to their own lawyers but it may determine the amount of those fees which may be recovered from the party ordered to pay the costs. Since Community law does not contain any provisions laying down a scale of fees, the Community judicature must assess, in its discretion, the relevant features of the case, taking into account the purpose and nature of the proceedings, their significance from the point of view of Community law, as well as the difficulties presented by the case, the amount of work generated by the dispute for the agents or advisers involved and the financial interest which the parties had in the proceedings.

Travel and subsistence expenses incurred by persons other than the lawyer of the applicant in question are recoverable only if the presence of those persons was necessary for the purpose of the proceedings. So far as the fees of an economist engaged by an applicant are concerned, such fees can be regarded as necessary expenses only if the involvement of the economist was necessary.

In view of the fact that, in fixing the recoverable costs, the Community judicature takes into account all the circumstances of a case up to the date on which it makes its ruling, it is unnecessary to make a separate ruling on the expenses incurred by the parties for the purpose of the proceedings on taxation of costs.