ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the General Court of 17 October 2022 — Swords v Commission and ECDC

(Case T-55/22) (1)

(Action for annulment - Public health - Measures introduced in the European Union in the fight against the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic - Risk assessment reports drawn up by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) - Acts not open to challenge - European Commission communication and coordinated approach published on the basis of the risk assessment reports drawn up by the ECDC - Plea of illegality - Inadmissibility)

(2023/C 15/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Patrick Swords (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by G. Byrne, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission (represented by A. Szmytkowska and F. van Schaik, acting as Agents), European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (represented by R. Malacalza, M.-A. Ekström and E. Sinclair, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the risk assessment reports drawn up by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic on 24 and 26 November and on 2 and 15 December 2021 and also the inapplicability, under Article 277 TFEU, of the Communication from the European Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, of 1 December 2021, entitled, ‘Addressing together current and new COVID-19 challenges’ (COM/2021/764 final) and the coordinated approach, as accepted by the Health Security Committee (HSC), published by the Commission on 8 December 2021, which were based on the contested scientific opinions.

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Mr Patrick Swords shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 119, 14.3.2022.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — Airoldi Metalli v Commission

(Case T-1/22) (1)

(Action for annulment - Dumping - Imports of aluminium flat-rolled products originating in China - Imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty - Importer - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Act not of individual concern - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 463/70)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Airoldi Metalli SpA (Molteno, Italy) (represented by: M. Campa, D. Rovetta, P. Gjørtler and V. Villante, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Gustafsson and G. Luengo, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1784 of 8 October 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of aluminium flat-rolled products originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2021 L 359, p. 6).

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Airoldi Metalli SpA shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

3. European Aluminium shall bear its own costs relating to its application for leave to intervene.

(1) OJ C 84, 21.2.2022.
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

1. Officials – Reports procedure – Career development report – Drawing up – Officials with staff representation duties

(Staff Regulations, Annex II, Art. 1, sixth para.)

2. Officials – Reports procedure – Career development report – Drawing up

1. Although, under Article 6(3)(c) of the General Provisions for Implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, adopted by the Commission, reporting officers and countersigning officers are required to consult the ad hoc group and take account of its opinion when drawing up the career development report of an official performing staff representation activities, they are not obliged to follow that opinion. If they do not, they must then explain the reasons which led them to depart from it.

Moreover, it does not follow from any provision of the Staff Regulations or the General Implementing Provisions that the obligation for the reporting officer and the countersigning officer to take account of the opinion of the ad hoc group requires them to award an official special points in addition to those intended to assess the work he has done in his post.

Nor is such a requirement implied by the last paragraph of Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations, which states that the fact of performing the duties of a staff representative is not to be prejudicial to the official concerned.

(see paras 37-38, 47)

See:

T-43/04 Fardoom and Reinard v Commission [2005] ECR‑SC I‑A‑329 and II‑1465, para. 87; T-95/04 Lavagnoli v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I-A-2-121 and II-A-2-569, para. 84

2. The rules of the General Provisions for Implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, adopted by the Commission, concerning the division of powers in the performance of the duties of reporting officer, countersigning officer and appeal assessor respectively constitute internal organisational rules within an institution. A deviation from those rules cannot render void an act done by the administration unless such deviation involves the possibility of adversely affecting one of the guarantees given to officials by the Staff Regulations or the principles of good administration in staff management.

(see para. 61)

See:

46/72 De Greef v Commission [1973] ECR 543, para. 18; 49/72 Drescig v Commission [1973] ECR 565, para. 10

T-118/04 and T-134/04 Caló v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I‑A‑2-0000 and II‑A‑2‑0000, paras 67 and 68
JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Second Chamber)

22 November 2007

Case F-34/06

Christos Michail

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Officials – Appraisal – Career development report – 2004 appraisal – Action for annulment – Action for damages)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Michail seeks annulment of his career development report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2004, annulment of the decision of 4 November 2005 rejecting his complaint against the 2004 career development report, and an order for the Commission to pay him compensation of EUR 120 000 for the non-material damage he alleges he has suffered.

Held: The action is dismissed. Each party is to bear its own costs.

Summary

Officials – Reports procedure – Career development report

(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)

Since an assessment cannot be made of an official’s ability, efficiency and conduct in the service for a period when he was not assigned any duties, it follows that an official cannot complain that his career development report for a particular year does not include an assessment for such a period.

(see para. 31)

See:

F-67/05 Michail v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000, para. 33
JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Third Chamber)

8 October 2008

Case F-81/07

Florence Barbin

v

European Parliament

(Civil service – Officials – Promotion – 2006 promotion procedure – Consideration of comparative merits)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Ms Barbin seeks annulment of the decision of the European Parliament not to promote her to grade AD 12 pursuant to the 2006 promotion procedure.

Held: The decision of the European Parliament of 20 November 2006 not to promote the applicant pursuant to the 2006 promotion procedure is annulled. The Parliament is ordered to pay the costs.

Summary

Officials – Promotion – Complaint by an unsuccessful promotion candidate – Decision to reject – Total absence of statement of reasons

(Staff Regulations, Arts 25, second para., 45 and 90(2))

Although the appointing authority is not under an obligation to provide unsuccessful candidates with reasons for its decision on promotion, it must, on the other hand, give reasons for its decision to reject a complaint lodged by an official who has not been promoted, the statement of grounds for such a decision being deemed to be the same as the statement of reasons for the decision against which the complaint was directed, so that consideration of the grounds of the one overlaps with that of the other.

The total absence of a statement of reasons before an action is brought cannot be remedied by explanations provided by the appointing authority after the action has been initiated. At that stage, such explanations no longer fulfil their function, which is to enable the party concerned to determine whether it is appropriate to bring an action and to enable the court to check the correctness of the reasons stated. Moreover, the possibility of remedying the total absence of a statement of reasons after an action has been initiated would prejudice the rights of the defence, since the applicant would be deprived of the opportunity to present his pleas against the statement of reasons, of which he would have no knowledge until after the action was brought. The principle that parties should be equal before the Community judicature would be undermined.

(see paras 27-28)

See:

188/73 Grassi v Council [1974] ECR 1099, para. 13; 121/76 Moli v Commission [1977] ECR 1971, para. 12; 75/77 Mollet v Commission [1978] ECR 897, para. 12; 195/80 Michel v Parliament [1981] ECR 2861, para. 22; C-343/87 Culin v Commission [1990] ECR I‑225, paras 13 and 15; C-150/03 P Hectors v Parliament [2004] ECR I‑8691, para. 50

T-52/90 Volger v Parliament [1992] ECR II‑121, paras 40 and 41; T-117/01 Roman Parra v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I-A-27 and II‑121, para. 32; T-66/05 Sack v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-0000, para. 66, currently the subject of an appeal before the Court of Justice, C‑38/08 P
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

1. Officials – Promotion – Consideration of comparative merits – Administration's discretion – Limits

(Staff Regulations, Art. 45)

2. Officials – Equal treatment – Definition

1. The appointing authority has a wide discretion in assessing the merits to be taken into consideration in a decision on promotion under Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, and review by the Community judicature must be confined to determining whether, having regard to the various considerations which might have influenced the administration in making its assessment, it has remained within reasonable bounds and has not used its power in a manifestly incorrect way. The Civil Service Tribunal cannot therefore substitute its assessment of the qualifications and merits of the candidates for that of the appointing authority.

However, the discretion thereby conferred on the administration is circumscribed by the need to undertake a comparative consideration of the officials’ merits with care and impartiality, in the interest of the service and in accordance with the principle of equal treatment. In practice, that consideration must be undertaken on a basis of equality, using comparable sources of information.

The need to undertake such a consideration on a basis of equality and the limited number of merit points available mean that the points must be allocated to the most deserving officials in descending order of merit, until the quota of points has been exhausted. Where it is found, in the consideration of comparative merits undertaken, that certain officials have equivalent merits, those officials must be allocated an identical number of merit points. Should there be an insufficient number of points, the choice between those officials must be made on the basis of secondary considerations such as seniority.

(see paras 42-44)

See:

C-277/01 P Parliament v Samper [2003] ECR I‑3019, para. 35

T-76/92 Tsirimokos v Parliament [1993] ECR II‑1281, para. 21; T‑262/94 Baiwir v Commission [1996] ECR-SC I‑A‑257 and II‑739, para. 66; T-134/02 Tejada Fernández v Commission [2003] ECR-SC I‑A‑125 and II‑609, para. 41; T-353/03 Nielsen v Council [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑95 and II‑443, para. 58; T-311/04 Buendía Sierra v Commission [2006] ECR II‑4137, para. 93

2. There is a breach of the principle of equal treatment where two categories of persons whose factual and legal situations are not essentially different receive different treatment or where different situations are treated in the same way. The requirement that, in order to obtain the same number of merit points as the officials with whom he has been compared, an official must demonstrate that his merits are greater than the merits of those officials, thus constitutes a breach of the principle of equal treatment.

(see paras 45, 49-59)

See:

817/79 Buyl and Others v Commission [1982] ECR 245, para. 29; 119/83 Appelbaum v Commission [1985] ECR 2423, para. 25

T-18/89 and T-24/89 Tagaras v Court of Justice [1991] ECR II‑53, para. 68
EN
ReportsofCases
ECLI:EU:F:2010 :7 1JUDGMENT O F THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
(Second Ch amber)
4 February 2010
Case F-15/08
Valérie W iame
v
European Comm ission
(Civil service — Open compe tition — Non-inclusion on th e reserve list — Insufficient score — 
Notice of open compe tition E PSO/AST/7/05 — Taking of evidence — Interest in 
bringing proceedings)
Application:brought under Articles 236 E C and 152 E A, in which M s Wiame s eeks annulment of the 
decision o f the selection b oard i n compe tition E PSO/AST/7/05 a warding her a s core 
which was insufficient for her to be included on th e reserve list for the compe tition.
Held: The action is dismissed. The applicant is to bear h er own costs. The Commission is to 
bear its own costs.
Summ ary
1. Officials — Actions — Act adversely affecting an official — Decision adopted a fter reconsideration of 
a previous decision
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90(2) and 91(1))
2. Acts of the institutions — Presumption of legality — Information calling legality of an act into 
question
1. When a c andida te whose request to be ad mitted to a C ommunity compe tition h as been rejected 
seeks r econsideration o f that decision, it is on ly th e decision t aken by th e selection b oard a fter 
reconsideration w hich must be regarded as the act adversely affecting him. It is therefore against that 
decision th at the candida te must dir ect his heads of claim.
(see para. 20)
See:
T-173/05 H eus v C omm ission [2006 ] ECR-SC I-A-2-329 a nd II-A-2-1695 , para. 19
F-73/06 V an Neyghem v C omm ission [2007 ] ECR-SC I-A-1-441 a nd II-A-1-2515 , para. 39
2 ECLI:EU:F:2010 :7SUMM ARY—CASEF-15/08
WIAMEvCOMM ISSION
2. An ad ministrative act is presumed to be lawful and th e burden of proof lies, in principle, with th e 
person c laiming it to be unlawful, so that it is for the applicant to provide at the very least sufficiently 
precise, objective a nd consistent information t o corroborate th e truth o r likelihood of the facts in 
support of his claim. Consequently, an applicant who has neither evidence no r, at the ve ry least, a 
body of information a t his disposal must accept that decisions adopted in relation to compe titions are 
presumed to be lawful, and he cannot expect th e Civil Service Tribunal itself to examine th e 
candida tures of the successful candida tes in order to ascertain whether some s uccessful candida tes 
were unlawfully admitted to the compe tition.
(see para. 21)
See:
C-274/99 P C onnolly v C omm ission [2001 ] ECR I-1611 , paras 113 a nd 114
T-272/94 B rulant v P arliament [1996 ] ECR-SC I- A-513 a nd II-1397 , para. 35; T-57/99 G riesel v C ouncil [2000 ] 
ECR-SC I-A-151 a nd II-699, para. 25
JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

4 February 2010

Case F-15/08

Valérie Wiame

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Open competition — Non-inclusion on the reserve list — Insufficient score — Notice of open competition EPSO/AST/7/05 — Taking of evidence — Interest in bringing proceedings)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Ms Wiame seeks annulment of the decision of the selection board in competition EPSO/AST/7/05 awarding her a score which was insufficient for her to be included on the reserve list for the competition.

Held: The action is dismissed. The applicant is to bear her own costs. The Commission is to bear its own costs.

Summary

1. Officials — Actions — Act adversely affecting an official — Decision adopted after reconsideration of a previous decision

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90(2) and 91(1))

2. Acts of the institutions — Presumption of legality — Information calling legality of an act into question

1. When a candidate whose request to be admitted to a Community competition has been rejected seeks reconsideration of that decision, it is only the decision taken by the selection board after reconsideration which must be regarded as the act adversely affecting him. It is therefore against that decision that the candidate must direct his heads of claim.

(see para. 20)

See:

T-173/05 Heus v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I-A-2-329 and II-A-2-1695, para. 19

F-73/06 Van Neyghem v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-1-441 and II-A-1-2515, para. 39

2. An administrative act is presumed to be lawful and the burden of proof lies, in principle, with the person claiming it to be unlawful, so that it is for the applicant to provide at the very least sufficiently precise, objective and consistent information to corroborate the truth or likelihood of the facts in support of his claim. Consequently, an applicant who has neither evidence nor, at the very least, a body of information at his disposal must accept that decisions adopted in relation to competitions are presumed to be lawful, and he cannot expect the Civil Service Tribunal itself to examine the candidatures of the successful candidates in order to ascertain whether some successful candidates were unlawfully admitted to the competition.

(see para. 21)

See:

C-274/99 P Connolly v Commission [2001] ECR I-1611, paras 113 and 114

T-272/94 Brulant v Parliament [1996] ECR-SC I-A-513 and II-1397, para. 35; T-57/99 Griesel v Council [2000] ECR-SC I-A-151 and II-699, para. 25
Article 80(1) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (‘CEOS’) provides that contract staff are to be subdivided into four function groups corresponding to the duties to be performed. Paragraph 2 of that Article sets outs the duties corresponding to each function group. Article 80(2) of the CEOS is mandatory in relation to the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment, but the provision allows the institutions a wide discretion. In order to provide a framework for the exercise of that discretion, Article 80(3) of the CEOS provides for each institution, after consulting the Staff Regulations Committee, to define the powers attaching to each type of duty. In the light of the wide discretion which the institutions, bodies and agencies of the Union have in assessing the duties which may fall within the various function groups referred to in Article 80(2) of the CEOS, the Tribunal’s review of compliance with the division of the duties among those function groups must be limited to the question whether the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment remained within reasonable bounds and did not use its discretion in a manifestly incorrect way. Consequently, in order to establish that the administration committed a manifest error in assessing the facts, such as to justify the annulment of a decision based on that assessment, the evidence, which it is for the applicant to adduce, must be sufficient to make its findings implausible.

In order to determine whether, in the light of the duties to be performed by a member of staff, the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment committed a manifest error in assessing the facts when it classified him in a particular function group, it must be established whether those duties fell within the function group in question. Since the classification of a member of the contract staff takes place at the time the contract is made, it is the full range of duties which he may be asked to perform, under the terms of the contract, that must be taken into account. In the event that the institution, for some reason, has not entrusted certain duties to him during the period of the contract, consideration is not limited to those duties which he has actually performed.

(see paras 29-31, 33-35)

See:

4 October 2007, F‑32/06 De la Cruz and Others v OSHA, para. 64; 24 April 2008, F‑61/05 Dalmasso v Commission, para. 53; 13 June 2012, F‑63/11 Macchia v Commission, on appeal to the General Court in Case T‑368/12 P, para. 49 and the case-law cited
JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

5 June 2012

Case F‑83/10

Kostantinos Giannakouris

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Family allowances — Education allowance — Conditions for granting — Deduction of an allowance of like nature paid from other sources)

Application: brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty by virtue of Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Giannakouris brought the present action seeking, in particular, annulment of the Commission’s decision of 26 February 2010 reducing the education allowance granted to him and deducting the overpayment from his pay slips on the basis that his daughter receives financial assistance from a Member State by way of a grant.

Held: The action is dismissed. The applicant is ordered to pay the Commission’s costs.

Summary

Officials — Remuneration — Family allowances — Education allowance — Conditions for the application of the rule against overlapping referred to in Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations where allowances of like nature are paid from other sources — Application to the financial benefit for students in Luxembourg — Lawfulness

(Staff Regulations, Art. 67(1)(c) and (2))

Only allowances which are comparable and have the same purpose are ‘of like nature’ for the purposes of the rule against overlapping laid down in Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations concerning family allowances. The decisive criterion in classifying allowances as of like nature is the aim pursued by the allowances in question.

In that regard, the education allowance referred to in Article 67(1)(c) of the Staff Regulations and the financial benefit in Luxembourg in the form of grants and loans, which is intended to provide students with financial aid to enable them to finance their studies and living expenses while studying, serve similar purposes in that they are intended to contribute to the education costs of the official’s dependent child.

That finding is not invalidated by the fact that the recipients of the two benefits are not the same. The fact that the education allowance is paid to the official and the national benefit is paid to the child, or formally allocated to him, is not decisive for assessing whether those benefits are of like nature within the meaning of Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations. The fact that the allowance under the Staff Regulations is added to the official’s salary and thus relates to an employment relationship, unlike the Luxembourg financial benefit, which is paid to the child, is also not decisive.

(see paras 29, 31, 32, 37-38)

See:

13 October 1977, 106/76 Gelders-Deboeck v Commission, para. 16; 13 October 1977, 14/77 Emer-van den Branden v Commission, para. 15; 18 December 2007, C‑135/06 P Weiβenfels v Parliament, para. 89

10 May 1990, T‑117/89 Sens v Commission, para. 14; 11 June 1996, T‑147/95 Pavan v Parliament, para. 41

13 February 2007, F‑62/06 Guarneri v Commission, paras 39, 40 and 42