ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Competition - Community rules - Infringements - Attribution of responsibility - Legal person responsible for the operation of the undertakings at the material time - Imputability to the acquirer of the undertakings - None

(EC Treaty, Art. 85(1) (now Art. 81(1) EC))

2. Competition - Fines - Amount - Determination thereof - Principle of equal treatment - Same method for undertakings which participated in an agreement

(Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2))

3. Competition - Fines - Amount - Reduction in fine in exchange for cooperation - Actions for annulment - Fresh review of the size of the reduction - Excluded

(Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15)

Summary

1. The fact that an acquirer is aware that the undertakings acquired participated in an infringement before their acquisition does not suffice to impute to it the unlawful conduct prior to that acquisition. That circumstance, namely that the acquirer was not unaware of the infringements of the undertakings acquired, is not in itself such as to render inapplicable the rule that it falls, in principle, to the legal or natural person managing the undertaking in question when the infringement was committed to answer for that infringement, even if, at the time of the decision finding the infringement, another person had assumed responsibility for operating the undertaking. The rule must be understood to mean that it falls, in principle, to the legal person managing the undertakings before their acquisition to answer for the infringement which they committed during that period. It follows that the existence, on the date of the decision imposing fines, of the legal person which managed the operations of the undertakings in question is sufficient for responsibility for their action not to be imputable to the acquirer.

( see paras 60, 70 )

2. In accordance with the principle of equal treatment, it is necessary to determine the amount of the fines imposed on undertakings which have participated in an agreement or concerted practice contrary to Article 85(1) of the Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) according to the same method, unless objective justification for not following that method is advanced.

( see para. 78 )

3. The risk that an undertaking which has been granted a reduction in its fine in exchange for its cooperation will subsequently seek annulment of the decision finding the infringement of the competition rules and imposing a penalty on the undertaking responsible for the infringement, and will succeed before the Court of First Instance or before the Court of Justice on appeal, is a normal consequence of the exercise of the remedies provided for in the Treaty and the Statute. Accordingly, the mere fact that an undertaking which has cooperated with the Commission and which for that reason has been given a reduction in the amount of its fine has successfully challenged the decision before the Community judicature cannot justify a fresh review of the size of the reduction granted to it.

( see para. 85 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Common commercial policy - Protection against dumping - Injury - Profit margin to be used when calculating the target price - Limited to the profit margin that could reasonably be expected in the absence of dumping

(Council Regulation No 2423/88, Arts 4(1) and 13(3))

2 Common commercial policy - Protection against dumping - Injury - Discretion of the institutions - Judicial review - Factors which may be taken into account

(Council Regulation No 2423/88, Art. 4)

3 Common commercial policy - Protection against dumping - Injury - Profit margin to be used when calculating the target price - Review procedures

(Council Regulation No 2423/88, Art. 4)

Summary

1 In an anti-dumping proceeding, the profit margin to be used by the Council when calculating the target price that will remove the injury to the Community industry must be limited to the profit margin which the Community industry could reasonably count on under normal conditions of competition, in the absence of the dumped imports. It would not be consistent with Articles 4(1) and 13(3) of the basic anti-dumping regulation, Regulation No 2423/88, to allow the Community industry a profit margin that it could not have expected if there had been no dumping. The criterion of the profit margin necessary to ensure the survival of the industry in question is not therefore consistent with the basic Regulation.

2 When reviewing the lawfulness of an anti-dumping proceeding, the Court of First Instance must verify that the institutions based their decisions on correct material facts and that their assessment of those facts was not manifestly erroneous, given the situation at the time when the contested measure was adopted. A study concerning the level of profit margins, which has not been presented to the Commission during the administrative procedure, must not to be taken into account for the purposes of judicial review.

3 When, in an anti-dumping proceeding, it is necessary to determine the profit margin to be used in calculating the target price that will remove the injury to the Community industry, and the undertakings in the Community industry have different production costs, hence different profit levels, the Community institutions have no choice, when determining the target price, but to calculate the weighted average of the production costs of the Community producers as a whole and to add to it the average profit margin which they consider reasonable in view of all the relevant circumstances.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Commission - Right of public access to Commission documents - Decision 94/90 - Measure conferring rights on individuals - Exceptions to the principle of access to documents - Interpretation - Obligation to state reasons - Scope - Refusal to grant access not indicating the specific reasons justifying the exception relied upon - Illegality

(EC Treaty, Arts 162 and 190; Commission Decision 94/90)

Summary

Notwithstanding the fact that Article 162 of the Treaty was taken as its legal basis, Decision 94/90 on public access to Commission documents is a measure conferring on citizens a right of access to documents held by that institution, since there is nothing to prevent rules on the internal organisation of the work of an institution having legal effects vis-à-vis third parties. By virtue of that decision, which is intended to apply generally, any person may request access to any unpublished Commission document, and is not required to give a reason for the request.

Whilst the right of access is subject to certain exceptions, which fall into two categories, those exceptions must be interpreted strictly, in order not to frustrate the application of the general principle of giving the public the widest possible access to documents. As regards the exceptions in the first category, which include the provision `the institutions will refuse access to any document where disclosure could undermine ... the protection of the public interest (public security, international relations, monetary stability, court proceedings, inspections and investigations)', the Commission must, before reaching a decision on a request, consider, for each document requested, whether in the light of the information in its possession disclosure is in fact likely to undermine one of the those interests. If so, the Commission is bound to refuse access to the document in question.

In order to comply with the requirements entailed by Article 190 of the Treaty, the statement of the reasons for such a decision must contain - at least for each category of documents concerned - the specific reasons for which the Commission considers that disclosure of the documents requested is precluded by one of the exceptions provided for in the first category, in order to enable the person to whom the decision is addressed to satisfy himself that the Commission did in fact consider the documents in the manner described above and to assess whether the grounds for refusal are justified.

Where the reason stated for a refusal to grant access is that the documents requested concern a decision which is the subject-matter of an action for annulment, accompanied only by the conclusion that the exception for protection of the public interest (court proceedings) is applicable, that refusal must be annulled in that it provides no explanation, even for categories of documents, from which it might be ascertained whether all the documents requested do indeed fall within the scope of the exception relied upon because they bear a relation to the decision whose annulment is sought.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Officials - Conditions of employment of other servants - Scope - Freelance conference interpreters - Excluded - Community tax levied on their remuneration - Unlawful

(Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, Art. 13)

Summary

Freelance interpreters engaged by the Commission under short-term contracts governed by the rules concerning freelance interpreters are not to be regarded as officials or servants within the meaning of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants but rather as persons having a contractual relationship with the Commission determined by terms and conditions of a private-law nature.

Therefore, the remuneration paid by the Commission to the freelance conference interpreters is not subject to the Community tax established by Article 13 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities but falls under the tax jurisdiction of the Member States.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Non-contractual liability - Conditions - Unlawfulness - Damage - Causal link - Where one of the conditions is not satisfied - Action for damages must be dismissed in its entirety

(EC Treaty, Art. 215, second para. (now Art. 288, second para., EC))

2. Non-contractual liability - Conditions - Unlawfulness - Damage - Causal link - Burden of proof

(EC Treaty, Art. 215, second para. (now Art. 288, second para., EC); Council Regulation No 2340/90, Art. 2(2) and (3))

3. Common commercial policy - Embargo on trade with Iraq - Regulation No 2340/90 - Scope - Limits

(Council Regulation No 2340/90, Art. 2(2) and (3))

Summary

1. Non-contractual liability on the part of the Community under the second paragraph of Article 215 of the Treaty (now the second paragraph of Article 288 EC) is subject to a number of conditions relating to the unlawfulness of the conduct alleged against the Community institutions, actual damage and the existence of a causal link between the conduct of the institution and the damage complained of. Since those three conditions must all be satisfied, if any one of them is not satisfied, the entire action must be dismissed and it is not necessary to consider the other conditions.

( see para. 39 )

2. There is a causal link for the purposes of the second paragraph of Article 215 of the Treaty (now the second paragraph of Article 288 EC) where there is a direct link of cause and effect between the fault allegedly committed by the institution concerned and the damage pleaded, the burden of proof of which rests on the applicant.

No such link can be established between the adoption of Regulation No 2340/90 preventing trade by the Community as regards Iraq and Kuwait and damage in the form of the inability of an undertaking established in a Member State to recover debts owed to it by the Iraqi Government where non-payment of the sum owed is not the consequence of the adoption by the Iraqi Government of any measure of retaliation against Regulation No 2340/90 and the maintenance of the Community embargo and where the transaction from which the debt in question arose does not come within the scope of that regulation.

( see paras 41, 43-44, 46 )

3. The prohibition laid down in Article 2(2) and (3) of Regulation No 2340/90 preventing trade by the Community as regards Iraq and Kuwait does not apply to financial transactions relating to supplies which were wholly carried out more than a year before the date of entry into force of the regulation and which do not have as their object or effect to promote supplies after that date.

( see para. 44 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Actions for annulment - Actionable measures - Definition - Measures producing binding legal effects - Commission interpretation of a legislative provision setting a deadline by which potential recipients of Community financial assistance must bring proceedings - Not covered - Decision declaring the applicant to be out of time - Covered - Automatic release of the sums at issue - Not covered

(EC Treaty, Art. 173)

2 Economic and social cohesion - Structural interventions - Integrated Mediterranean programmes - Grant of Community financial assistance - Deadline for submitting applications for final payment - Date on which the application is sent

(Council Regulation No 4256/88, as amended by Regulation No 2085/93, Art. 10)

Summary

1 Any measure 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 which may be the subject of an action under Article 173 of the Treaty for a declaration that it is void.

That cannot be said of a document in which the Commission simply interprets a legislative provision providing for the automatic release of the sums committed for the granting of assistance in respect of certain projects decided on by the Commission which have not been the subject of a request for final payment within the time-limits.

By contrast, a measure whereby the Commission, in applying its interpretation of a legislative provision, concludes that the potential recipient had not respected the deadline and denies it the financial assistance initially granted to it is an act which may be the subject of an action under Article 173.

However, a measure releasing the sums in question is not the unavoidable consequence of a declaration that the right to financial assistance previously granted by the Commission has been forfeited. Consequently, such a measure does not, as such, produce any independent legal effect vis-à-vis the potential beneficiary.

2 The deadline laid down in Article 10 of Regulation No 4256/88, as amended by Regulation No 2085/93, for submitting requests for final payment of sums committed for the granting of assistance in respect of projects decided on by the Commission within the framework of Regulation No 2088/85 concerning the integrated Mediterranean programmes must be understood as being the date on which the request is sent, not the date on which it is received by the Commission.

First, such an interpretation ensures equal treatment for potential applicants, since it ensures that the time-limit is the same, irrespective of the geographical distance of the recipients and the time necessary for transmission. Second, in view of the radical consequences of exceeding the time-limit laid down by law, legal certainty requires that reference be made to the date on which the request is sent, to the advantage of the potential recipients, since they can determine only the date on which the request is sent, of which they can provide proof, and not the time taken to transmit that request.
Where an applicant claims the status of official or member of the temporary staff, an action for annulment of the decision refusing to apply to the applicant the Staff Regulations or the Conditions of employment of other servants, lodged in accordance with the requirements of Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, may be regarded as admissible.

Where compliance with a judgment annulling a measure presents particular difficulties, the institution concerned may satisfy the obligation arising from Article 176 of the Treaty (now Article 233 EC) by taking such decisions as will provide due compensation for the damage which the persons concerned have suffered as a result of the decision which has been annulled. In such circumstances, the appointing authority may also establish a dialogue with such persons to try to agree fair compensation for the unlawfulness suffered.

It follows from Articles 1 and 6 of the Conditions of employment of other servants that the status of servant of the Communities cannot be conferred on a person whose employer is not an institution of the Communities but a legal person governed by the law of a Member State, which cannot be assimilated to an administrative body of an institution.

It is irrelevant in that regard that the recruitment of the person concerned had to have the prior approval of the institution and that the legal person in question has close links with and is largely dependant on the institution. Similarly, the factual circumstances relied on to demonstrate that the working conditions or remuneration are the same do not make it possible to ignore the difference in law between the position of servants hired by an association governed by private law and that of officials and servants appointed under the Staff Regulations.

Last, it is not possible for a contract as a servant of an institution to be concluded not as a result of a decision of the authority designated as competent in that regard but as a result of a decision of a national court.

(see paras 38, 43 to 45)

See: 65/74 Porríni and Others [1975] ECR 319, para. 15; Salerno and Others v Commission and Council, cited above, paras 43 and 50; Alexis and Others v Commission, cited above, para. 11; 232/84 Tordeur and Others [1985] ECR 3223
Article 88 of the Staff Regulations does not expressly provide that the appointing authority is to hear an official before adopting a decision to suspend him. However, observance of the rights of the defence in any proceedings opened against an individual and capable of leading to an act adversely affecting him constitutes a fundamental principle of Community law which must be observed even in the absence of an express provision to that effect.

A decision to suspend an official adopted under Article 88 of the Staff Regulations constitutes an act adversely affecting that official. Although it is merely provisional, it is necessarily based on an allegation of serious conduct within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 88 on the part of that official and may entail significant consequences, both professional and personal, for him.

It follows that, while taking account of the urgency normally present in adopting a decision to suspend an official where there is an allegation of serious misconduct, such a decision must be adopted with due observance of the rights of the defence. Consequently, unless special circumstances are duly established, a decision to suspend an official may be adopted only after the official has been given the opportunity to express his point of view on the evidence against him and on which the appointing authority proposes to base that decision.

It is only in special circumstances that it might prove impossible in practice, or incompatible with the interest of the service, to hold a hearing before adopting a decision suspending an official. In such circumstances, the requirements flowing from the principle of observance of the rights of the defence may be satisfied if the official concerned is heard within a very short time of the decision to suspend him being adopted.

(see paras 27, 28, 30 to 32 and 34)

See: 18/65 and 35/65 Gutmann v Commission [1966] 103, at p. 116; T-169/95 Quijano v Commission [1997] ECRSC I-A-91 and II-273, para. 44; T-36/96 Gaspari v Parliament [1997] ECRSC I-A-201 and II-595, para. 32; T-203/95 Connolly v Commission [1999] ECRSC I-A-83 and II-443, para. 33
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Regulation prohibiting the use of drift-nets for catching certain species - Action by operators of vessels fishing for one of those species - Inadmissibility

(EC Treaty, Art. 173, fourth para. (now, after amendment, Art. 230, fourth para., EC) and Art. 189, fourth para. (now, after amendment, Art. 249, second para., EC); Council Regulation No 1239/98)

Summary

$$An action for the annulment of Regulation No 1239/98 amending Regulation No 894/97 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources was held to be inadmissible. With effect from 1 January 2002, that regulation prohibits vessels from keeping on board, or using for fishing, drift-nets intended for the capture of certain species including albacore tuna.

Regulation No 1239/98 is of general scope, since it applies without distinction to any vessel flying the flag of a Member State which engages or is likely to engage in that activity in the fishing zones set out therein, and does not apply only to those operators of vessels who, prior to the adoption of the regulation, may have appeared on a list of vessels in receipt of special permits issued in that connection by the Member State whose flag they fly. The regulation cannot therefore be regarded as a bundle of individual decisions of which each operator of a fishing vessel established on Ile-d'Yeu is an addressee by virtue of being a member of a closed class of traders.

Moreover, the possibility of determining more or less precisely the number or even the identity of the persons to whom a measure applies by no means implies that it must be regarded as being of individual concern to them, as long as it is established that such application takes effect by virtue of an objective legal or factual situation defined by the measure in question.

The contested regulation is of concern to the applicants only in their objective capacity as albacore fishermen using a certain fishing technique in a specific area, in the same way as any other operator in the same situation. Nor is there any concrete indication that it was adopted specifically taking account of their situation. The fact that a legislative measure may have specific effects which differ according to the various persons to whom it applies is not such as to differentiate the applicants in relation to all the other operators concerned where that measure is applied on the basis of an objectively determined situation

(see paras 50-51, 64-66)