ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
That provision makes the repayment of import duties subject to the fulfilment of two cumulative conditions, namely the existence of a special situation and the absence of deception or obvious negligence on the part of the economic operator.

Article 13(1) of Regulation No 1430/79 on the repayment or remission of import or export duties constitutes a general equitable provision designed to cover situations other than those which arose most often in practice and for which special provision could be made when the regulation was adopted.

Article 13 of Regulation No 1430/97 on the repayment or remission of import or export duties is intended to be applied where the circumstances characterising the relationship between a trader and the administration are such that it would be inequitable to require the trader to bear a loss which it normally would not have incurred. In applying that article, the Commission has a discretion, which it is required to exercise by actually balancing, on the one hand, the Community interest in ensuring that the customs provisions are respected and, on the other, the interest of the importer acting in good faith not to incur damage beyond normal commercial risk. Consequently, when examining whether an application for remission is justified, it cannot simply take account of the conduct of importers. It must also assess the impact of its own conduct on the resulting situation even if it is at fault.

The possibility that price undertaking documents are subsequently discovered to be invalid is a trade risk inherent in the importation business. Post-clearance verifications would be largely deprived of their usefulness if the use of false certificates could, of itself, justify granting a remission. The opposite result could discourage traders from adopting an inquiring attitude and make the public purse bear a risk which falls mainly on traders.

It is the responsibility of traders to make the necessary arrangements in their contractual relations to guard against the risks of an action for post-clearance payment. The presentation of documents subsequently found to be invalid cannot in itself constitute a special situation justifying repayment of import duties even where such documents were presented in good faith. A different conclusion, namely that there was a special situation, would only be possible in the event of serious failures by the Commission or the customs authorities, facilitating the fraudulent use of the price undertaking documents.

(see paras 50-51, 55-59)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Acts of the institutions - Statement of reasons - Obligation - Scope - Commission decision reducing, on a proposal from a Member State, assistance from the European Social Fund for vocational training

(Art. 253 EC)

2. Social policy - European Social Fund - Financial assistance for vocational training - Commission decision based on Article 6(1) of Regulation No 2950/83 - Evaluation of complex facts and accounts - Judicial review - Limits

(Council Regulation No 2950/83, Art. 6(1))

Summary

$$1. The purpose of the obligation to state the reasons for an individual decision, laid down in Article 253 EC, is to provide the person concerned with sufficient information to make it possible to determine whether the decision is well founded or whether it is vitiated by an error which may permit its validity to be contested, and to enable the Community judicature to review the lawfulness of the decision. The extent of that obligation depends on the nature of the measure at issue and the context in which it was adopted.

Given, in particular, that a decision reducing the amount of European Social Fund assistance initially granted has serious consequences for the recipient of that assistance, such a decision must either itself show clearly the grounds which justify the reduction in the assistance initially granted or, if such grounds are not stated because the Commission has simply confirmed the proposal of a Member State to reduce that assistance, refer clearly to a measure of the competent authorities in the Member State concerned in which the latter clearly set out the reasons for such a reduction.

( see paras 35-38 )

2. The application of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 2950/83 on the implementation of Decision 83/516 concerning the tasks of the European Social Fund - under which, where assistance from the European Social Fund has not been used in conformity with the conditions laid down by the approval decision, the Commission may suspend, withdraw or reduce the assistance - may require the Commission to undertake an evaluation of complex facts and accounts. When undertaking such an evaluation, the Commission must therefore enjoy a considerable measure of latitude. Consequently, the Community judicature must, in examining whether that power was exercised lawfully, confine itself to examining whether the Commission committed a manifest error in assessing the information in question.

( see para. 51 )
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber)

27 February 2003

Case T-20/00 OP

Commission of the European Communities

v

Ivo Camacho-Fernandes

‛Officials — Occupational disease — Irregularity in the opinion of the medical committee — Objection against a judgment given by default’

Full text in French II-405

Application for:

objection against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 November 2000 in Case T-20/00 Camacho-Fernandes v Commission [2000] ECRSC I-A-249 and II-1149 given by default, annulling the Commission decision of 10 February 1999 refusing to recognise the occupational origin of the lung cancer which resulted in the death of Mr Camacho Fernandes' wife.

Held:

The objection is dismissed. The Commission is ordered to pay the costs of the objection.

Summary

Officials — Social security — Insurance against accidents and occupational diseases — Medical appraisal — Collegial nature of the medical committee — Consideration of a case and preparation of final report in the absence of the doctor appointed by the official or institution — Validity — Conditions — Obligation to give the absent doctor the opportunity to present any observations and to take account thereof

(Staff Regulations, Art. 73; Rules on the Insurance of Officials against the Risk of Accident and of Occupational Disease, Art. 23)

A tripartite medical committee may legitimately meet with a majority of its members if it proves difficult or even impossible to hold a meeting which the third doctor agrees to attend. In that case, the official or, where appropriate, the institution which appointed the third doctor may not rely on that circumstance in itself to call into question the regularity of the procedure before the medical committee. Without the possibility of a meeting with only some, but a majority, of the members, such a situation could not be resolved.

However, the two members of a tripartite medical committee meeting alone and preparing a majority report must not, at the very least in circumstances where questions of a medical nature have not been examined appropriately at an earlier meeting, issue a final report without having given the third doctor the opportunity to present any written observations he may have on a provisional version of their report, and without their having taken account of his views, should he choose to express them, in order to assess whether their initial assessment should be confirmed. If the third member of a tripartite medical committee still does not agree to take part in its work, this time in writing, the other two members must be able to prepare a majority report in his absence and thus give a majority ruling.

(see paras 47-48)

See: 12/68 X v Audit Board [1969] ECR 109. paras 10 lo 18; T-54/89 V v Parliament [1990] ECR II-659. para. 34; T-62/96 De Corte v Commission [1998] ECRSC I-A-31 and II-71. para. 81. and the case-law cited: T-121/99 Irving v Commission [2000] ECRSC I-A-85 and II-357. para. 70
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber)

12 December 2002

Case T-378/00

Carmelo Morello

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Procedure for filling vacant posts — Statement of reasons — Comparative consideration of candidatures and equal treatment of officials — Actions for annulment — Actions for damages’

Full text in French II-1497

Application for:

first, annulment of the Commission's decision not to appoint the applicant to the post of Head of Unit 3 ‘Distributive trades and other services’ within Directorate D ‘Services’ of the Directorate-General for Competition (COM/001/00) and of the decision to appoint another candidate to that post, and, secondly, damages.

Held:

The Commission's decisions of 4 March 2000 appointing Ms Evans to the post of Head of Unit 3 ‘Distributive trades and other services’ within Directorate D ‘Services’ of the Directorate-General for Competition and rejecting the applicant's candidature for that post are annulled. The Commission is ordered to pay the applicant EUR 2500. The remainder of the application is dismissed. The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

Summary

Officials — Decision adversely affecting an official — Rejection of an application for a post — Obligation to provide a statement of reasons at the latest by the stage of rejection of the complaint — Scope

Although the appointing authority is not under an obligation to provide unsuccessful candidates with reasons for its decisions on promotion, it is required to provide reasons for its decision to reject a complaint made under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations by a candidate who was not promoted, the reasons for that decision being deemed to be identical to those of the decision against which the complaint was directed. Since, under Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, promotion is ‘by selection’, the appointing authority is neither required to disclose to the unsuccessful candidate details of the comparison of his merits and those of the candidate who is promoted nor to set out in detail in what way it considered that the appointed candidate fulfilled the conditions in the vacancy notice, but it is enough that the reasons given relate to the existence of the legal conditions which the Staff Regulations lay down as a prerequisite for a lawful promotion. In a promotion procedure, the statement of reasons must therefore relate, not to the respective qualities of the candidates, but solely to the validity of the promotion. (see paras 36. 37) See: 188/73 Crassi v Council [1974] ECR 1099, para. 14; T-118/95 Ancoreta Correia v Commission [1996] ECRSC I-A-283 and II-835, para. 82; T-178/95 and T-179/95 Picciolo and Caló v Committee of the Regions [1997] ECRSC I-A-51 and II-155, para. 34; T-230/99 McAuley v Council [2001] ECRSC I-A-127 and II-583. para. 52
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Measures producing binding legal effects — Assessment in the light of the substance of the measure — Merger between two undertakings approved by the Commission on condition that assets be transferred to third parties to be approved by it — Right of candidate transferee to bring an action against the refusal by the Commission to approve him — (Art. 230 EC)

2. Competition — Concentrations between undertakings — Investigation by the Commission — Assessments of an economic nature — Discretion — Judicial review — Limits — (Council Regulation No 4064/89, Art. 2)

Summary

1. Measures which produce binding legal effects capable of affecting an applicant ' s interests by bringing about a significant change in his legal position are acts or decisions against which an action for annulment may be brought under Article 230 EC. To ascertain whether an act or decision has effects of that kind, it is necessary to examine its substance.

Thus, where the declaration that a notified merger is compatible with the common market is made subject to a commitment by the parties to the merger to transfer certain assets to third parties capable of effective competition on the market in question and approved by the Commission, a candidate transferee has a right to bring an action against the refusal by the Commission to approve him on the ground that he is unable to compete effectively because, by excluding the planned transfer as an acceptable means of implementing the commitment undertaken, the refusal brings about a significant change in his legal position.

see paras 37-38

2. The basic provisions of Regulation No 4064/89, in particular Article 2 thereof, which relates to the appraisal of concentrations, confer on the Commission a certain discretion, especially with respect to assessments of an economic nature. Consequently, when the exercise of that discretion, which is essential for defining the rules on concentrations, is under review, the Community Courts must take account of the discretionary margin implicit in the provisions of an economic nature which form part of the rules on concentrations. It follows that review by the Community Courts of complex economic assessments made by the Commission in exercising the discretion conferred on it by Regulation No 4064/89 must be limited to ensuring compliance with the rules of procedure and the statement of reasons, as well as the substantive accuracy of the facts, the absence of manifest errors of assessment and of any misuse of power. In particular, it is not for the Community Courts to substitute their own economic assessment for that of the Commission.

see para. 101
Case T-366/00





Scott SA

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Action for annulment – State aid – Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 – Article 15 – Limitation period – Recovery of aid – Act interrupting the limitation period)»

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition), 10 April 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. State aid – Administrative procedure – Regulation No 659/1999 – Limitation period for recovery of unlawful aid – Application to aid granted before the regulation entered into force

(Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 15)

2.. State aid – Recovery of unlawful aid – Application of the limitation period established by Article 15 of Regulation No 659/1999 to aid granted before that regulation entered into force – Starting point of the limitation period – Interruption of the limitation period by a request for information addressed to the Member State concerned

(Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 15)

3.. State aid – Recovery of unlawful aid – Ten-year limitation period laid down in Article 15 of Regulation No 659/1999 – Application to both the Member State concerned and the beneficiary and third parties – Interruption of the limitation period by a request for information of which the beneficiary was unaware – Not relevant

(Art. 88(2) EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 15)

4.. State aid – Recovery of unlawful aid – Period preceding Regulation No 659/1999 – No limitation period – Possibility for the beneficiary to rely on the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations – None

(Art. 88 EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999)

1.

2.

3.

4.
Joined Cases T-5/00 and T-6/00





Nederlandse Federatieve Vereniging voor de Groothandel op Elektrotechnisch Gebied and Technische Unie BV

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Sale of electrotechnical fittings in the Netherlands – National association of wholesalers – Collective exclusive- dealing and price-fixing agreements – Fines)»

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), 16 December 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Competition – Administrative procedure – Statement of objections – Necessary content – Evidence that may be relied on



2.. Competition – Administrative procedure – Observance of the rights of the defence – Adverse evidential document – Meaning



3.. Competition – Administrative proceedings – Investigation of complaints – Commission's obligations – Observance of a reasonable period – Breach – Consequences – Annulment of the decision rejecting a complaint – Excluded

(Council Regulation No 17)

4.. Competition – Administrative procedure – Investigation of complaints – Commission's obligations – Observance of a reasonable period – Need to distinguish between the investigation phase prior to the statement of objections and the remainder of the administrative procedure

(Council Regulation No 17, Art. 3)

5.. Competition – Fines – Limitation period laid down by Regulation No 2988/74 – No infringement of the rights of the defence before the expiry of the limitation period

(Council Regulations Nos 17 and 2988/74)

6.. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Summary statement of pleas – Pleas in law not set out in the application – Reference to the annexes in general – Inadmissible

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c))

7.. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Concerted practice – Meaning – Criteria of coordination and cooperation – Interpretation

(Art. 81(1) EC)

8.. Competition – Community rules – Substantive scope – Price-fixing decision of an association of undertakings – Excluded by reason of the existence of national rules which inspired it – Condition – Binding nature of the rules

(Art. 81(1) EC)

9.. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Participation in meetings held by undertakings for an anti-competitive purpose – Sufficient basis for concluding that, if an undertaking has not distanced itself from the decisions taken, it participated in the subsequent arrangements

(Art. 81(1) EC)

10.. Competition – Community rules – Infringements – Committed intentionally – Meaning

(Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15)

11.. Competition – Fines – Decision imposing fines – Obligation to state reasons – Scope – Statement of the factors by which the Commission assessed the gravity and duration of the infringement – Sufficient statement

(Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2), subpara. 2)

12.. Competition – Fines – Determined on the basis of an undertaking's own conduct – Effect of the fact that another trader has not been penalised – None

(Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber)

24 September 2002

Case T-92/01

Marie-Claude Girardot

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Recruitment — Selection of temporary staff — Refusal to include on the reserve list — Composition of the Selection Committee — Equal treatment’

Full text in French II-859

Application for:

annulment of the Selection Committee's decision contained in a letter of 13 July 2000 not to include the applicant on the reserve list of temporary staff resulting from selection procedure COM/R/A/01/1999.

Held:

The Selection Committee's decision contained in the letter of 13 July 2000, not to include the applicant on the reserve list resulting from selection procedure COM/R/A/01/1999 is annulled. The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

Summary

Officials — Competitions — Selection Board — Composition — Sufficient stability to ensure consistent assessment of candidates

(Staff Regulations, Annex III, Art. 3)

The wide discretion enjoyed by a competition selection board or a selection committee in determining the procedures for and detailed content of the oral tests to be undergone by the candidates must be counterbalanced by scrupulous observance of the rules governing the organisation of those tests. The Selection Board or Committee must therefore ensure that the principle of equal treatment is complied with strictly in relation to the candidates in the course of those oral tests and that the choice made between the persons concerned is objective. To that end, it is obliged to ensure consistent application of the assessment criteria to all the candidates concerned by making sure inter alia that its composition is stable.

(see paras 24-26)

See: T-95/98 Gogos v Commission [2000] ECRSC I-A-51 and II-219, paras 37, 38 and 41
The objection of res judicata applies where two actions are between the same parties, concern the same subject-matter and are based on the same grounds. Consequently, the fact that the Court of First Instance has given judgment on an application made by a former official for compensation for nonmaterial damage suffered as a result of an occupational disease and subsequent to the onset of that disease does not allow such an objection to be put forward against an application made by the same applicant, but for compensation for nonmaterial damage suffered before the onset of the disease.

Under the first paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, applicable to the procedure before the Court of First Instance by virtue of the first paragraph of Article 46 of the Statute, and Article 44(1) (c), (d) and (e) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, an application initiating proceedings must, in particular, state the subject-matter of the proceedings, the form of order sought by the applicant, a summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based and any evidence offered in support. Those particulars must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare his defence and to enable the Court to give judgment in the action without having to seek further information, if appropriate. In order to guarantee legal certainty and the sound administration of justice it is necessary, for an action to be admissible, that the basic legal and factual particulars relied on are indicated, at least in summary form, coherently and intelligibly in the text of the application itself.

In order to satisfy those requirements, an application seeking compensation for damage caused by a Community institution must state the evidence from which the conduct which the applicant alleges against the institution can be identified, the reasons for which the applicant considers that there is a causal link between the conduct and the damage it claims to have suffered, and the nature and extent of that damage. That is not the case where an application does not give a sufficiently precise indication of the facts from which the nature and extent of the damage might be assessed without establishing the existence of special circumstances exempting the applicant from the need to specify those facts.

(see paras 63, 65)

See: T-64/89 Automec v Commission [1990] ECR II-367. para. 73: T-85/92 De Hoe v Commission [1993] ECR II-523, para. 20: T-505/93 Osório v Commission [1994] ECRSC I-A-179 and II-581. para. 33 el seq.: T-112/94 Moat v Commission [1995] ECRSC I-A-37 and II-135. paras 32 and 37; T-113/96 Dubois et Fils v Council and Commission [1998] ECR II-125, para. 30 and the case-law cited, confirmed by C-95/98 P Dubois et Fils v Council and Commission [1999] ECR I-4835; T-154/98 Asia Motor France and Others v Commission [1999] ECR II-1703. para. 49; T-277/97 Ismeri Europa v Court of Auditors [1999] ECR II-1825. para. 29