ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
In order to be properly constituted for the purposes of the Staff Regulations and Article 3 of Annex III thereto, a selection board must be composed in such a way as to ensure an objective assessment of candidates' performance in the tests. The requirements which the abilities of the members of the selection board must satisfy vary, however, according to the circumstances of each particular competition. It follows that the requirements regarding the linguistic knowledge of the members of a selection board vary according to the importance which a perfect command of a language has for the post to be filled.

In the case of a Grade A open competition to recruit Grade A7/A6 administrators in the field of European public administration, where the aim of the oral test is not to examine a candidate's linguistic knowledge in his main language, but his ability to communicate in that language in a multicultural environment, the selection board need not necessarily, for that test, include a member or examiner with the same main language as the candidates, since any problems of comprehension can easily be resolved by recourse to interpreters.

The mere fact that, because the candidates in a competition were of a number of different nationalities, other candidates appeared before a selection board which included a member with the same main language as their own is entirely fortuitous and does not reflect any desire to give an advantage to those candidates. It follows that that fact does not constitute a breach of the principle of equal treatment. If a selection board had to include a member or examiner with the same main language as the candidates for an oral test as part of a Grade A open competition, it would risk compromising the stability of the composition of the selection board, the consistent application of the assessment criteria for all the candidates concerned, and even the principle of equal treatment for candidates.

(see paras 28-31, 33-35)

See: T-32/89and T-39/89 Marcopoulos v Court of Justice [1990] ECR II-281, para 37; T-156/89 Valverde Moult v Court of Justice [1991] ECR II-407, paras 105 and 106; T-113/01 Sabbag v Commission, not published in the ECR, paras 41 to 43
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Single Judge)

23 October 2003

Case T-279/01

Giorgio Lebedef

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Staff report — Late preparation — Action for damages’

Full text in French II-1203

Application for:

first, annulment of the Commission's decisions partially rejecting the applicant's complaints seeking damages to compensate him for the nonmaterial damage caused by the delay in the preparation of the staff reports concerning him for the periods 1995/1997 and 1997/1999 and, secondly, for damages to compensate him for that nonmaterial damage.

Held:

The Commission is ordered to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 1500, in addition to the sum of EUR 619.73 already awarded by the Appointing Authority. The remainder of the action is dismissed. The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

Summary

An institution's decision rejecting a claim for compensation forms an integral part of the preliminary administrative procedure which precedes an action to establish liability before the Court of First Instance. Consequently, claims for annulment of that rejection brought by the official cannot be assessed in isolation from the claims relating to liability. The measure setting out the position adopted by the institution during the pre-litigation stage only has the effect of allowing the party who has suffered damage to apply to the Court for compensation. (see para. 29) See: T-90/95 Gill v Commission [1997] ECRSC I-A-471 and II-1231. para. 45: T-77/99 Ojha v Commission [2001] ECRSC I-A-61 and II-293. para. 68: T-209/99 Hover v Commission [2002] ECRSC I-A-243 and II-1211. para. 32
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Community trade mark — Appeal procedure — Appeal against a decision of the Opposition Division — Examination by the Board of Appeal — Scope — (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 61(1) and 62(1))

Summary

In appeal proceedings before the Boards of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) brought with a view to overturning a decision of the Opposition Division, the extent of the examination which the Board of Appeal must conduct is not, in principle, determined by the grounds relied on by the party who has brought the appeal, given the continuity, in terms of their functions, between the departments of the Office deciding on the application at first instance and the Boards of Appeal. Accordingly, even if the party who has brought the appeal has not raised a specific ground of appeal, the Board of Appeal is none the less bound to examine whether or not, in the light of all the relevant matters of fact and of law, a new decision with the same operative part as the decision under appeal may be lawfully adopted at the time of the appeal ruling.

see paras 25, 29
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Regulations establishing detailed rules for the arrangements for importing bananas into the Community – Actions by certain traditional operators – Inadmissibility

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Commission Regulations Nos 896/2001 and 1121/2001)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Sufficiently serious breach of a superior rule of Community law protecting individuals – Institution without a discretion – Sufficiency of a mere infringement of Community law

(Art. 288, second para., EC)

Summary

1. A measure of general application such as a regulation may, in certain circumstances, be of individual concern to a natural or legal person and thus in the nature of a decision in regard to that person.

Such is not however the case, regarding certain traditional operators, of Regulation No 896/2001 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation No 404/93 as regards the arrangements for importing bananas into the Community, or of Regulation No 1121/2001, fixing the adjustment coefficients to be applied to each traditional operator’s reference quantity under the tariff quotas for imports of bananas. Those regulations constitute measures of general application, which do not affect the said operators by reason of certain attributes peculiar to them, or by reason of a factual situation which differentiates them from all other persons and distinguishes them individually in the same way as which the addressee of a decision is. Those operators cannot therefore be regarded as individually concerned, within the meaning of Article 230, para. 4, EC, by the aforementioned regulations.

(see paras. 107, 115)

2. In order for the Community to incur non-contractual liability within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 288 EC a number of conditions must be satisfied: the alleged conduct of the institutions must be unlawful, there must be actual damage and there must be a causal link between the alleged conduct and the damage pleaded.

Concerning the first of those conditions, it is necessary that there be a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals. As regards the requirement that the breach be sufficiently serious, the decisive test for finding that it is fulfilled is whether the Community institution concerned manifestly and seriously disregarded the limits on its discretion. Where that institution has only a considerably reduced discretion, or even none, the mere infringement of Community law may be sufficient to establish the existence of a sufficiently serious breach.

(see paras. 141-142)
Case T-125/01





José Martí Peix SA

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Fisheries – Community financial aid – Reduction of aid – Limitation – Reasonable period – Principle of proportionality)»

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), 13 March 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Fisheries – Common structural policy – Community financial assistance – Beneficiaries of financial assistance required to provide information and to act in good faith



2.. Own resources of the European Communities – Legislation relating to protection of the Community's financial interests – Irregularity – Definition

(Council Regulation No 2988/95, Arts 1, 3(1) and 5)

3.. Community law – Principles – Protection of legitimate expectations – Legal certainty – Protection refused to person committing a manifest infringement of the rules in force – Community financial assistance – Passage of periods of inaction by the Commission – Primacy of the principle of legality over that of legal certainty justified by the need to maintain equal treatment for recipients of aid

(Council Regulation No 4028/86)

1.

2.

3.
Case T-321/01





Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Development cooperation – Community co-financing of projects by NGOs – Ineligibility of an NGO – Rejection of co-financing applications)»

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), 18 September 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Actions for annulment – Action challenging a decision confirming a decision not challenged within the time-limit – Inadmissible – Concept of confirmatory decision – Decision concerning an application for Community co-financing submitted by a non-governmental organisation dealing with development cooperation – Not included

(Art. 230 EC)

2.. Budget of the European Communities – Financial regulation – Community co-financing of projects undertaken in developing countries by non-governmental organisations – Commission decision declaring an organisation ineligible for Community co-financing – Submission by the latter of new arguments to establish its eligibility – Commission obliged to re-examine the eligibility of the organisation before rejecting projects subsequently submitted



3.. Procedure – Costs – Recoverable costs – Meaning – Costs incurred before the European Ombudsman – Not included

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 91(b))

1.

2.

3.
Case T-129/01





José Alejandro, SL

v

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)





«(Community trade mark – Opposition procedure – Earlier national word marks BUD – Application for Community word mark BUDMEN – Relative ground for refusal – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)»

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), 3 July 2003

Summary of the Judgment
Case T-146/01





DLD Trading Co.

v

Council of the European Union





«(Non-contractual liability – Causal link between the conduct complained of and the alleged damage – No such link)»

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), 17 December 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Procedure – Intervention – Plea in law, such as a plea of inadmissibility, not raised by the defendant – Inadmissible

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 40, fourth para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 116(3))

2.. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – Failure to meet one of the conditions – Dismissal of an action for damages in its entirety

(Art. 288, second para., EC)

3.. Acts of the institutions – Regulations – Direct applicability – Implementing power entailing the exercise of discretion granted to the Member States – Compatible

(Art. 249 EC)

4.. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Regulation or directive authorising a Member State to derogate from a Community customs allowance or fiscal exemption – Damage suffered by an exporter established in an adjacent non-member country – Causal link – None

(Art. 288, second para., EC)

1.

2.

3.

4.
Case T-292/01





Phillips-Van Heusen Corp.

v

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)





«(Community trade mark – Regulations (EC) No 40/94 and No 2868/95 – Opposition – Likelihood of confusion – Alteration of a decision of the Board of Appeal – Application for registration of Community word mark BASS – Earlier word mark PASH)»

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), 14 October 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Community trade mark – Appeal procedure – Appeal brought against a decision of the Opposition Division – Decision of the Board of Appeal going beyond the scope of the opposition – Unlawful

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 43(5), 62(1) and 74(1))

2.. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Risk of confusion with the earlier mark – Similarity between the marks at issue – Whether semantic differences capable of counteracting visual or aural similarities – Conditions

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b))

3.. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Risk of confusion with the earlier mark – Word marks BASS and PASH

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b))

4.. Community trade mark – Appeal procedure – Appeal against a decision of the Opposition Division – Suspensive effect – Contested decision taking effect following the final refusal of the Board of Appeal – Refusal incorporated into a decision of the Court of First Instance giving judgment by virtue of its power of alteration

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 57(1), 59 and 63(3))

1.

2.

3.

4.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber)

11 November 2003

Case T-248/02

Carla Faita

v

Economic and Social Committee of the European Communities

‛Officials — Vacant posts — Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations — Appointments procedure — Manifest error of assessment — Statement of reasons’

Full text in French II-1365

Application for:

annulment of the decisions of the Economic and Social Committee of the European Communities of 20 September 2001 rejecting the applicant's candidature for the post of head of the Italian Translation and Typing Unit of the Directorate for Logistics and Translation and the decision of 16 October 2001 appointing another candidate to the post.

Held:

The application is dismissed. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.

Summary

The appointing authority enjoys a wide discretion for the purpose of finding candidates with the highest standard of ability, efficiency and integrity. The use of the formulation ‘whether ... can’ in Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations clearly indicates that the appointing authority is not bound absolutely, where a vacant post is to be filled, to fill that post by way of promotion or transfer, but merely to consider in each case whether those measures are capable of resulting in the appointment of a person of the highest standard of ability, efficiency and integrity. (see para. 45) See: C-174/99 P Parliament v Richard [2000] ECR I-6189, para. 38; T-372/00 Campolargo v Commission [2002] ECRSC I-A-49 and II-223, para. 93

Where there is a sufficiently consistent body of evidence substantiating the argument of a candidate for a vacant post that no real examination of the comparative merits of the candidates took place, it is for the appointing authority to show, by objective evidence amenable to judicial review, that it observed the guarantees which officials have under Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and did undertake a comparative examination of the files. (see para. 46) See: T-159/96 Wenk v Commission [1998] ECRSC I-A-193 and II-593, para. 55; T-143198 Cendrowiczv Commission [1999] ECRSC I-A-273 and II-1341, para. 59
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

Officials – Appeals – Action for compensation introduced without a prior administrative procedure in accordance with the Staff Regulations – Inadmissibility

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)
Case T-309/02

Acegas-APS SpA

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛State aid — Scheme of aid granted by the Italian authorities to certain public utilities in the form of tax exemptions and loans at preferential rates — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market — Actions for annulment — Not individually concerned — Inadmissibility’

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition), 11 June 2009 II ‐ 1811

Summary of the Judgment

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Commission decision prohibiting a sectoral aid scheme — Action brought by an undertaking which did not receive individual aid granted under the scheme

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC)

Natural or legal persons other than the addressees may claim that a decision is of individual concern to them only if that decision affects them by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to them, or by reason of factual circumstances which differentiate them from all other persons and thereby distinguish them individually in the same way as the person addressed.

An undertaking cannot, as a general rule, bring an action for the annulment of a Commission decision prohibiting a sectoral aid scheme if it is concerned by that decision solely by virtue of the fact that it belongs to the sector in question and is a potential beneficiary of the scheme. Such a decision is, vis-à-vis such an undertaking, a measure of general application covering situations which are determined objectively and entails legal effects for a class of persons envisaged in a general and abstract manner.

However, an undertaking which is concerned by the decision at issue not only as an undertaking in the sector in question and a potential beneficiary of the aid scheme concerned but also as an actual recipient of individual aid granted under that scheme, recovery of which had been ordered by the Commission, is individually concerned by the decision and the action which it brings against it is admissible.

An undertaking which declared a loss for tax purposes for the relevant period and whose assessment to tax was thus effectively nil and which fails to adduce any convincing evidence to establish that it nevertheless benefited from the scheme in question is not individually concerned by a Commission decision prohibiting a sectoral aid scheme consisting in a three-year income tax exemption. An action brought by such an undertaking for the annulment of such a decision is inadmissible.

Moreover, the fact that it is possible for the Commission to determine more or less precisely the number, or even the identity, of the persons to whom a measure applies by no means implies that the measure must be regarded as being of individual concern to those persons.

(see paras 46-48, 51, 54, 55)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber)

2 March 2004

Case T-234/02

Christos Michael

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Officials – Appointment of a deputy head of unit and a head of section – Measure adversely affecting the applicant – None – Inadmissible)

Full text in Greek II - 0000

Application: for annulment of the decisions by the Commission appointing a deputy head of the ‘Internal Policies, Central Administration, CCR and Agencies’ Unit of the ‘Financial Control’ Directorate-General and a head of section for the ‘Internal Policies and Agencies’ section of that unit.

Held: The application is dismissed as being inadmissible. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs, including the costs relating to the application for interim relief.

Summary

Officials – Actions – Act adversely affecting an official – Definition – Organisational measure internal to department – Not included – Exceptions

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

The existence of an act adversely affecting the official concerned within the meaning of Articles 90(2) and 91(1) of the Staff Regulations is an essential condition for the admissibility of any action brought by officials against the institution by which they are employed.

An official is adversely affected by an act only where it is such as to have a direct effect on his position in law and thus goes beyond measures which, concerning only the internal organisation of the departments, do not adversely affect the position of the official concerned under the Staff Regulations or infringe the principle that the post to which an official is assigned should correspond to his grade. Such a measure falls within the discretionary power which each administration has to allocate duties among the members of its staff. However, certain decisions, even though they do not affect an official’s pecuniary interests or his rank, may be regarded as acts adversely affecting that official if they adversely affect his non-pecuniary interests or future prospects.

Only special circumstances which provided the grounds for measures of internal organisation may render an appeal against such measures admissible. That may be the case where the decision in question is in the nature of a covert penalty, where it discloses an intention to discriminate against the official concerned or where it is vitiated by a misuse of powers.

(see paras 21-23)

See: T-20/92 Moat v Commission [1993] ECR II-799, para. 39; T-36/93 Ojha v Commission [1995] ECR-SC I-A-161 and II-497, paras 41 and 42; T-78/96 and T-170/96 W v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-239 and II-745, para. 45; T-178/97 Moncada v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-339 and II-989, para. 33; T-129/98 Sabbioni v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I-A-223 and II-1139, para. 45
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)

3 December 2003

((Community trade mark – Three-dimensional mark – Shape of a bottle – Absolute grounds for refusal – Distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)) In Case T-305/02, Nestlé Waters France, established in Issy-les-Moulineaux (France), represented by A. Cléry, avocat, applicant, v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), represented by A. Rassat and O. Waelbroeck, acting as Agents, defendant, APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 July 2002 (Case R 719/2000-4) refusing to register a three-dimensional trade mark consisting of the shape of a transparent bottle,



THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (Fourth Chamber),



composed of: V. Tiili, President, P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges, Registrar: B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 10 July 2003,

gives the following

Judgment

Background to the dispute

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

─ annul the contested decision;

─ order OHIM to pay the costs.

12

─ dismiss the application;

─ order the applicant to pay the costs.

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

On those grounds,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber),

1.

2.

Tiili Mengozzi Vilaras

H. Jung V. Tiili
Case T-315/02

Svend Klitgaard

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Arbitration clause – Contract concluded under the PLAN Cluster D programme – Travel expenses – Costs of recovery – Late payment)

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), 10 June 2004 ?II-0000

Summary of the Judgment

Procedure – Referral to the Court of First Instance under an arbitration clause – Contract providing for Community financial assistance for arranging a technical audit – Application for reimbursement of travel costs and for payment of recovery costs – Dismissed

(Art. 238 EC)