ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

1. Officials – Social security – Insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease – Occupational disease – Definition

(Staff Regulations, Art. 73; Rules on the insurance of officials of the European Communities against the risk of accident and occupational disease, Art. 3)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11(1))

1. An ‘occupational disease’ is not limited to cases in which the permanent invalidity of the official has its origin exclusively in the performance of his duties, but also includes cases where the invalidity is the result of the aggravation of a pre-existing illness which originated elsewhere. In other words, if the aggravation, as a result of performance of duties in the service of the Communities, of a pre-existing illness renders an official incapable of continuing to perform his duties, that invalidity must be considered to have been caused by an occupational disease within the meaning of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations.

In order for the appointing authority to be able to uphold a request for recognition as an occupational disease of the aggravation of a condition, it must, on the basis of the conclusions of the Medical Committee where referral to the Medical Committee has been requested, determine whether there has been such aggravation when it assesses the merits of such a request. The temporary nature of the aggravation of a disease, as a result of which the aggravation has ceased and can no longer be established when the authority rules on that request for recognition as an occupational disease, is, consequently, not irrelevant. Where it is not possible to establish such aggravation on the date on which it rules, the authority cannot find that the official concerned is suffering from an occupational disease.

(see paras 36, 41-42)

See: T‑122/89 F v Commission [1990] ECR II‑517, para. 14; T‑376/02 O v Commission [2004] ECR-SC I‑A‑349 and II‑1595, paras 68, 72 and 73

2. The court at first instance, in this case the Civil Service Tribunal, has exclusive jurisdiction, first, to establish the facts except where the substantive inaccuracy of its findings is apparent from the documents submitted to it and, second, to assess those facts. The assessment of the facts does not therefore constitute, save where the clear sense of that evidence has been distorted, a point of law which is subject, as such, to review by the Court of First Instance, as the appeal court. Such distortion must be obvious from the documents on the Court’s file, without there being any need to carry out a new assessment of the facts and the evidence.

(see paras 45-47)

See: C‑8/95 P New Holland Ford v Commission [1998] ECR I‑3175, para. 72; C‑551/03 P General Motors v Commission [2006] ECR I‑3173, para. 54; C‑167/04 P JCB Service v Commission [2006] ECR I‑8935, para. 108
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Meaning – Measures producing binding legal effects (Art. 230, first para., EC; Council Directive 92/43, Arts 4(2), 5 and 6; Commission Decision 2006/613, Art. 1, second para., and Annexes 1, 2 and 3) (see paras 26-30)

2. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Council Directive 92/43, Arts 4(5) and 6; Commission Decision 2006/613, Annex 1) (see paras 39-44, 46)

3. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see para. 45)

Subject of the case

Re:

Partial annulment of Commission Decision 2006/613/EC of 19 July 2006 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region (OJ 2006 L 259, p. 1), in so far as it declares the site designated as ‘Ramblas de Gergal, Tabernas y Sur de Sierra Alhamilla’, which includes land belonging to the applicant, to be a site of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders Calebus SA to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Commission;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.
Case T-236/06

Landtag Schleswig-Holstein

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Actions for annulment — Access to documents — Regional parliament — Lack of capacity to be a party to legal proceedings — Inadmissibility’

Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), 3 April 2008 II - 463

Summary of the Order

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Action brought by a regional authority

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC)

Where actions are brought by sub-national territorial bodies, the Court assesses whether they have legal personality on the basis of national public law. Community law cannot trespass on the constitutional independence of the Member States by deciding that their national public law bodies have legal personality, which could confer on them rights at Community level which they do not enjoy at national level.

It follows that a regional parliament which does not have legal capacity under national law does not have the capacity to be a party to legal proceedings before the Community courts. Consequently, its action is inadmissible.

(see paras 22, 30, 31)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Absolute grounds for refusal

–

Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 22-25

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 April 2006 (Case R 1189/2005‑2) concerning an application for registration of the word sign POWDERMED as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>14

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Powderject Research Ltd to pay the costs.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 17 January 2007 – Diy-Mar Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret and Akar v Commission

(Case T-129/06)

Action for annulment – Essential procedural requirements – Natural and legal persons required to be represented by a lawyer entitled to practise before a court of a Member State – Application in proper form lodged out-of-time – Inadmissibility of the action

1. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 19, third and fourth paras, 21, second para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 43(1) and 44(3)) (see paras 25-30)

2. Procedure – Time-limit for instituting proceedings – Time barred – Excusable error – Definition (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, second para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(6)) (see paras 31-44)

Re:

APPLICATION for, first, annulment of Decision MK/KS/DELTUR/(2005)/SecE/D/1614 of 23 December 2005 concerning the award of a public works contract for the construction of educational establishments in the Provinces of Siirt and Diyarbakir (EuropeAid/121601/C/W/TR) and, second, suspension of the award procedure in question.

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 25 October 2007 – Estaser El Mareny v Commission

(Case T-274/06)

Actions for annulment – Time-limit for instituting proceedings – Starting point – Summary publication in the Official Journal – Internet site – Non-existent measure – Inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Time-limits – Starting point (Art. 230, fifth para., EC) (see paras 31, 36)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/446/EC of 12 April 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC (Case COMP/B-1/38.348 – Repsol CPP) (summary published in OJ 2006 L 176, p. 104), making binding the commitments offered by Repsol CPP, adopted in accordance with Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 EC and 82 EC (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1)

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene from Rani, SA, Estación de servicio Lazarza, SL, Melón, SA, Estación de servicio Ahigal, SL, Els Garrafons, SL, Estación de servicio Azpeitia-Azkoitia, SL, Red Azul, SA, Sucesores de Narciso Chiva, SL, Pablo Rada Combustibles, SL and Promotores Internacional, SA, from the Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio and from Repsol Comercial de Productos Petrolíferos, SA.

3. Estaser El Mareny, SL is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 2 July 2009 – Evropaïki Dynamiki v ECB

(Case T-279/06)

Public service contracts – Community public procurement procedure – Supply of consultancy and IT development services for the ECB – Rejection of a tender and decision to award the contract to other tenderers – Action for annulment – Interest in bringing proceedings – Ground for exclusion – Permit to be issued by a national authority – Action in part manifestly unfounded in law and in part manifestly inadmissible

1. Community law – Principles – Right to a judicial remedy (Arts 230, first para., EC and 288 EC) (see paras 45-49)

2. Actions for annulment – Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 75, 85)

3. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Interest in bringing proceedings (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 98-99)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the ECB’s decision of 31 July 2006 rejecting the tender made by the applicant in the negotiated procedure for the supply of consultancy and IT development services for the ECB and the decision to award the contract to other tenderers.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Evropaïki Dynamiki – Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE is ordered to pay the costs.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 17 June 2008 – FMC Chemical and Arysta Lifesciences v EFSA

(Case T-311/06)

Action for annulment – Action for damages – Directive 91/414/EEC – Plant protection products – Opinion of the European Food Safety Authority – Non-actionable measure – Preparatory measure – Inadmissibility

1. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Definition – Measures producing binding legal effects (Art. 230 EC; Commission Regulation No 451/2000, Art. 8(7); Council Directive No 91/414) (see paras 43-44, 49-50)

2. Plea of illegality – Incidental nature – Main action inadmissible (Art. 241 EC) (see paras 71-72)

3. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)) (see paras 77-79, 81-82)

4. Procedure – Measures of organisation of procedure – Request for production of documents (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 64(3)(d) and (4) (see paras 86-88)

Re:

APPLICATION for (i) annulment of the opinion of EFSA of 28 July 2006 on the assessment of the active substance carbofuran under Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1), and (ii) compensation for the damage sustained.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Balancing of all the interests involved (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 42-43)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 48-50)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Balancing of all the interests involved – Meaning (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC) (see paras 72-74)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for stay of execution of Commission Decision 2007/362/EC of 16 May 2007 amending Decision 2004/432/EC on the approval of residue monitoring plans submitted by third countries in accordance with Council Directive 96/23/EC (OJ 2007 L 138, p. 18).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
Keywords



Keywords

European Parliament – Verification of members’ credentials – Decision dismissing a challenge to the election of a Member of the European Parliament (Act concerning election of the representatives of the Parliament by direct universal suffrage, Art. 12) (see paras 43-44)

2. Actions for annulment – Pleas in law – Submissions founded on the incompatibility with Community law of national provisions (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 45)

3. Community law – Direct effect – Individual rights – Safeguarding by national courts (Art. 10 EC) (see para. 49)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Negative administrative decision (Art. 242 EC) (see para. 31)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions of admissibility (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1), first para., and (2)) (see para. 35)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC) (see paras 49, 52-53)

4. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage for the applicant (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC) (see para. 50)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of the removal from the register of Community word mark No 240218 and of the legal effects of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2007 (R 866/2007-2) concerning the application for ‘ restitutio in integrum ’ brought by Jurado Hermanos, until the Court of First Instance has ruled on the action in the main proceedings.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;

2. Reserves the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure

–

Application initiating proceedings

–

Formal requirements (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19) (see paras 10, 13-23, 28

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION under Article 114 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance for W. Johnston to be allowed to act as representative of the applicant in the present case.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Rejects the application for the Court of First Instance to allow W. Johnston to act as representative of Imperial Chemical Industries plc.

2. Reserves the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Natural or legal persons

–

Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Council Regulation No 1164/94, Art. 12(1)(h); Commission Regulation No 1831/94, Arts 5(2) and 7) (see paras 39-54

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of decision C(2006) 5008 of the Commission of 17 October 2006 concerning the reduction of the Cohesion Fund as regards certain projects relating to the factory for the incineration of solid urban waste of household origin in the Region of Porto.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders Serviço Intermunicipalizado de Gestão de Resíduos do Grande Porto (Lipor) to pay its own costs and those incurred by the Commission.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Acts open to challenge – Concept – Acts producing binding legal effects

(Art. 230 EC; Council Regulation No 2965/94)

Summary

Only measures which produce binding legal effects and are capable of affecting the interests of third parties by bringing about a distinct change in their legal position constitute measures challengeable by an action for annulment. In order to ascertain whether a measure the annulment of which is sought is open to challenge, by an action for annulment, it is necessary to look to its substance as the form in which it is cast is, in principle, immaterial. Thus, only an act by which its author reaches an unequivocal and definitive position, in a form enabling its nature to be identified, constitutes a decision challengeable by an action for annulment, provided, however, that the decision is not the confirmation of a prior act. By contrast, a written expression of opinion or a simple statement of intention cannot constitute a decision challengeable by an action for annulment, since it cannot produce legal effects or is not intended to produce such effects.

The Centre for Translation for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT) is an agency established by Regulation No 2965/94. It follows from the division of powers between the CdT’s Director and its Board of Management, established by Articles 9 and 13 to 15 of that regulation, that the decision of principle relating to the payment of CdT’s contribution to the Community pension scheme falls within the Board of Management’s powers. It is therefore capable of adopting a decision capable of affecting the legal position of a third party, namely the Community’s financial interests.

Nonetheless, a position taken, in the form of an opinion, by that Board of Management in which it confines itself to informing the Commission that it considers that the Commission has not given a satisfactory reply to its repeated requests that the Commission specify the legal basis on which it relied to claim payment of employer’s contributions to the Community pension scheme and which concludes with an invitation to pursue discussions and with a suggested procedure to settle the dispute is not definitive and may not entail binding legal effects capable of affecting the interests of third parties, namely, in the present case, the Community’s financial interests.

(see paras 52-55, 60, 62-63, 66)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for damages – Jurisdiction of the Community judicature (Arts 235 EC and 288, second para., EC) (see para 46)

2. Actions for damages – Autonomous form of action (Arts 235 EC and 288, second para., EC) (see paras 49-50)

3. Non-contractual liability – Conditions (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 79-81)

Subject of the case

Re:

CLAIM requesting that the Court of First Instance should impose on the Commission the obligation to act in accordance with Article 14b of Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (OJ 1993 L 169, p. 1), as amended by Directive 98/79/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 1998 on in vitro diagnostic medical devices (OJ 1998 L 331, p. 1), by ordering the certification company TÜV Rheinland Product Safety GmbH, through the Federal Republic of Germany, to activate, in favour of the applicant, the mandatory civil liability insurance provided for in point 6 of Annex XI to Directive 93/42, which that company took out, and, if the alleged damage cannot be remedied by the principal claim, in the alternative, a claim for compensation for the damage sustained by the applicant on account of the various omissions on the part of the Commission.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Portela – Comércio de artigos ortopédicos e hospitalares, L da is ordered to pay the costs.
Order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 6 November 2007 –

Cemex UK Cement v Commission

(Case T-13/07)

Action for annulment – Environment – Directive 2003/87/EC – Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading – Commission Decision approving the United Kingdom national allocation plan for emission allowances – Competence of the Member States as regards the individual allocation of emission allowances – Lack of direct and individual concern – Inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 41, 56)

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 5618/4 of 29 November 2006 concerning the national allocation plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances, notified by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. It is unnecessary to give a ruling on the application for leave to intervene by Castle Cement Ltd.

3. Cemex UK Cement Ltd is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 14 September 2007 – AWWW v Eurofound

(Case T-211/07 R)

Public procurement – Community tender procedure – Procedure for interim relief – Lack of urgency

1. Applications for interim measures – Conditions governing admissibility (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 32-35)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1) and (2)) (see paras 40-45)

Re:

APPLICATION to suspend the operation of the decision of Eurofound concerning contract No 2007/S 13‑014125 entitled ‘Information and analysis on quality of work and employment, industrial relations and restructuring covering the European level’ until the Court of First Instance has given judgment in the main action.

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 18 June 2008 – Dow AgroSciences and Others v Commission

(Case T-475/07 R)

Application for interim relief – Directive 91/414/EEC – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – Admissibility – No urgency

1. Applications for interim measures – Conditions of admissibility – Prima facie admissibility of the main action (Arts 230 EC, 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1); Council Directive 91/414; Commission Decision 2007/629) (see paras 27-28, 32, 47-48, 67)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 69-72, 77, 103)

3. Applications for interim measures – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Account to be taken of a lack of diligence on the part of the applicant (Art. 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 111)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of the operation of Commission Decision 2007/629/EC of 20 September 2007 concerning the non-inclusion of trifluralin in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (OJ 2007 L 255, p. 42), until delivery of the judgment in the main proceedings.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;