ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Competition - Dominant position - Abuse - Undertaking with a statutory monopoly in the postal sector - Use of income deriving from a reserved market - Acquisition of joint control of an undertaking active in the non-reserved market - Compatibility with Article 82 EC - Conditions

(Art. 82 EC)

Summary

$$The acquisition by an undertaking with a statutory monopoly in the postal sector of a holding in the capital of a company which is active in the non-reserved market of parcel distribution could raise problems in the light of the Community competition rules where the funds used by the undertaking holding the monopoly derived from excessive or discriminatory prices or from other unfair practices in its reserved market. In such a situation, where there are grounds for suspecting an infringement of Article 82 EC, it is necessary to examine the source of the funds used for the acquisition in question in order to determine whether that acquisition stems from an abuse of a dominant position.

In the absence of any evidence to show that the funds used by the undertaking holding a monopoly for the acquisition in question derived from abusive practices on its part in the reserved letter market, the mere fact that it used those funds to acquire joint control of an undertaking active in a neighbouring market open to competition does not in itself, even if the source of those funds was the reserved market, raise any problem from the standpoint of the competition rules and cannot therefore constitute an infringement of Article 82 EC or give rise to an obligation on the Commission to examine the source of those funds in the light of that article.

( see paras 55, 61 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Acts of the institutions - Statement of reasons - Obligation - Scope - Commission decision finding that aid is incompatible with the common market - Failure to state reasons

(Arts 87(1) EC and 253 EC)

Summary

$$The statement of reasons required by Article 253 EC must be appropriate to the measure at issue and must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the institution which adopted the measure in question in such a way as to enable the persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for the measure and to enable the Court to exercise its power of review. The requirement to state reasons must be assessed according to the circumstances of the case, and in particular the content of the measure in question, the nature of the reasons relied on and the interest which addressees may have in receiving explanations. It is not necessary for the reasoning to go into all the relevant facts and points of law, since the question whether the statement of reasons meets the requirements of Article 253 EC must be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also to its context and all the legal rules governing the matter in question.

With regard to a decision finding that State aid is incompatible with the common market, the Commission must indicate the reasons for its view that the measure in question falls within the scope of Article 87(1) EC, must be classified as incompatible with the Treaty, and therefore be abolished. The statement of reasons cannot be limited to a finding that the measure constitutes aid but must refer to the specific facts. The Commission must also ensure that the statement of the reasons for its decision makes it possible to identify with precision the aid at issue.

The Commission is not entitled to rely on the fragmentary nature of the information sent to it on the detailed rules for the aid during the administrative procedure in order to justify the lack of reasoning in the contested decision, where it has not used all the powers available to it to require the national authorities to provide it with the relevant information concerning the financial terms for the provision of the aid.

( see paras 55-58, 91 )
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)

5 December 2002

Case T-119/99

Paul Edwin Hoyer

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Temporary staff — Implementation of a judgment of the Court of First Instance — Reopening of Internal Competition COM/LA/2/89 — Non-inciusion on the list of suitable candidates’

Full text in Dutch II-1185

Application for:

annulment of Commission Competition COM/LA/2/89 or, at least, annulment of the Selection Board's decision not to include the applicant's name on the list of suitable candidates in that competition, of which he was notified by the Commission's letter of 15 February 1999.

Held:

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

Summary

Officials — Actions — Judgment annulling a measure — Effects — Obligation to adopt measures to implement it — Scope — Account taken both of the grounds and of the operative part of the judgment — Annulment of a competition selection board's decision not to include a candidate on the list of suitable candidates — Reopening of the competition only so far as concerns the applicant — Appropriate method of implementation

The work of a selection board in a competition must take place in such a way as to ensure the proper operation of recruitment for the Community civil service. If its work extends over a long period, even several years, in particular where one of its decisions is annulled by the Community judicature, it is possible that its composition may evolve over the years, as a result of events beyond the control of the administration. Where the latter finds it impossible to reconstitute identically the selection board as originally composed, it is recognised, for the purposes of ensuring the continuity of the Community civil service, as having the power to replace certain members of the selection board, while in so doing maintaining a situation which is as close as possible to the original situation. (see para. 67) See: Cámara Alloisio and Others v Commission, cited above, para. 81
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Acts of the institutions - Statement of reasons - Obligation - Scope

(Arts 230 EC and 235 EC)

Summary

$$The statement of reasons required by Article 253 EC, which is an essential procedural requirement within the meaning of Article 230 EC, must be appropriate to the act at issue and must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the institution which adopted the measure in question in such a way as to enable the persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for the measure and to enable the competent Community court to exercise its power of review. It is not necessary for the reasoning to go into all the relevant facts and points of law, since the question whether the statement of reasons meets the requirements of Article 253 EC must be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also to its context and to all the legal rules governing the matter in question.

( see para. 24 )
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber)

21 November 2000

Case T-23/00

A

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Criminal conviction by a national court — Disciplinary procedure — Removal from post’

Full text in French II-1211

Application for:

annulment of the Commission's decision of 4 November 1999 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant against its decision of 23 April 1999 ordering his removal from post and, so far as is necessary, annulment of the opinion delivered by the Disciplinary Board on 30 November 1998.

Held:

The application is dismissed. Each party shall bear its own costs.

Summary

Officials — Disciplinary measures — Procedure before the Disciplinary Board — Hearing of the official concerned by one or more members of the Disciplinary Board — Whether permissible — Conditions

Officials — Disciplinary measures — Criminal conviction of the official concerned by a national court — Right of the appointing authority to rely on the findings of fact in the final decision of the criminal court

Disciplinary proceedings before a Community institution are administrative, rather than judicial, with the result that the institution concerned cannot be characterised as a ‘tribunal’ within the meaning of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Although a public hearing is in principle the rule for judicial proceedings, there is no requirement in the Staff Regulations that the hearing in disciplinary proceedings be public. (see paras 24, 28) See: T-26/89 de Compte v Parliament [1991] ECR II-781, para. 94; C-252/97 P N v Commission [1998] ECR I-4871, para. 52

The appointing authority is entitled to rely on the findings of fact in a criminal decision which has become final, even where the official in question disputes the correctness of the facts during the disciplinary proceedings. The fifth paragraph of Article 88 of the Staff Regulations, which enshrines the principle that ‘the disciplinary proceedings must await the outcome of the criminal proceedings’, is justified in particular by the fact that the national criminal courts have greater investigative powers than the appointing authority. (see para. 37) See: T-74/96 Tzoanos v Commission [1998] ECRSC I-A-129 and II-343, para. 34

It is for the Disciplinary Board to assess both the relevance of an application to hear witnesses in relation to the subject-matter of the dispute and the need to examine the witnesses named. (see para. 39) See: 35/67 Van Eick v Commission [1968] ECR 329, at 342
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)

31 January 2002

Case T-206/00

Merja Hult

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Grading — Statement of grounds — Article 32 of the Staff Regulations — Commission Decision on the criteria applicable to grade and step classification upon recruitment — Additional seniority in grade — Conditions — Principle of legal certainty’

Full text in French II-81

Application for:

annulment of the decision of the Commission of 8 October 1999 fixing, with effect from 16 January 1999, the applicant's definitive classification in Grade A 7, step 1.

Held:

The decision of the Commission of 8 October 1999 fixing, with effect from 16 January 99, the applicant's definitive classification in Grade A 7, step 1, is annulled. The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

Summary

Officials — Decision adversely affecting an official — Obligation to state grounds — Scope (Staff Regulations, Art. 25, second para.) Community law — Principles — Legal certainty — Meaning Officials — Recruitment — Step classification — Additional seniority in grade — Taking into consideration of professional experience — Rules laid down by the Commission — Taking into account of professional experience gained subsequent to the qualification giving access to the competition — Refusal on the basis of a condition attaching to the qualification but not mentioned in the notice of competition — Not permissible (Staff Regulations, Art. 32, second para.)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark - Decisions of the Office - Observance of the rights of the defence

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 73)

2. Community trade mark - Appeals procedure - Appeal against a decision of the examiner - Examination by the Board of Appeal - Scope

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 62(1))

3. Community trade mark - Definition and acquisition of a Community trade mark - Prior registration of the trade mark in certain Member States - Effect

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7)

Summary

$$1. When the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) has a case before it seeking to overturn a refusal to register a Community mark, it may, in the examination of the file, use any of the items of information included in the application form, without first having to give the applicant the opportunity to comment on them. More specifically, the Board of Appeal is under no obligation to invite the applicant to present its views on the words entered on the form by the applicant itself, where they do not appear to be an obvious error on the part of the trade mark applicant.

( see para. 20 )

2. In cases brought before the Boards of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) seeking to overturn a refusal to register a Community mark, the Boards of Appeal must be able to base their decisions on arguments not presented before the examiner to the extent to which the party concerned has been able to comment on the matters affecting the application of the legal provision in question. As there is in principle a continuity of function between the examiner and the Boards of Appeal, the latter may re-examine the application without being limited by the examiner's reasoning.

( see para. 25 )

3. In the context of an application for registration of a Community mark, registrations already effected in Member States, or even in non-Member States, are factors which are not decisive for the purposes of the examination of the absolute grounds for refusal set out in Article 7 of Regulation No 40/94. Because of the unitary character of the Community trade mark, the Community trade mark regime is an autonomous legal system with a set of objectives peculiar to itself; it applies independently of any national system. Consequently, the eligibility of a mark for registration as a Community trade mark must be assessed solely on the basis of the relevant Community legislation, with national trade mark registrations being factors which are not binding on the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), but which may nevertheless be taken into consideration in the examination of the absolute grounds for refusal.

( see para. 32 )
Case T-333/00

Rougemarine SARL

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Programme encouraging the development and distribution of European audiovisual works (MEDIA II) — Decision to award financial support — Refusal — Implied reasons’

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), 9 July 2002 II-2985

Summary of the Judgment

Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Commission decision refusing the award of financial support under a programme encouraging the development and distribution of European audiovisual works

(Art. 253 EC)

The question whether the statement of reasons in a decision meets the requirements of Article 253 EC must be assessed in the light not only of its wording but also of its context and of all the legal rules governing the matter in question.

In the case of a decision by the Commission refusing to award financial support under the MEDIA II programme encouraging the development and distribution of European audiovisual works, the summary nature of the statement of reasons in such a decision seems to be an inevitable consequence of the large number of applications for support, on which the Commission must give a decision in a short period. Providing more detailed reasons in support of each individual decision would slow down considerably the process of awarding the Community funds available. Although terse, the statement of reasons in the decision concerned does enable the applicant to defend its rights and the Community Court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.

(see paras 43-44)
Joined Cases T-377/00, T-379/00, T-380/00, T-260/01 and T-272/01

Philip Morris International, Inc. and Others

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Decision to bring legal proceedings before a court in a nonmember State — Action for annulment — Concept of decision for the purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC — Admissibility’

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), 15 January 2003 II-4

Summary of the Judgment

Community law — Principles — Right to a judicial remedy — Assessment — Inadmissibility of an action for annulment brought in respect of conduct of a Community institution which lacks the features of a decision — Possible for individuals to challenge the legality of such conduct by way of an action for non-contractual liability of the Community

The decisions by which the Commission approved, first, the principle of a civil action, in the name of the Commission, against certain American cigarette manufacturers and, second, the principle of a new civil action in the US courts, jointly by the Community and at least one Member State, against those same parties, do not produce legal effects which are binding on, and capable of affecting the interests of, those manufactures by bringing about a distinct change in their legal position. Accordingly, they are not acts which may be the subject of an action for annulment. Although the commencement of proceedings constitutes an indispensable step for the purpose of obtaining a binding judgment and may produce as a matter of law certain consequences, such as the interruption of a limitation period or the determination of the starting point for interest owing, it does not per se determine definitively the obligations of the parties to the case. That determination can result only from the judgment of the court, be it the Community court or a national court. When it decides to commence proceedings, the Commission does not intend itself to change the legal position in question, but merely initiates a procedure whose purpose is to achieve a change in that position through a judgment. (see paras 75-81)

Any act of a Community institution carries an implication that the institution in question has adopted a position as to its competence to adopt it. The adoption of such a position cannot, however, be viewed as a binding legal effect for the purposes of Article 230 EC. Even if the position adopted is erroneous, it has no significance independent of the act adopted and, unlike an act designed to confer competence, is not intended to alter the division of powers provided for by the Treaty. However serious the defects which might vitiate a measure may be, having regard to either the fundamental rights or the institutional balance, they cannot justify an exception to the absolute bars to proceedings and render open to challenge measures which are not contestable because they do not produce binding legal effects. It cannot be concluded that an act is open to challenge because it may be unlawful. (see paras 85-91)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)

5 December 2002

Case T-70/00

Paul Edwin Hoyer

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Temporary staff — Implementation of a judgment of the Court of First Instance — Dismissal’

Full text in Dutch II-1231

Application for:

annulment of the Commission's decision of 24 January 2000 terminating the applicant's contract as a member of the temporary staff.

Held:

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

Summary

Officials — Temporary staff — Termination of the contract of indefinite duration of a member of the temporary staff — Administration's discretion — Review by the Court — Limits — Decision to dismiss a member of the temporary staff based on his failure in a competition

(Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 47(2))

It is clear from Article 47(2) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants that the termination of temporary staff contracts of indefinite duration, for which no statement of grounds is required unless otherwise stipulated by a clause in the contract, is a matter within the discretion of the competent authority and it is therefore for the Court to declare a dismissal decision and the reasons underlying it unlawful only if the limits of that discretion were not observed.

Although the ability of the candidates in an internal competition to carry out their duties does not, in itself, have any bearing on the manner in which the competition must be organised, that does not mean that, if he fails the competition, the fact that a candidate has similar duties in his capacity as a member of the temporary staff prevents the competent authority from taking account of that failure for the purpose of terminating the temporary staff contract of the candidate in question. If that is the reason for terminating a contract, the Court may review the merits of such a decision only if the existence of a manifest error as regards the non-inclusion of the person concerned on the list of successful candidates or as regards the lawfulness of the selection board's decision can be established or if it is apparent that there was a misuse of powers.

(see paras 44, 47, 55)

See: 181/87 Agazzi Léonard v Commission [1988] ECR 3823, para. 27; T-54/89 V. v Parliament [1990] ECR II-659, para. 48; T-45/90 Speybrouck v Parliament [1992] ECR II-33, paras 90 and 93 to 95; T-51/91 Hoyer v Commission [1994] ECR-SC I-A-103 and II-341. paras 27. 36 and 37
Joined Cases T-61/00 and T-62/00





Associazione Produttori Olivicoli Laziali (APOL) and Associazione Italiana Produttori Olivicoli (AIPO)

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Agriculture – EAGGF – Regulation (EEC) No 355/77 – Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 – Community financial aid – Aid for the processing and marketing of agricultural products – Procedure for the discontinuance of aid – Failure to comply with the conditions for granting aid – Force majeure – Principle of proportionality)»

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), 6 March 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Community law – Principles – Force majeure – Scope – EAGGF financial assistance – Whether applicable as a result of administrative practice, even where no legislation requires that it be taken into account



2.. Community law – Principles – Force majeure – Failure to implement planned aid for the processing and marketing of agricultural products – Lack of significant economic activity as a result of circumstances which cannot be regarded as beyond control, unusual or unforeseeable – Conditions for application not satisfied

(Council Regulation No 355/77)

3.. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Structural reform – Common measures – Improvement of the conditions under which agricultural products are processed and marketed – EAGGF financial assistance discontinued for breach of fundamental obligations – Principle of proportionality – Breach – None

(Council Regulation No 355/77)

1.

2.

─

─

─

─

─

3.
Joined Cases T-93/00 and T-46/01





Alessandrini Srl and Others

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Bananas – Third-country imports – Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 – Import licences for bananas from ACP countries – Measures under Article 20(d) of Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 – Action for annulment – Action for compensation)»

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

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Meaning – Measures producing binding legal effects – Letter from an institution – Letter which merely interprets a legislative provision – Not included

(Art. 230 EC)

2.. Plea of illegality – Scope – Measures in respect of which a plea of illegality may be raised – General measure on which the contested decision is based

(Art. 241 EC)

3.. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Bananas – Import arrangements – Tariff quota – New scheme laid down in Regulation No 2362/98 – Applicability of Article 20(d) of Regulation No 404/93 to remedying of temporary difficulties arising from the transition from 1993 scheme to the 1999 scheme despite the existence of transitional provisions in Regulation No 2362/98 – Power of assessment of the Commission – Review by the Court – Limits

(Council Regulation No 404/93, Art. 20(d); Commission Regulation No 2362/98)

4.. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Bananas – Import arrangements – Tariff quota – New scheme laid down in Regulation No 2362/98 – Refusal by the Commission to adopt specific measures under Article 20(d) of Regulation No 404/93 in the light of the commercial nature of the difficulties encountered by an operator – No manifest error of assessment

(Council Regulation No 404/93, Art. 20(d); Commission Regulation No 2362/98)

1.

2.

3.

4.