ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

Officials – Social security – Sickness insurance – Medical expenses – Serious illness – Reimbursement at 100% – Conditions

(Staff Regulations, Art. 72(1); Rules on Sickness Insurance, Art. 28 and Annex I, Section IV )

The reimbursement of medical expenses at 100% under Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations presupposes that the illness concerned is regarded as one of the illnesses expressly referred to in that provision, or that the appointing authority recognises the illness as being of a comparable seriousness to the illnesses referred to in that provision. To that end, it is manifestly for the official concerned to state which is the illness in question and to produce supporting documents. Under Article 28 of the Rules on Sickness Insurance for Officials of the European Communities applications for reimbursement of expenses must be accompanied by original supporting documents, and according to Section IV of Annex I to those Rules applications to have an illness recognised as of a comparable seriousness to the four illnesses referred to in Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations must be accompanied by a report from the doctor treating the official concerned.

Where an application does not contain any new factor justifying the reimbursement at 100% of the medical expenses incurred by the official in question, the administration’s silence following that application does not in any way alter his legal situation resulting from the implied decision rejecting an earlier application in which he made that claim known to the administration, and therefore does not constitute an act adversely affecting him within the meaning of Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations.

(see paras 30, 32, 34)
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 – Cumulative nature – Order of examination and method of verification (Art. 225(1) EC, 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 22-23)

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

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 – CISAC).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;

2. Reserves the costs.
Order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 27 August 2009 — Abouchar v Commission

(Case T-367/08)

‛Non-contractual liability — EDF — Conditions for the grant and control of credits for an agricultural holding project in Senegal — Limitation period — Inadmissibility’

1. Actions for damages — Limitation period — Point from which time starts to run (Art. 288, second para., EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 46 and 53, first para.) (see paras 23-25)

2. Actions for damages — Limitation period — Interruption (Arts 235 EC and 288, second para., EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 46 and 53, first para.) (see paras 40-41)

Re:

ACTION for damages to compensate for the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of alleged errors of the Commission and its agents inherent in the conditions of grant and the control of loans financed by the European Development Fund (EDF) for its agricultural holding project in Senegal.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for damages – Independent of actions for annulment – Action partially seeking the withdrawal of an individual decision become definitive – Partial inadmissibility (Arts 235 EC and 288, second para., EC) (see paras 42-50)

2. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Action seeking compensation for loss caused by an EU institution – No indications as to the nature and extent of the loss and the causal link – Manifest inadmissibility (Arts 235 EC and 288, second para., EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21 and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 52, 54-57, 61-62)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for compensation for loss allegedly suffered by the applicant following the Commission’s decision to end the Pneuma project (LIFE04 ENV/IT/000595), intended to cofund development of a new system of supplying power for use in mobile telephony.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Power-One Italy SpA is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission.
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 18 April 2008 – CPEM v Commission

(Case T-106/08 R)

Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation – Further application – New facts – None – Inadmissibility – Article 109 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance

1. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Cumulative nature (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 15-16)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Dismissal of application (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 109) (see paras 25-28)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of debit note No 3240912189 of 17 December 2007 relating to Commission Decision C(2007) 4645 of 4 October 2007 cancelling the assistance from the European Social Fund (ESF) granted to CPEM by Decision C(1999) 2645 of 17 August 1999.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;
Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 4 September 2012 — DAI v Commission

(Case T-381/08)

‛Agriculture — Sugar — Temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry of the Community — Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 and Regulation (EC) No 928/2006 — Decision 2008/445/EC — Retroactive restructuring aid’

1. Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Sugar — Temporary scheme for restructuring the sugar industry — Restructuring aid — Complementary aid paid retroactively for a marketing year — Calculation of the amount — Account taken of the aid granted for the following marketing year — Lawfulness (Council Regulation No 320/2006, as amended by Regulation No 1261/2007, Art. 3(8); Commission Regulation No 968/2006, as amended by Regulation No 1264/2007, Art. 16a) (see paras 27-29)

2. Proceedings — Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings — Objection of illegality expressly raised only at the reply stage — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 48(2)) (see paras 32-36)

Re:

ACTION brought against Commission Decision 2008/445/EC of 11 June 2008 fixing the amounts per Member State of retroactive restructuring aid for growers and undertakings having restructured in the 2006/07 and 2007/08 marketing years in the framework of the temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry of the Community (OJ 2008 L 156, p. 20).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. DAI – Sociedade de Desenvolvimento Agro-Industrial, SA is ordered to pay the costs.

Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 4 September 2012 — DAI v Commission

(Case T-381/08)

‛Agriculture — Sugar — Temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry of the Community — Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 and Regulation (EC) No 928/2006 — Decision 2008/445/EC — Retroactive restructuring aid’

1. Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Sugar — Temporary scheme for restructuring the sugar industry — Restructuring aid — Complementary aid paid retroactively for a marketing year — Calculation of the amount — Account taken of the aid granted for the following marketing year — Lawfulness (Council Regulation No 320/2006, as amended by Regulation No 1261/2007, Art. 3(8); Commission Regulation No 968/2006, as amended by Regulation No 1264/2007, Art. 16a) (see paras 27-29)

2. Proceedings — Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings — Objection of illegality expressly raised only at the reply stage — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 48(2)) (see paras 32-36)

Re:

ACTION brought against Commission Decision 2008/445/EC of 11 June 2008 fixing the amounts per Member State of retroactive restructuring aid for growers and undertakings having restructured in the 2006/07 and 2007/08 marketing years in the framework of the temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry of the Community (OJ 2008 L 156, p. 20).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 23 January 2009 – Unity OSG FZE v Council and EUPOL Afghanistan

(Case T-511/08 R)

Application for interim measures – Public procurement – Rejection of a tender – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – Loss of opportunity – No urgency

1. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Cumulative nature – Order of examination and method of verification – Discretion of the judge dealing with the application for interim relief (Arts 225 EC, 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 11-12)

2. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 22-23)

3. Application 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 27-28)

4. Application for interim measures – Conditions of admissibility – Application – Formal requirements – Statement of the pleas in law establishing a prima facie case for granting the measures sought (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2) and (3)) (see para. 29)

5. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss (Arts 242 EC, 243 EC and 288 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 31, 33-34)

6. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 35-37)

7. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 38)

8. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 39)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of the operation of the decision, taken by EUPOL Afghanistan in the context of a call for tenders, to reject the applicant’s tender and to award the contract for the provision of guarding and close protection services in Afghanistan to another tenderer.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)

9 September 2008

Case T-144/08

Luigi Marcuccio

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Social security – Refusal of the application for reimbursement of 100% of certain medical expenses incurred by the applicant)

Application: first, for annulment of the decision refusing the applicant’s claim for reimbursement of 100% of certain medical expenses and, secondly, for an order that the Commission pay him EUR 89.56 by way of additional reimbursement of medical expenses or as compensation for loss.

Held: The action is dismissed as inadmissible. Each party is to bear its own costs.

Summary

Officials – Social security – Sickness insurance – Medical expenses – Serious illness – Reimbursement at 100% – Conditions

(Staff Regulations, Art. 72(1); Rules on Sickness Insurance, Art. 28 and Annex I, Section IV)

The reimbursement of medical expenses at 100% under Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations presupposes that the illness concerned is regarded as one of the illnesses expressly referred to in that provision, or that the appointing authority recognises the illness as being of a comparable seriousness to the illnesses referred to in that provision. To that end, it is manifestly for the official concerned to state which is the illness in question and to produce supporting documents. Under Article 28 of the Rules on Sickness Insurance for Officials of the European Communities applications for reimbursement of expenses must be accompanied by original supporting documents, and according to Section IV of Annex I to those Rules applications to have an illness recognised as of a comparable seriousness to the four illnesses referred to in Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations must be accompanied by a report from the doctor treating the official concerned.

Where an application does not contain any new factor justifying the reimbursement at 100% of the medical expenses incurred by the official in question, the administration’s silence following that application does not in any way alter his legal situation resulting from the implied decision rejecting an earlier application in which he made that claim known to the administration, and therefore does not constitute an act adversely affecting him within the meaning of Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations.

(see paras 30, 32, 34)
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Appeal Chamber)

22 June 2009

Case T-340/08 P

Marianne Timmer

v

Court of Auditors of the European Communities

(Appeal – Civil service – Officials – Staff reporting – New and substantial facts – Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded in part)

Appeal: against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 5 June 2008 in Case F-123/06 Timmer v Court of Auditors [2008] ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000, and seeking annulment of that order.

Held: The appeal is dismissed. Ms Marianne Timmer is ordered to bear her own costs and to pay those of the Court of Auditors of the European Communities in the present proceedings.

Summary

1. Appeals – Statement of pleas in law and legal arguments in the application – Plea not sufficiently precise – Inadmissibility

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 138(1)(c))

2. Officials – Actions – Prior administrative complaint – Time-limits – Claim barred by lapse of time – Reopening – Condition – Substantial new fact

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

1. An appeal before the Court of First Instance against a decision of the Civil Service Tribunal which does not contain any specific argument in support of an application for annulment, but merely refers to the ‘results of a documentary review of new facts’ to support a claim for damages does not meet the requirements of Article 138(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal and must be dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

(see paras 24-25)

2. The unlawful appointment of an official does not affect the lawfulness of the measures which he is required to carry out in the performance of his duties. In particular, the unlawful appointment of a hierarchical superior cannot vitiate the latter’s decisions concerning an official’s staff report.

The unlawfulness of an appointment cannot therefore be regarded as a substantial fact justifying an application for the reconsideration of staff reports which have not been challenged in good time.

(see paras 39, 41-42)
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 14 November 2008 – SACEM v Commission

(Case T-422/08 R)

Interim measures – Decision of the Commission ordering cessation of a concerted practice in relation to the collective management of copyright – Application for suspension of a measure – No urgency

1. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – ‘Prima facie case’ – Urgency – Cumulative nature – Order of examination and method of verification (Arts 225(1) EC, 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 22-25)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 37-38, 47, 51)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 – CISAC).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;
Order of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 24 November 2009 – Szomborg v Commission

(Case T-228/08)

Action for failure to act – Commission’s failure to present a scientific assessment within the prescribed period – Non-actionable measure – Not individually concerned – Inadmissibility

1. Actions for failure to act – Natural or legal persons – Actionable omissions – Failure by the Commission to carry out a scientific assessment of the impact of the use of certain fishing nets on cetaceans – Inadmissibility (Art. 232, third para., EC; Council Regulation No 2187/2005, Arts 9(1) and 27) (see paras 15-19)

2. Actions for failure to act – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Provision of a regulation requiring the Commission to carry out an assessment of the impact of certain fishing nets on cetaceans – Action by a fisherman belonging to a distinct sub-group of fishermen – Not individually concerned – Inadmissibility (Art. 232, third para., EC) (see paras 21-26)

Re:

ACTION for failure to act, seeking a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to present within the prescribed period the scientific assessment required by Article 27 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 of 21 December 2005 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures in the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Sound, amending Regulation (EC) No 1434/98 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 88/98 (OJ 2005 L 349, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 27 August 2009 – Abouchar v Commission

(Case T-367/08)

Non‑contractual liability – EDF – Conditions for the grant and control of credits for an agricultural holding project in Senegal – Limitation period – Inadmissibility

1. Actions for damages – Limitation period – Point from which time starts to run (Art. 288, second para., EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 46 and 53, first para.) (see paras 23-25)

2. Actions for damages – Limitation period – Interruption (Arts 235 EC and 288, second para., EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 46 and 53, first para.) (see paras 40-41)

Re:

ACTION for damages to compensate for the material and non‑material harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of alleged errors of the Commission and its agents inherent in the conditions of grant and the control of loans financed by the European Development Fund (EDF) for its agricultural holding project in Senegal.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Mr Michel Abouchar is ordered to pay the costs.
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 February 2012 — Federcoopesca and Others v Commission



(Case T‑366/08)

Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 — Recovery plan for bluefin tuna — Setting of TACs for 2008 — Act of general application — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissible

1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Not possible to base an action brought before the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty on Article 263, fourth para., TFEU (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see para. 16)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Regulation establishing emergency measures to restrict red tuna fishing — Measure of general scope — Action by owners of vessels authorised to fish for red tuna — Applicants not individually concerned — Inadmissibility (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Commission Regulation No 530/2008) (see paras 18‑23, 27‑30)

3. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Interpretation, contrary to law, of the requirement of being individually concerned — Not permissible (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47) (see para. 32)

4. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Regulation establishing emergency measures to restrict red tuna fishing — Action by an association of associations of fishing sector operators — Members of the association not themselves having locus standi — Inadmissibility (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Commission Regulation No 530/2008) (see paras 34, 35)

Re:

ANNULMENT of Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008 establishing emergency measures as regards purse seiners fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45°W, and in the Mediterranean Sea (OJ 2008 L 155, p. 9).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 14 July 2010 – Deutsche Post v Commission

(Case T-570/08)

Action for annulment – State aid – Information injunction – Non-actionable measure – Inadmissibility

1. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects – Preparatory measures – Not included – Direction to provide information addressed to a Member State in State aid proceedings – Inadmissibility (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 24-26, 29, 31-32, 46)

2. State aid – Administrative procedure – Possibility for the Commission to base its decision on the information available – Condition – Prior use of power to issue directions to the Member State concerned (Art. 88(2) EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Arts 5(2), 6(1), 10(3), and 13(1)) (see paras 27, 39-41)

3. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Measures producing legal effects – Decision of the Commission to initiate a formal investigation procedure in relation to State aid accompanied by provisional classification as new aid (Arts 87(1) EC, 88(2) and (3) EC and 230 EC) (see paras 34-35)

4. State aid – Commission decision finding aid to be incompatible with the common market – Possibility for the Commission to base its decision on the information available – Limits (Art. 88(2) EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 13(1)) (see para. 43)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision contained in the Commission’s letter of 30 October 2008, requiring information to be provided in the proceedings relating to State aid to Deutsche Post AG (C 36/2007 (ex NN 25/2007)).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.