ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Grand Chamber) of 14 December 2005 − Groupe Fremaux and Palais Royal v Council and Commission

(Case T-301/00)

Non-contractual liability of the Community – Incompatibility of the Community regime governing the import of bananas with the rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) – Imposition by the United States of America of retaliatory measures in the form of increased customs duty levied on imports from the Community, pursuant to a WTO authorisation – Decision of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body – Legal effects – Community liability in the absence of unlawful conduct of its institutions – Causal link – Unusual and special damage

1. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals – No discretion for the institution – Mere infringement of Community law sufficient (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 79-83)

2. Actions for damages – World Trade Organisation – Not possible to rely on the WTO Agreements in order to contest the lawfulness of a Community act – Exceptions – Community measure intended to implement a WTO Agreement or expressly and specifically referring thereto – Community regime governing the import of bananas – Incompatibility with the WTO rules established by the Dispute Settlement Body of the WTO – Judicial review of the lawfulness of that regime under the WTO rules – Excluded (Art. 288, second para., EC; Council Regulations Nos404/93 and 1637/98; Commission Regulation No 2362/98) (see paras 102, 105-107)

3. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – No unlawful conduct on the part of the Community institutions – Real damage, causal link and unusual and special damage – Cumulative requirements (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see para. 149)

4. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Retention of a Community banana import regime incompatible with the WTO Agreements – Damage arising from the adoption of a retaliatory measure by the United States authorities – Causal link (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 166-167, 172-174, 178)

5. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – No unlawful conduct on the part of the Community institutions – Damage arising from the incompatibility of the Community regime governing the import of bananas with the WTO Agreements – Unusual damage – None – Liability of the Community – Excluded (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 183-184, 186, 191, 193)

Re:

ACTION for compensation in respect of the damage allegedly caused by the levying by the United States of America of increased customs duty on imports of the applicants’ cotton bed linen, as authorised by the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), following a finding that the Community regime governing the import of bananas was incompatible with the agreements and understandings annexed to the Agreement establishing the WTO.

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action;

Orders the applicants to bear, in addition to their own costs, the costs incurred by the Council and the Commission;
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Single Judge)

20 February 2002

Case T-117/01

Marcos Roman Parra

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Promotion — Prior complaint through official channels — Implied rejection — Grounds’

Full text in French II-121

Application for:

annulment of the Commission's decision not to promote the applicant to Grade A 6 in the course of the 2000 promotion procedure.

Held:

The decision of the Commission not to promote Mr Roman Parra to Grade A 6 in the course of the 2000 promotion procedure, as evidenced by the publication in Administrative Notices No 65-2000 of 14 August 2000 of the list of officials promoted to that grade, is annulled. The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

Summary

Officials — Promotion — Complaint by a candidate who has not been promoted — Implied decision rejecting it — Complete absence of statement of grounds — Regularisation during the procedure before the Court — Not permissible

(Staff Regulations, Arts 25, second para., and 90(3))

Although the appointing authority is not obliged to give reasons for a promotion decision, either to the person promoted or to the candidates who have not been promoted, it is obliged to state the grounds for its decision rejecting a complaint lodged pursuant to Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations by a candidate who has not been promoted. Where an implied rejection of the complaint amounts to total absence of a statement of grounds, since no information constituting a statement of grounds of some kind is available to the applicant before his action is brought, that absence cannot be remedied by explanations provided during the proceedings on the action.

(see paras 25, 30-32)

See: 111/86 Delauche v Commission [1987] ECR 5345, para. 13; C-343/87 Culin v Commission [1990] ECR I-225, paras 13 and 15; T-52/90 Volger v Parliament [1992] ECR II-121, para. 40; T-16/94 Benecos v Commission [1995] ECRSC I-A-103 and II-335, para. 36; T-283/97 Thinus v Commission [1999] ECRSCI-A-69 and II-353, paras 78 to 83; T-112/96 and T-115/96 Séché v Commission [1999] ECRSC I-A-115 and II-623, para. 76
Case T-134/01

Hans Fuchs Versandschlachterei KG

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Regulation (EC) No 111/1999 — Regulation (EC) No 1135/1999 — Food-aid to Russia — Invitation to tender for mobilisation — Invitation to tender for transport — Contractual relationship — Arbitration clause — Claim for performance of a contract — Admissibility — Provision of certificates for each means of transport — Default interest’

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), 9 October 2002 II-3912

Summary of the Judgment

The absence of an express contractual categorisation of the acceptance by the Commission of a tenderer's bid to supply food aid in the context of Regulation No 111/1999 laying down general rules for the application of Regulation No 2802/98, does not in itself preclude the possibility that the relationship between the Commission and the successful tenderer may be regarded as contractual in nature. The successful tenderer's bid and its acceptance by the Commission created a legal relationship between the two parties which gave rise to reciprocal rights and obligations between them and satisfies the criteria of a bilateral contract. The existence of such a contractual relationship is confirmed by the existence of the clause, contained in Article 16 of Regulation No 111/1999, according to which the Court of Justice of the European Communities is to be competent to resolve any dispute resulting from the implementation or the nonimplementation or from the interpretation of the rules governing supply operations carried out in accordance with that regulation. (see paras 52-54)

It is generally accepted in the laws of the Member States that a delay in payment involves a loss for which the creditor must be compensated. Similarly, Article 78 of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods provides that if a party does not pay the price or any other sum which is due, the other party is entitled to interest on that sum. Community law recognises an obligation to pay such compensation as a general principle of law. If an ancillary claim is for payment of default interest as flat-rate and abstract compensation, it is not necessary for it to be supported by specific reasons and is, as such, admissible. (see paras 56-57)
Case T-99/01

Mystery Drinks GmbH

v

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

‛Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Earlier national trade mark Mixéry — Application for Community figurative mark MYSTERY — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94’

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), 15 January 2003 II-46

Summary of the Judgment

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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Figurative mark ‘MYSTERY’ and word mark ‘Mixéry’

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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Highly distinctive character of the earlier mark — Assessment criteria

If, in an action brought by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark before the Community courts against a decision given by one of the Boards of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in opposition proceedings brought pursuant to Articles 42 and 43 of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, the Office fails to express any views on either the applicant's claims or on the fate of the contested decision, but rather merely claims that the Court of First Instance should ‘take account of the parties' pleadings’, the forms of order sought by it are inadmissible. However, if the intervener applies for the action to be dismissed, the Court of First Instance is obliged, pursuant to Article 134(4) of the Rules of Procedure, to examine the dispute brought before it. (see paras 14-15)

In opposition proceedings brought by the proprietor of an earlier mark pursuant to Article 8(l)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, the possible high degree of distinctiveness of that mark must be established either in the light of the intrinsic qualities of the mark or owing to the reputation associated with it. The intrinsic qualities of that mark do not result from the mere fact that the distinctiveness of the mark is not reduced by the evocation of a descriptive word and that it is sufficiently original to function as a mark. Likewise, the bare assertion that the mark is ‘fashionable’ or the mere reference to certain advertising activities promoting the mark cannot be held to be sufficient to establish the distinctiveness of the mark resulting from the reputation attached to it. (see para. 34)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber)

26 November 2002

Case T-103/01

Michael Cwik

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Reorganisation of the Commission's administrative structures — Reassignment — Statement of grounds — Interests of the service — Misuse of powers — Administration's duty to have regard for the interests of officials’

Full text in French II-1137

Application for:

first, annulment of the Commission's decision transferring the applicant from the ‘Information, publications and economic documentation’ unit, which became initially the ‘Information: Euro, EMU’ unit and subsequently Unit 4: ‘Communication policy on monetary union’, to the ‘General coordination, human and administrative resources’ unit, which became Unit 1: ‘Coordination; human resources; information and administration’ within the Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs, and, second, damages.

Held:

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

Summary

Officials Actions — Pleas in law — Misuse of powers — Concept — Burden of proof and the taking of evidence Officials — Assignment — Transfer — Principle of equivalence of posts — Scope (Staff Regulations, Art. 7(1)) Officials — Administration's duty to have regard for the interests of officials — Scope Officials — Decision adversely affecting an official — Obligation to state grounds — Scope (Staff Regulations, Art. 25) Officials — Actions — Action for compensation — No illegal act committed by the administration — Dismissal (Staff Regulations, Art. 91)
The rule of consistency between the complaint and the application requires any plea put forward before the Court, if it is to be admissible, to have been raised already in the context of the pre-litigation procedure, so that the administration may be sufficiently precisely aware of the criticisms made against the disputed decision. However, while the statement of the form of order applied for may contain only ‘heads of claim’ based on the same matters as the heads of claim raised in the complaint, the former may none the less be developed before the Court by the submission of pleas and arguments which need not necessarily appear in the complaint but must be closely linked to it.

The lump sum paid in the event of the permanent invalidity of an official, pursuant to Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and Article 12 of the Rules on the Insurance of Officials against the Risk of Accident and of Occupational Disease, and the allowance paid under Article 14 of those rules relate to different forms of harm.

Unlike Articles 73 and 12, which compensate for harm to actual bodily or mental health, in other words for the victim's resulting invalidity, Article 14 compensates an official for any injury or permanent disfigurement which, although not affecting his capacity for work, constitutes a physical defect and has an adverse effect on his social relations. Article 14 is thus intended to compensate for the actual harm, once proven, which the physical defect causes to the victim's social relationships, regardless of the invalidity which that injury or disfigurement might also entail.

Limiting the combined amount of the sums payable under Articles 12 and 14 to the maximum payable under Article 12 would, in certain cases, have the effect of preventing or limiting compensation for the forms of harm covered by Article 14, despite the fact that they are clearly of a different nature. Since it certainly does not appear to be an implicit rule that is obviously to be deduced from the Insurance Rules, but a new rule, and one which is likely to lead to a breach of the principle of equal treatment, it is not permissible.

(see paras 42. 45-46)

See: Opinion of Advocate General La Pergola, C-76/95 Commission v Royale belge [1996] ECR I-5505. point 30
The provisions of Article 5(1) of the Staff Regulations, which require Category A officials to have a university education, seek to provide a general definition of the minimum level required for the officials in that category and do not prevent there being fixed in a competition notice conditions which are more rigorous than those which correspond to the minimum requirements set out therein.

The fact that the qualifications submitted by candidates for a competition are evaluated according to the law of the Member State in which they pursued their studies does not, in itself, entail any difference in treatment between candidates who are nationals of different Member States.

Thus, where a notice of competition for a Category A post requires candidates, in order to be admitted to the competition, to have a university degree providing access to a doctorate, the exclusion of candidates holding a university degree awarded in a Member State which, although requiring three years of study, does not confer that entitlement, does not constitute discrimination with regard to those with degrees awarded in other Member States which, according to the law of those States, allow access to a doctorate even though they were obtained after the same number of years study.

Moreover, in the light of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations, which provides that the aim of all recruitment is to secure for the institution the services of officials of the highest standard of ability, the requirement of a degree providing access to a doctorate cannot be considered arbitrary.

(see paras 31-36)

See: T-16/90 Panagiotopoulou v Parliament [1992] ECR II-89, para 55; T-299/97 Alonso Morales v Commission [1999] ECRSC I-A-249 and II-1227
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber)

21 October 2003

Case T-302/01

Gerhard Birkhoff

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Article 2(5) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Cancellation of a dependent child allowance for a child of full age suffering from a serious illness or disability — Legitimate expectations’

Full text in Italian II-1185

Application for:

annulment of the decision of the appointing authority of 26 September 2001 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant against the decision of the Commission of 4 July 2001 by which it cancelled payment to the applicant of the dependent child allowance in respect of his daughter and of the decision of 4 July 2001 and, secondly, a claim for compensation for material and nonmaterial damage.

Held:

The decision of the Commission of 4 July 2001 cancelling, with effect from 1 July 2001, payment of the dependent child allowance in respect of the applicant's daughter who has reached majority is annulled. There is no need to adjudicate on the claim for compensation for the damage arising from the loss of cover in respect of the applicant's daughter by the EC Sickness Insurance Fund, nor on the part of the claim seeking compensation for the tax consequences of the contested decision. The remainder of the claim for compensation is dismissed. The Commission is ordered to pay two thirds of the applicant's costs, including those incurred in the proceedings for interim relief in the present case.

Summary

Officials — Appeals — Action against the decision rejecting a complaint — Admissibility (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) Officials — Remuneration — Family allowances — Dependent child allowance — Right to extend the allowance irrespective of age if the child is incapable of earning a livelihood — Obligation for the administration to examine the particular circumstances of each case without being able to resort to a predetermined objective test (Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 2(5)) Officials — Staff Regulations — Application — Joint decision taken by the Heads of Administration — Not binding on the appointing authority (Staff Regulations, Art. 110, third para.)
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

1. Officials – Social security – Sickness insurance – Medical expenses – Treatment requiring prior authorisation – Grounds for refusing reimbursement of costs incurred – No application for prior authorisation, or application not submitted properly

(Rules on sickness insurance, Art. 11(1)(c))

2. Officials – Social security – Sickness insurance – Decision rejecting a request for prior authorisation for a surgical procedure – Refusal on the ground of the exclusively cosmetic nature attributed to the operation – Incorrect appraisal by the competent authority

(Rules on sickness insurance, Annex I, Section II(5))

3. Officials – Actions – Subject-matter – Unlimited jurisdiction – Application for reimbursement of medical expenses under the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme – Admissibility

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91(1))

4. Officials – Actions – Prior administrative complaint – Requirement that subject-matter and grounds be the same – Application for reimbursement of medical expenses relating to a treatment adjoined to an action against the refusal to grant prior authorisation for that treatment – Admissibility

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals – No discretion for the institution – Mere infringement of Community law sufficient (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 78-82)

2. Actions for damages – World Trade Organisation – Not possible to rely on the WTO Agreements in order to contest the lawfulness of a Community act – Exceptions – Community measure intended to implement a WTO Agreement or expressly and specifically referring thereto – Community regime governing the import of bananas – Incompatibility with the WTO rules established by the Dispute Settlement Body of the WTO – Judicial review of the lawfulness of that regime under the WTO rules – Excluded (Art. 288, second para., EC; Council Regulations Nos 404/93 and 1637/98; Commission Regulation No 2362/98) (see paras 103, 106-108)

3. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – No unlawful conduct on the part of the Community institutions – Real damage, causal link and unusual and special damage – Cumulative requirements (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see para. 153)

4. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Retention of a Community banana import regime incompatible with the WTO Agreements – Damage arising from the adoption of a retaliatory measure by the United States authorities – Causal link (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 171-172, 177-179, 183)

5. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – No unlawful conduct on the part of the Community institutions – Damage arising from the incompatibility of the Community regime governing the import of bananas with the WTO Agreements – Unusual damage – None – Liability of the Community – Excluded (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 191-192, 194, 199, 201)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for compensation in respect of the damage allegedly caused by the levying by the United States of America of increased customs duty on the applicants’ imports of spectacle cases, as authorised by the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), following a finding that the Community regime governing the import of bananas was incompatible with the agreements and understandings annexed to the Agreement establishing the WTO.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay those of the Council and the Commission.
Joined Cases T-324/01 and T-110/02





Axions SA and Christian Belce

v

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





«(Community trade mark – Three-dimensional marks – Brown cigar shape and gold ingot shape – Absolute grounds for refusal – Distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)»

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), 30 April 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusing registration – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Assessment of the distinctiveness of a mark – Whether factors which are not the subject of the registration may be taken into account – Not included

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b))

2.. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Three-dimensional mark – Shape of a brown cigar and shape of a gold ingot

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b))

1.

2.
Case T-128/01





DaimlerChrysler Corporation

v

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





«(Community trade mark – Figurative mark – Representation of a vehicle grille – Absolute ground for refusal – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Mark devoid of any distinctive character)»

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

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeals before the Community Courts – Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance – Review of the facts in the light of evidence adduced before it for the first time – Not included

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 135(4); Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63)

2.. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Figurative mark comprising a representation of a vehicle grille

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b))

1.

2.
Joined Cases T-309/01 and T-239/02





Peter Biegi Nahrungsmittel GmbH

and Commonfood Handelsgesellschaft für Agrar-Produkte mbH



v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Subsequent accounting for import duties – Conditions – Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 2193/92 – Detectable error – Duty of care – Regulation (EC) No 774/94 – Combined nomenclature – WTO tariff quotas)»

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

Summary of the Judgment