ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto — Portugal) — ING Luxembourg SA v VX

(Case C-346/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters - Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents - Regulation (CE) No 1393/2007 - Article 8 - Informing the addressee, by means of the standard form in Annex II to that regulation, of his or her right to refuse to accept a judicial document which is not written in or accompanied by a translation into a language which the addressee understands or into the official language or one of the official languages of the Member State addressed - Failure to use the standard form - Consequences)

(2022/C 368/08)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação do Porto

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: ING Luxembourg SA

Respondent: VX

Operative part of the order

1. Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (‘service of documents’), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000, must be interpreted as requiring that the addressee of a judicial document to be served in another Member State be informed in all circumstances, by means of the standard form in Annex II to that Regulation, of his or her right to refuse to accept the document, including where it is written in or accompanied by a translation into a language which the addressee understands or into the official language or one of the official languages of the place where service is to be effected.

2. Regulation No 1393/2007 is to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that the service of a judicial document in another Member State is invalid where that service has been effected without the addressee of that document having been informed, by means of the standard form set out in Annex II to that regulation, of his or her right to refuse to accept the document if it is not written in or accompanied by a translation into one of the languages referred to in Article 8(1) of that Regulation, irrespective of whether or not those national rules establish a particular period within which the addressee must lodge a plea of invalidity of service.

(1) OJ C 382, 20.9.2021.
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy — Śródmieścia w Warszawie — Poland) — TD, SD v mBank S.A.

(Case C-138/22) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Mortgage loan agreement indexed to a foreign currency - Unfair terms - Invalidity of the contract on account of the inclusion of unfair or unlawful terms - Choice of the consumer - Interpretation of national law - Clear lack of jurisdiction)

(2023/C 35/23)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy — Śródmieścia w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: TD, SD

Defendant: mBank S.A.

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy — Śródmieścia w Warszawie (District Court of Warsaw-Śródmieście, Warsaw, Poland) by decision of 18 January 2022.

(1) Date lodged: 25.2.2022.
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Opolu — Poland) — VP

(Case C-188/22) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 - Taking of evidence - Written evidence of a person residing in a Member State other than the Member State of the court having jurisdiction - Possibility of having recourse to the means of taking evidence provided for by national law and not to that provided for by that regulation)

(2022/C 408/27)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Opolu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VP

Defendant: KS represented by AS

Operative part of the order

Articles 1 and 17 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a court of a Member State wishing to take evidence from a person residing in another Member State is not necessarily obliged, in order to carry out such an act of investigation, to use methods of taking evidence provided for by that regulation, but may use the written statement of that person, in accordance with the law of the Member State to which that court belongs, and to do so without obtaining the authorisation of the central body or competent authority of the requested Member State, within the meaning of Article 3 of that regulation.

(1) Date lodged: 11.3.2022.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 123/14

Request for an opinion submitted by the Commission of the European Communities pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU

(Opinion 1/12)

2013/C 123/23

Language of the case: all the official languages

Applicant

Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Hermes and H. Krämer, Agents)

The President of the Court has ordered that Opinion 1/12 be removed from the register.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 211/2

Opinion of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 30 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities

(Opinion 1/08) (1)

(Opinion pursuant to Article 300(6) EC - General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) - Schedules of specific commitments - Conclusion of agreements on the grant of compensation for modification and withdrawal of certain commitments following the accession of new Member States to the European Union - Shared competence - Legal bases - Common commercial policy - Common transport policy)

2011/C 211/02

Language of the case: all the official languages

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities

Re:

Request for an Opinion — World Trade Organisation (WTO) — General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) — Schedules of specific commitments concerning market access and the grant of national treatment — Agreements relating to the modification and withdrawal of specific commitments following the accession of new Member States to the European Union and to the compensatory adjustments for WTO members affected by that modification and withdrawal — Nature of the Community’s competence (exclusive or shared) to conclude such agreements and appropriate legal bases — Scope of the common commercial policy and the common transport policy respectively

Operative part

1. The conclusion of the agreements with the affected members of the World Trade Organisation, pursuant to Article XXI of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), as described in the request for an Opinion, falls within the sphere of shared competence of the European Community and the Member States.

2. The Community act concluding the abovementioned agreements must be based both on Article 133(1), (5) and (6), second subparagraph, EC and on Articles 71 EC and 80(2) EC, in conjunction with Article 300(2) and (3), first subparagraph, EC.

(1) OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.
Official Journal of the European Union

Opinion of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 June 2022 — Kingdom of Belgium

(Opinion C-1/20) (1)

(Opinion pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU - Request for an Opinion - Draft modernised Energy Charter Treaty - Article 26 - Dispute settlement mechanism - Admissibility)

(2022/C 294/02)

Language of the case: all the official languages

Applicant

Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: S. Baeyens, J.-C. Halleux, C. Pochet and M. Van Regemorter, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the Opinion

The request for an Opinion introduced by the Kingdom of Belgium, on 2 December 2020, is inadmissible.

(1) OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.
Keywords

Operative part



Keywords

++++

Procedure - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Calculation

( Rules of Procedure, Arts 80(1 ) and 81(1 ) )

Operative part

( 1 ) Dismisses the application as inadmissible;

( 2 ) Orders the applicant to pay the costs, including those of the intervener .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . Officials - Actions - Defendant - Institution to which the applicant is attached

( Staff Regulations, Arts 2 and 91 )

2 . Officials - Actions - Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance - Limits

( EEC Treaty, Art . 179 )

Summary

1 . The appointing authority acts in the name of the institution which designated it, so that acts concerning the legal position of officials and which may adversely affect them must be attributed to the institution to which they are attached and any appeal must be brought against the institution from which the act having an adverse effect emanated .

2 . In the context of an action brought under Article 179 of the Treaty, the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction in disputes between the Community and its servants only within the limits and under the conditions laid down in the Staff Regulations or the Conditions of Employment applicable to Other Servants .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . Officials - Recruitment - Competition - Competition based on qualifications and tests - Admission requirements - Qualifications of a candidate assessed differently in successive competitions - Whether permissible - Conditions

( Staff Regulations, Annex III, Art . 5 )

2 . Officials - Actions - Grounds - Insufficient statement of reasons - Inquiry by the Court of its own motion

3 . Officials - Recruitment - Competition - Selection board - Drawing up of a reasoned report - Purpose

( Staff Regulations, Annex III, Art . 5, sixth paragraph )

4 . Officials - Recruitment - Competition - Admission to the tests refused - Statement of reasons - Obligation - Scope

( Staff Regulations, Annex III, Art . 5 )

5 . Officials - Recruitment - Competition - Competition based on qualifications and tests - Relevant experience of candidate - Discretion of the selection board - Review by the Court - Limits

Summary

1 . If successive notices of competition have laid down admission requirements which are formulated in identical terms, a candidate cannot form the subject of a less favourable appraisal than that made of him in a previous competition, unless the statement of reasons on which that decision is based clearly justifies such a difference of appraisal, a fortiori where the requirements of the previous competition were more demanding than those of the competition at issue .

2 . The Court is bound to inquire of its own motion whether the defendant institution satisfied its obligation to state the reasons on which the contested decision was based .

3 . The obligation imposed on selection boards by the sixth paragraph of Article 5 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations to draw up a reasoned report accompanying the list of suitable candidates which is addressed to the appointing authority is designed to enable the appointing authority to exercise its discretion with due judgment and to assess whether the selection board' s decisions were free from irregularity or whether, owing to some irregularity committed by the board, it should disregard the results of the competition and recommence the whole procedure . To that end, the report must set out both the general criteria employed by the board and the manner in which they were applied to the candidates .

4 . The selection board is required to indicate precisely which conditions in the notice of competition were considered not to have been satisfied by the candidate . However, in view of the practical difficulties posed by a competition in which there is a large number of candidates, the selection board may initially notify candidates merely of the criteria and of the result of the selection process and provide individual explanations at a later stage to those candidates who expressly ask for an explanation .

5 . Where the appraisal of a candidate' s experience involves an appraisal falling within the specific competence of the members of the selection board, the Court must confine itself to examining whether the exercise of that power was vitiated by a manifest error of judgment .
Keywords

Operative part



Keywords

++++

1. Competition ° Administrative procedure ° Rules on the use of languages ° Statement of objections and final decision ° Drawn up in the language of the case ° Annexes to the statement of objections ° To be made available in their original language

(Council Regulation No 1, Art. 3, Council Regulation No 17, Art. 19(1) and (2) and Commission Regulation No 99/63, Art. 2(1))

2. Competition ° Administrative procedure ° Commission decision establishing an infringement ° Exclusion of evidence not disclosed to the addressee undertaking

(EEC Treaty, Art. 85(1))

3. Competition ° Agreements, decisions and concerted practices ° Concerted practice ° Meaning ° Exchange of information under a cartel agreement

(EEC Treaty, Art. 85(1))

4. Competition ° Agreements, decisions and concerted practices ° Effect on trade between Member States ° Criteria

(EEC Treaty, Art. 85(1))

5. Competition ° Community rules ° Application ° Anti-competitive conduct fostered by the authorities of a Member State ° Not relevant

(EEC Treaty, Arts 85 and 86)

6. Community law ° Principles ° Force majeure ° Meaning

7. Competition ° Community rules ° Infringement ° Failure by the Commission to take action regarding other infringements ° Does not constitute justification

(EEC Treaty, Arts 85, 86 and 155)

8. Competition ° Fines ° Criteria for calculation which the Commission intends applying ° Indication thereof during administrative procedure ° No obligation to that effect ° Desirability of disclosing the method of calculating the fine

(Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15)

9. Competition ° Fines ° Amount ° Community penalties and penalties imposed by the authorities of a Member State for infringement of domestic competition law ° Imposition of both ° Permissible ° Commission' s obligation to take account of a national penalty imposed in respect of the same conduct

(Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15)

Operative part

hereby:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 16 October 1990. - Christian Brumter v Council of the European Communities. - Official - Promotion of an official on secondment - Consideration of comparative merits - Institution of a consultative procedure - Appointing authority's discretion. - Case T-128/89.



European Court reports 1990 Page II-00545

Pub.RJ Page Pub somm



Summary

Parties

Operative part



Keywords

++++

1 . Officials - Promotion - Consideration of comparative merits - Decision of an internal nature providing that a consultative procedure not prescribed by the Staff Regulations should take place - Compulsory nature of the consultation

( Staff Regulations of Officials, Art . 45 )

2 . Officials - Promotion - Administration' s discretion - Judicial review - Limits

( Staff Regulations of Officials, Art . 45 )

3 . Officials - Actions - Submissions - Misuse of powers - Concept

Summary

1 . When, by a decision of an internal nature, the appointing authority voluntarily institutes a compulsory consultative procedure which is not prescribed by the Staff Regulations, it is obliged to observe that procedure, which cannot be regarded as having no legal significance ( see the judgment in Case 282/81 Ragusa v Commission [1983] ECR 1245 ).

2 . The appointing authority has wide discretion as regards promotions, and judicial review must be restricted to examining whether, regard being had to the various considerations which may have influenced the administration in making its assessment, the latter has remained within reasonable limits and has not used its power in a manifestly incorrect way ( see the judgment in Case 111/86 Delauche v Commission [1987] ECR 5345 ).

3 . It is established case-law that a decision is vitiated by a misuse of powers only if it appears, on the basis of objective, relevant and consistent evidence, to have been taken for purposes other than those stated .

Parties

In Case T-128/89

Christian Brumter, a former official of the Council, an official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Pierre Spitzer, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue,

applicant,

v

Council of the European Communities, represented by Gijs Peeters, Adviser in its Legal Department, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Joerg Kaeser, Manager of the Legal Directorate of the European Investment Bank, 100 Boulevard Konrad Adenauer,

defendant,

APPLICATION for the annulment of the decision of 25 November 1988 of the Secretary General of the Council of the European Communities promoting eight officials to Grade A5,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ( Fourth Chamber ),

composed of D.A.O . Edward, President, R . Schintgen and R . García-Valdecasas, Judges,

( The grounds of the judgment are not reproduced )

Operative part

hereby :

1 . Dismisses the application;

2 . Orders the parties to bear their own costs .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Officials - Social security - Sickness insurance - Medical expenses - Reimbursement ceilings - Permissibility - Conditions

(Staff Regulations, Art. 72; Rules on Sickness Insurance for Officials, Art. 8)

2. Officials - Action - Application for assessment of the legality of a provision, in the absence of an act adversely affecting the applicant - Inadmissibility

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

3. Officials - Social security - Sickness insurance - Medical expenses - Reimbursement - Duties of the institutions - Compliance with the principle of equal treatment

(Staff Regulations, Art. 72)

Summary

1. Article 72 of the Staff Regulations does not confer on persons entitled to benefit under the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme the right to obtain reimbursement of 80% or 85% of the expenses incurred, according to the type of services provided. Those rates fix the maximum reimbursable amount. They are not minimum rates and do not require the institutions to make reimbursements of the stated percentages to the persons concerned in all cases.

The fixing of upper limits of reimbursement by the implementing provisions, in order to safeguard the sickness insurance scheme' s financial balance, does not constitute an infringement of Article 72 of the Staff Regulations, since by setting those limits the Community institutions observe the principle of social insurance cover underlying that article.

The upper limits fixed by joint agreement of the institutions are not unlawful merely by reason of the fact that some reimbursements to which they apply are made at rates much lower than those laid down in Article 72 of the Staff Regulations. The Staff Regulations and the Insurance Rules, by laying down the option, for the person concerned, to request a special reimbursement where the portion of expenses not reimbursed represents a substantial financial burden, presuppose ipso facto that, in certain cases, medical expenses will not be reimbursed at a rate of 80% or 85%.

2. In the context of an action brought under Article 91 of the Staff Regulations, the Court has jurisdiction only to review the legality of an act adversely affecting the applicant, and cannot, in the absence of an individual measure, rule in the abstract on the legality of a provision of a general nature.

3. The principle of equal treatment requires the Community institutions to act in order to remedy situations involving inequality affecting the beneficiaries of the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme who, in some Member States, bear the costs of higher medical expenses.

However, the institutions are cannot be required to increase the reimbursements allowed to the officials concerned forthwith, especially since the financial equilibrium of the Scheme must be safeguarded. They are under a duty, on the other hand, to act in concert, with all due diligence, in order to undertake an appropriate revision of the Rules on Sickness Insurance, which ensures compliance with the principle of equal treatment.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Officials - Reports procedure - Staff report - Review by the Court - Limits

(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)

2. Officials - Organization of departments - Assignment of staff to posts - Administration' s power of assessment - Limits - Interest of the service - Compliance with principle of equivalence of posts - Reassignment - Measure of internal organization - Duty to state grounds and to consult the person concerned beforehand - None

(Staff Regulations, Art. 7(1) )

Summary

1. The marks awarded to an official by his hierarchical superiors in a staff report constitute an assessment made by the assessors as a matter of their personal judgment alone and it is not for the Court to substitute its own assessment.

2. The institutions have a wide discretion to organize their departments to suit the tasks entrusted to them and to assign the staff available to them in the light of such tasks on condition, however, that the staff are assigned in the interest of the service and in conformity with the principle of the equivalence of posts.

A decision to assign an official to new duties which satisfies those two conditions and does not adversely affect his position under the Staff Regulations is merely a measure of internal organization. The administration is, therefore, neither under a duty to state the grounds on which such a decision is based nor to give the official concerned a prior hearing.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Officials ° Status of official ° Conditions for acquiring such status not satisfied in the absence of a regular appointment ° Inapplicability of the provisions of the Staff Regulations governing probationary periods

Summary

Since the legal tie which binds the official to the administration is governed by the Staff Regulations and not by contract, the appointment and establishment of an official can take place only in the manner and subject to the conditions provided for by the Staff Regulations.

According to Article 3 of the Staff Regulations, the appointment of an official necessarily has its origin in a unilateral instrument of the appointing authority stating the date on which the appointment takes effect and the post to which the official is appointed.

The provisions of the Staff Regulations applicable to probationary periods cannot be relied upon in the absence of a decision of appointment in good and due form issued by the competent appointing authority.