ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Officials ° Decision adversely affecting an official ° Duty to state reasons ° Subject-matter

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 25)

2. Officials ° Remuneration ° Family allowances ° National allowances ° Rule against overlapping ° Deductions discontinued on account of overlapping ° Conditions ° Improper deductions ° Right to reimbursement ° Scope

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 67(2); Annex VII, Art. 2)

Summary

1. The purpose of the requirement that a decision should state the reasons on which it is based is to enable the Community judicature to review the legality of the contested decision and provide the person concerned with sufficient details to enable him to ascertain whether the decision is well founded or whether it is vitiated by an error allowing its legality to be contested.

Those requirements are satisfied by a decision addressed by the administration to an official under cover of a letter which refers to a "change in administrative practice", which does not have retroactive effect, in limiting reimbursement of the family allowances deducted from the official' s pay under Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations as from the date on which "the new practice was introduced".

2. It is for the institutions to determine as soon as possible, with a view to the possible application of the rule against overlapping contained in Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations, whether or not the national family allowances declared by officials or other servants in pursuance of the obligation which it lays down and the allowances paid under Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations are of like nature.

The institutions may not discontinue making the deductions effected in pursuance of the rule against overlapping laid down in Article 67(2), except in two situations: the first is where there is an objective change in the nature of the family allowances paid from other sources as a result, in particular, of the national legislation under which they are paid being amended; the second is where the institution, in discharging the duty imposed on it to examine whether or not those allowances constitute allowances of like nature, finds that it has failed correctly to classify, in accordance with objective, uniformly applicable criteria, the national allowances declared by the person concerned and has thus improperly deducted those allowances. In the latter case, the compulsory decision to discontinue the application of Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations takes effect when the improper deduction was first made.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Pleas in law - Error of fact underlying a decision applying the competition rules - Annulment of the decision

(EC Treaty, Art. 85; Council Regulation No 1017/68, Art. 5)

Summary

A decision which applies the competition rules to an agreement between undertakings in the rail transport sector must be annulled if the legal reasoning applied by the Commission in assessing the anti-competitive effects of that agreement and in examining it in the light of Article 85(3) of the Treaty, Article 5 of Regulation No 1017/68 applying the rules of competition to transport by rail, road and inland waterways and Article 53(3) of the Agreement on the European Economic Area is based on an error of fact.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Actions for annulment - Time-limits - Point from which time starts to run - Date of publication - Date on which the measure came to the applicant's knowledge - Subsidiary criterion

(EC Treaty, Art. 93(2) (now Art. 88(2) EC) and Art. 173, fifth para. (now, after amendment, Art. 230, fifth para., EC))

2 State aid - Prohibited - Derogations - Aid that may be considered compatible with the common market - Discretion of the Commission - Judicial review - Limits - Legality to be assessed on the basis of the elements of fact and of law existing at the time when the decision was adopted

(EC Treaty, Art. 92(3) (now, after amendment, Art. 87(3) EC) and Art. 173 (now, after amendment, Art. 230 EC))

3 State aid - Prohibited - Derogations - Aid that may be considered compatible with the common market - Aid for restructuring an undertaking in difficulty - Assessment as to whether planned restructuring measures are adequate

Summary

1 According to the actual wording of the fifth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 230 EC), the criterion of the day on which a measure came to the knowledge of an applicant, as the starting point for the period prescribed for instituting proceedings, is subsidiary to the criteria of publication or notification of the measure.

Since the Commission has committed itself to publishing in the Official Journal of the European Communities the complete text of decisions granting conditional authorisation for State aid adopted at the end of the procedure provided for by Article 93(2) of the Treaty (now Article 88(2) EC), time for the purposes of bringing proceedings starts to run as from the date of publication of the decision.

2 The Commission enjoys a broad discretion in the application of Article 92(3) of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(3) EC). Since that discretion involves complex economic and social appraisals, the Court must, in reviewing a decision adopted in such a context, confine its review to determining whether the Commission complied with the rules governing procedure and the statement of reasons, whether the facts on which the contested finding was based are accurately stated and whether there has been any manifest error of assessment or any misuse of powers. In particular, it is not for the Court to substitute its own economic assessment for that of the Commission.

In the context of an action for annulment under Article 173 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 230 EC), the legality of a Community measure falls to be assessed on the basis of the elements of fact and of law existing at the time when the measure was adopted. In particular, the complex assessments made by the Commission must be examined solely on the basis of the information available to it at the time when those assessments were made.

3 The question whether or not measures for restructuring an undertaking in difficulty are adequate depends above all on the undertaking's individual situation.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Preliminary rulings - Assessment of validity - Declaration that a regulation is invalid - Effects - Application by analogy of Article 176 of the Treaty (now Article 233 EC) - Obligations of the Community institutions - Scope - Compensation for damage caused by the illegality found - Covered

(EC Treaty, Arts 176, 177 and 215, second para. (now Arts 233 EC, 234 EC and 288, second para., EC)

Summary

$$When, in proceedings under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC), the Court of Justice rules that an act adopted by the Community legislature is invalid, its decision has the legal effect of requiring the competent Community institutions to adopt the measures necessary to remedy that illegality. They must therefore take the measures necessary to comply with that judgment in the same way as they must, under Article 176 of the Treaty (now Article 233 EC), in the case of a judgment annulling a measure or declaring that the failure of a Community institution to act is unlawful. When a Community measure is held to be invalid by a preliminary ruling, the obligation laid down by Article 176 of the Treaty applies by analogy.

The obligation on the institutions to take the measures necessary to remedy illegalities found by the Community judicature requires them not only to adopt the essential legislative or administrative measures but also to make good damage which has resulted from the unlawful act, subject to fulfilment of the conditions laid down in the second paragraph of Article 215 of the Treaty (now the second paragraph of Article 288 EC) concerning the presence of fault, harm and a causal link.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Procedure - Introduction of new pleas in law in the course of proceedings - Conditions - New pleas - Amplification of an existing plea

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 44(1)(c) and 48(2))

2. Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Bananas - Import arrangements - Tariff quota - Transitional measures intended to assist the transition to the Community arrangements - Conditions - Difficulties due to the transition to the common organisation of the market - Application by the Commission

(Council Regulation No 404/93, Art. 30)

3. Actions for annulment - Contested measure - Assessment of legality on the basis of the information available at the time when the measure was adopted

(EC Treaty, Art. 173 (now, after amendment, Art. 230 EC))

Summary

1. It follows from Article 44(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure that the application initiating proceedings must contain, inter alia, a summary of the pleas in law relied on, and that new pleas in law may not be introduced in the course of proceedings unless they are based on matters of law or of fact which come to light in the course of the procedure. However, a plea which may be regarded as amplifying a plea put forward previously, whether directly or by implication, in the original application, and which is closely connected therewith, will be declared admissible.

( see para. 39 )

2. Article 30 of Regulation No 404/93 on the common organisation of the market in bananas empowers the Commission to take transitional measures intended to deal with disturbances in the internal market brought about by the replacement of the various national arrangements by the common organisation of the market and having as their purpose to resolve difficulties encountered by traders following the establishment of the common organisation of the market but originating in the state of national markets prior to the entry into force of Regulation No 404/93. The Commission must in that regard also take into account the situation of traders who, under national legislation in force prior to Regulation No 404/93, took certain action without being able to foresee the consequences of such action after establishment of the common organisation of the market. The Commission applied that article, which is to be interpreted restrictively as a derogation from the general arrangements introduced by Regulation No 404/93, reasonably in taking the view that it was only required to make compensation for the costs which the trader concerned had to incur to adapt to the new legal conditions resulting from that regulation.

( see paras 66-67, 70, 79 )

3. In the context of an action for annulment under Article 173 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 230 EC) the legality of the contested measure falls to be assessed on the basis of the elements of fact and of law existing at the time when the measure was adopted.

( see para. 97 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for annulment - Decision of the Commission involving an appraisal of complex economic matters - Judicial review - Limits - Respect for the rights guaranteed in administrative procedures

(EC Treaty, Art. 173 (now, after amendment, Art. 230 EC))

2. Competition - Administrative procedure - Investigation of complaints - Duties of the Commission

(Council Regulation No 17, Art. 3; Commission Regulation No 99/63, Art. 6)

3. Actions for annulment - Judgment annulling a measure - Effects

(EC Treaty, Art. 176 (now Art. 233 EC))

Summary

1. Judicial review of Commission measures involving an appraisal of complex economic matters must be limited to verifying whether the relevant rules on procedure and on the statement of reasons have been complied with, whether the facts have been accurately stated and whether there has been any manifest error of assessment or a misuse of powers. Where the Commission has a power of assessment in order to carry out its duties, respect for the rights guaranteed by the Community legal order in administrative procedures is of even more fundamental importance. Those guarantees include, in particular, the duty of the competent institution to examine carefully and impartially all the relevant aspects of the individual case.

( see paras 53-54 )

2. In the context of investigating applications submitted to the Commission pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation No 17, although the Commission cannot be compelled to conduct an investigation, the procedural safeguards provided for by Article 3 of Regulation No 17 and Article 6 of Regulation No 99/63 oblige it nevertheless to examine carefully the factual and legal particulars brought to its notice by the complainant in order to decide whether they disclose conduct of such a kind as to distort competition in the common market and affect trade between the Member States.

Although the Commission is not obliged to investigate each of the complaints lodged with it, in contrast, once it decides to proceed with an investigation, it must, in the absence of a duly substantiated statement of reasons, conduct it with the requisite care, seriousness and diligence for it to be able to assess with full knowledge of the case the factual and legal particulars submitted for its appraisal by the complainants.

( see paras 55-56 )

3. In order to comply with a judgment annulling a measure and to implement it fully, the institution responsible for the annulled measure is required to observe not only the operative part of the judgment but also to take full account of the grounds which led to the judgment and constitute its essential basis, inasmuch as they are necessary to determine the exact meaning of what is stated in the operative part. It is those grounds which, on the one hand, identify the precise provision held to be unlawful and, on the other, indicate the specific reasons which underlie the finding of illegality contained in the operative part and which the institution concerned must take into account when replacing the annulled measure.

( see para. 101 )
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Single Judge)

13 April 2000

Case T-18/98

Peter Reichert

v

European Parliament

‛Officials — Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Expatriation allowance — Place of employment’

Full text in German II-309

Application for:

annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of 21 October 1997 on payment of the expatriation allowance provided for in Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities.

Held:

The application is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.

Summary

Officials — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Purpose — Conditions of payment — Cumulative conditions

(Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 4(1) (a))

In accordance with Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, in order for the expatriation allowance to be paid, the official must have neither habitually resided nor habitually carried on his main occupation in the country of the place of employment during the five years ending six months before he entered the service. Where one of those conditions is not satisfied, the expatriation allowance cannot be paid. The purpose of the allowance is to compensate officials for the extra expense and inconvenience of taking up employment with the Communities and being thereby obliged to change their residence and move to the country of employment and to integrate themselves in their new environment. The reason why that provision, for the purpose of determining cases of expatriation, is based on the concepts of the habitual residence and main occupation of the official on the territory of the State of employment during a certain reference period is in order to lay down simple, objective criteria.

(see paras 18, 19 and 25)

See: 188/83 Witte v Parliament [1984] ECR 3465, para. 8; T-18/91 Costacurta Gelabert v Commission [1992] ECR II-1655, para. 42
Keywords



Keywords

Association of the overseas countries and territories - Fixing of a quota for sugar imports under the ACP/OCT cumulation of origin rules - Commission decision refusing to issue import licences - Pleas of illegality raised against Decision 97/803 and Regulation No 2553/97 declared unfounded - Dismissal of the application

(Commission Regulation No 2553/97; Council Decision 97/803)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Common Customs Tariff - Tariff headings - Machines designed to transmit data within local area computer networks - Machines not performing a specific function within the meaning of Note 5(E) to Chapter 84 of the Combined Nomenclature - Classification in heading 8471 of the Combined Nomenclature

Summary

$$Note 5(E) to Chapter 84 of the Combined Nomenclature, contained in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Regulations Nos 3009/95 and 1734/96, according to which machines performing a specific function other than data processing and incorporating or working in conjunction with an automatic data-processing machine are to be classified in the headings appropriate to their respective functions or, failing that, in residual headings, implies that the first machine is intended to perform a specific function, and that it is able to do so, but that the fact that it is connected to an automatic data-processing machine offers a certain advantage. However, machines which are designed solely for automatic data-processing machines, which are directly connected to the latter and of which the function is to supply and accept data in a form which those machines can use cannot be regarded as performing a specific function. Such machines are comparable with any other medium whereby an automatic data-processing machine accepts or delivers data in the sense that they have no function which they would be capable of performing without the assistance of such a machine. In those circumstances, the transmission of data within a data-processing system cannot be regarded as a specific function.

Since the products in question meet the conditions relating to units laid down in Note 5(B) to Chapter 84 of the Combined Nomenclature, they must be classified under heading 8471 as units of automatic data-processing machines.

( see paras 33, 39-41, 46 )
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 17 March 2005 − Ettlin Gesellschaft für Spinnerei und Weberei and Others v Council

(Case T-195/98)

Dumping – Failure by the Council to adopt a Commission proposal for a regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty – Absence of simple majority necessary for the adoption of a regulation – Obligation to state reasons

1. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Definition – Measures producing binding legal effects – Failure to adopt a proposal for regulation imposing an anti‑dumping duty – Effect of the regulatory nature of the anti‑dumping procedure – None (Art. 230 EC; Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 6(9)) (see paras 31-33)

2. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Failure to adopt a proposal for regulation imposing a definitive anti‑dumping duty (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 384/96) (see para. 36)

Re:

ACTION for the annulment of the Council’s decision of 5 October 1998 rejecting the Commission’s proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) imposing a definitive anti‑dumping duty on imports of certain unbleached cotton fabrics originating in the People’s Republic of China, Egypt, India, Indonesia and Pakistan, definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/98 of 7 April 1998 (OJ 1998 L 111, p. 19) and terminating the anti-dumping proceeding in respect of imports of these fabrics originating in Turkey, submitted by the Commission of the European Communities on 21 September 1998 (document COM(1998) 540 final)

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the Council’s decision of 5 October 1998 rejecting the Commission’s proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain unbleached cotton fabrics originating in the People’s Republic of China, Egypt, India, Indonesia and Pakistan, definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 773/98 (OJ 1998 L 111, p. 19) and terminating the anti-dumping proceeding in respect of imports of these fabrics originating in Turkey, submitted by the Commission of the European Communities on 21 September 1998 (document COM(1998) 540 final);

2. Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber)

13 July 2000

Case T-87/99

Michel Hendrickx

v

European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP)

‛Officials — Non-renewal of contract — Rejection of applications for two posts — Admissibility — Competence — Legality of vacancy notices — Recruitment procedure’

Full text in French II-679

Application for:

annulment of the decision of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training of 3 June 1998 rejecting the applications submitted by the applicant for the Grade A 7/A 5 post of Head of General Support Services (Administration) and the Grade A 5/A 4 post of Head of Administration and refusing to renew the applicant's contract as a member of the temporary staff beyond 30 June 1998.

Held:

Application inadmissible in so far as it concerns the decision not to renew the applicant's contract as a member of the temporary staff beyond 30 June 1998. Contested decision annulled in so far as it rejects the application submitted by the applicant for the post of Head of Administration. Remainder of the application dismissed. Cedefop ordered to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs of the applicant. Applicant ordered to bear half of his own costs.

Summary
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Single Judge)

14 December 2000

Case T-352/99

M

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Sick leave — Leave regarded as unauthorised — Deduction from annual leave entitlement — Articles 59 and 60 of the Staff Regulations — Refusal of medical certificate — Absence of fewer than 4 days — Effects of medical examination’

Full text in French II-1367

Application for:

annulment of the Commission's decision of 9 February 1999 considering the applicant's absences from 8 to 17 December 1998 and of 25 January 1999 to have been unauthorised and deducting them from annual leave entitlement.

Held:

the Commission's decision of 9 February 1999 considering the applicant's absences from 8 to 17 December 1998 and of 25 January 1999 to have been unauthorised and deducting them from annual leave entitlement is annulled. The Commission is to bear all the costs.

Summary

Officials — Sick leave — Proof of illness — Production of a medical certificate — Certificate drawn up a posteriori — Admissible in certain circumstances (Staff Regulations, Arts 59 and 90) Officials — Sick leave — Proof of illness — Obligation to produce a certificate for an absence of fewer than 4 days — None (Staff Regulations, Art. 59(1))