ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
An official cannot, therefore, reasonably plead a breach of a guide to the promotions procedure in so far as it lays down the abovementioned practice.

A practice consisting in automatically promoting, unless they were no longer considered deserving of promotion, officials who, in the preceding promotion procedure, appeared on the list of most deserving candidates but had not been promoted manifestly infringes Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations. First, promotion decisions presuppose an examination, by the appointing authority, of the comparative merits of those officials eligible for promotion as well as of their reports. Secondly, such comparison must be carried out in the context of each promotion procedure.

An official cannot rely on the principle of equal treatment to claim the benefit of a practice contrary to the provisions of the Staff Regulations, since no person may plead in his own cause an unlawful act committed in favour of another.

In the context of a promotions procedure, the appointing authority is required to make its choice on the basis of a comparative examination of the staff reports and merits of the candidates eligible for promotion. To that end, it has a power under the Staff Regulations to undertake that examination in accordance with the procedure or method which it considers most appropriate.

In those circumstances, prior consideration within each Directorate-General of the personal files of officials eligible for promotion is not likely to hinder proper consideration of their comparative merits and, on the contrary, is in accordance with the principle of good administration.

However, such prior consideration within the Directorates-General cannot take the place of the comparative examination which must be undertaken subsequently by the Promotions Committee. Every official eligible for promotion is therefore entitled to expect the Promotions Committee to compare his merits with those of other officials eligible for promotion to the grade concerned.

By the same token, such appraisal of the comparative merits of all officials eligible for promotion by the Promotions Committee, leading to an initial selection from among those officials and to the establishment of a list of those most deserving of promotion, does not mean that the appointing authority can dispense with appraising the comparative merits of all the officials on that list itself in order to determine which of them ought to be promoted.

In particular, if the comparative examination by the Promotions Committee of the merits of officials eligible for promotion to the grade concerned is not to be rendered purposeless, the appointing authority cannot be permitted to confine itself to examining the comparative merits of those officials ranked highest on the lists drawn up by the various Directorates-General.

(see paras 55 to 59)

See: Case 62/75 De Wind v Commission [1976] ECR 1167, para. 17; Case T-557/93 Rasmussen v Commission [1995] ECRSC I-A-195 and II-603, paras 20 and 21; Case T-130/95 X v Commission [1996] ECRSC I-A-603 and II-1609, para. 67; Case T-234/97 Rasmussen v Commission [1998] ECRSC I-A-507 and II-1533, para. 24
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber)

15 November 2000

Case T-261/99

Jean Dehon

v

European Parliament

‛Officials — Promotion — Notice of vacancy — Consideration of comparative merits — Equal opportunities’

Full text in French II-1133

Application for:

annulment, first of the decision of the European Parliament rejecting the application by the applicant for the post of Deputy Head of the French Translation Division, as referred to in Vacancy Notice No 8503, and, second, of the decision appointing Ms W to that post.

Held:

The decisions of the European Parliament rejecting the application by the applicant and appointing Ms W. to the post of Deputy Head of the French Translation Division, as referred to in Vacancy Notice No 8503, are annulled. The European Parliament is ordered to pay the costs.

Summary

Officials — Notice of vacant post — Purpose — Discretion of the appointing authority — Limits — Compliance with the conditions laid down in the notice of vacancy — Judicial review

(Staff Regulations, Art. 7)

Although the appointing authority has wide discretion in comparing the candidates' merits and reports, especially with a view to the post to be filled, it must exercise it within the self-imposed limits set by the vacancy notice. The purpose of the vacancy notice is to give those interested the most accurate information possible about the conditions of eligibility for the post to enable them to judge for themselves whether they should apply for it.

Thus, the latitude available to the appointing authority regarding appointment or promotion presupposes careful examination of the file and meticulous regard to the requirements laid down in the vacancy notice, so that the appointing authority is required to reject any candidate who does not meet those requirements.

With a view to establishing whether or not the appointing authority exceeded the bounds ofthat legal framework, it is incumbent on the Court of First Instance, first, to establish which conditions were laid down in the vacancy notice and then to verify whether the candidate chosen to occupy the vacant post actually satisfied those conditions.

(see paras 33-36)

See: 188/73 Grassi v Council [1974] ECR 1099, paras 38 and 40; C-35/92 P Parliament v Frederiksen [1993] ECR I-991, paras 13 to 17; T-21/96 Giannini v Commission [1997] ECR-SCI-A-69 and II-211, para. 19
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)

20 September 2000

Case T-220/99

Joachim Behmer

v

European Parliament

‛Officials — Appointment by promotion — Grade LA 3 — Consideration of comparative merits’

Full text in French II-851

Application for:

annulment of the decision of 7 January 1999, first, in so far as it appoints Ms Dhyvert as Deputy Head of Division of the German Language Translation Division of the European Parliament and, second, in so far as it rejects the applicant's candidature for that post.

Held:

Application dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.

Summary

Officials — Vacancy notice — Purpose — Consideration of comparative merits — Discretion of the appointing authority — Limits — Compliance with the conditions set out in the vacancy notice — Judicial review — Scope

(Staff Regulations, Art. 7)

The exercise by the appointing authority of its discretion in making appointments presupposes a meticulous comparative examination of the application files and a careful regard for the requirements set out in the vacancy notice. The vacancy notice constitutes a legal framework which the appointing authority imposes on itself and which it must observe meticulously.

For the purpose of verifying whether the appointing authority has remained within the bounds of that legal framework and has thus acted solely in the interests of the service, the Court must first establish what were the conditions required under the vacancy notice and then verify whether the candidate chosen by the appointing authority to fill the vacant post indeed satisfied those conditions. Such a review does not mean that the Court is substituting its own assessment of the candidates' merits for that of the appointing authority; it is limited to the question whether, regard being had to the considerations which may have influenced the administration in making its assessment, the latter remained within reasonable bounds and did not use its power in a manifestly incorrect manner.

(see paras 31 and 32)

See: 233/85 Bonino v Commission [1987] ECR 739, para. 5; T-169/89 Frederiksen v Parliament [1991] ECR II-1403, para. 69; C-35/92 P Parliament v Frederiksen [1993] ECR I-991, paras 15 and 16; T-82/91 Latham v Commission [1994] ECRSC I-A-15 and II-61, para. 62; T-21/96 Giannini v Commission [1997] ECRSC I-A-69 and II-211, para. 19
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Single Judge),

20 July 2001

Case T-351/99

Christian Brumter

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Notice of vacancy — Appointment — Obligation to state grounds — Consideration of the comparative merits of the candidates — Discretion of the appointing authority — Staff report — Request for transfer’

Full text in French II-757

Application for:

annulment of the Commission's decision of 29 January 1999 to reject the applicant's candidature for the post mentioned in the notice of vacancy COM/173/98 and the decision of 27 January 1999 to appoint Gerard Zahlen to that post.

Held:

The Commission's decision to appoint Mr Zahlen to the post mentioned in the notice of vacancy COM/173/98 and the decision to reject Mr Brumter's candidature for that post is annulled. The defendant is ordered to pay the costs.

Summary

The total absence of a statement of grounds for a decision cannot be remedied by explanations provided by the appointing authority after proceedings have been commenced. At that stage, such explanations no longer fulfil their function. The obligation to state grounds, laid down by the second paragraph of Article 25 in conjunction with Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, is intended, on the one hand, to provide the person concerned with sufficient information to determine whether the rejection of his candidature was well founded and whether it is appropriate to bring proceedings before the Court, and, on the other, to enable the Court to carry out its review. The commencement of proceedings accordingly puts an end to the possibility of the appointing authority's regularising its decision by a reasoned reply rejecting the complaint. (see para. 33) See: Volger v Parliament, cited above, para. 40
Case T-65/99





Strintzis Lines Shipping SA

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Competition – Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86 – Investigations carried out at company premises other than those of the company to which the investigation decision is addressed – Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) – State regulation on maritime transport and the practice of State authorities – Applicability of Article 85 of the Treaty – Whether infringing conduct may be imputed – Fines – Application of the guidelines on calculating fines)»

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), 11 December 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Actions for annulment of measures – Pleas in law – Unlawfulness of an investigation by the Commission – Acknowledgment by the applicant undertaking of certain facts revealed by documents obtained during the investigation – No effect on the interest in raising the plea

(Art. 230 EC)

2.. Competition – Fines – Amount – Reduction in fine in exchange for cooperation – Actions for annulment – Fresh review of the size of the reduction – Excluded

(Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15)

3.. Community law – Principles – Rights of the defence – Compliance during administrative procedure

(Council Regulations Nos 17, Art. 14, and 4056/86, Art. 18)

4.. Competition – Administrative procedure – Powers of the Commission in investigations – Limits – Protection against arbitrary or disproportionate intervention by the public authority

(Council Regulations Nos 17, Art. 14, and 4056/86, Art. 18)

5.. Competition – Administrative procedure – Powers of the Commission in investigations – Scope – Access to the premises of undertakings – Limits – Indication of the subject-matter and purpose of the investigation – Right to bring an action before the Community judicature

(Council Regulations Nos 17, Art. 14, and 4056/86, Art. 18)

6.. Competition – Administrative procedure – Powers of the Commission in investigations – Access to premises of undertakings – Undertaking not referred to in the investigation decision – Conditions for access

(Council Regulation No 4056/86, Art. 18)

7.. Competition – Administrative procedure – Powers of the Commission in investigations – Voluntary cooperation of an undertaking – Consequences for the possibility of arguing undue interference by a public authority

(Council Regulation No 4056/86, Art. 18)

8.. Competition – Community rules – Scope ratione materiae – Conduct imposed by State measures – Excluded – Conditions

(EC Treaty, Arts 85 and 86 (now Arts 81 EC and 82 EC))

9.. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria defined in the Commission Guidelines – Applicability to infringements of the competition rules in the transport sector

(ECSC Treaty, Art. 65(5); Council Regulations Nos 17, Art. 15(2), and 4056/86, Art. 19(2))

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.
Under Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, in order for the expatriation allowance to be paid, the official must not have habitually resided or 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, with no account being taken of circumstances arising from work done for another State or for an international organisation.

That provision must be interpreted as meaning that, where the official's entry into service in a Community institution is preceded by a period of occupational activity which must not be taken into account because it was undertaken in the service of an international organisation, the reference period corresponds to the five years immediately preceding the start of the period not taken into account and not to the five years ending six months before that period.

The six-month period laid down by that provision must be interpreted in the light of its purpose, which is to avoid a situation where officials who have, habitually and during practically the entire reference period, resided or carried on their main occupation in the country in which it is intended they will work change their habitual residence or the place where they carry on their main occupation only shortly before they take up their post.

In cases where a period which cannot be taken into account for the purposes of the abovementioned provision occurs before the official takes up his post, the risk described above does not exist and the six-month period is absorbed by that period if the latter exceeds in duration the six months preceding entry into service.

(see paras 36, 39, 42-44)

See: 188/83 Witte v Parliament [1984] ECR 3465, para. 8; 201/88 Palmerini. née Atala v Commission [1989] ECR 3109, paras 3 and 6; T-72/94 Diamantaras v Commission [1995] ECRSC I-A-285 and II-865, para. 50
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark - Definition and acquisition of a Community trade mark - Absolute grounds for refusal - Trade marks devoid of any distinctive character - electronica

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

2. Community trade mark - Definition and acquisition of a Community trade mark - Absolute grounds for refusal - Trade marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of the goods - electronica

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

Summary

1. Under Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, trade marks which are devoid of any distinctive character are not to be registered. With regard to registration of the sign electronica for catalogues and the organisation of trade fairs and conferences on electronic components and assemblies, that sign is not capable of constituting a Community trade mark because it is devoid of any distinctive character. The word electronica is almost identical to the word electrónica in Spanish and Portuguese. The fact that there is no accent on the o in the word electronica is not an additional characteristic such as to render the sign, taken as a whole, capable of distinguishing the goods and services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings.

( see paras 36-38 )

2. Under Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, trade marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin or the time of production of the goods or of the rendering of the service, or other characteristics of the goods or service are not to be registered. With regard to registration of the word electronica for catalogues and the organisation of trade fairs and conferences for electronic components and assemblies, that word is not capable of constituting a Community trade mark because it describes, at least in Spanish and Portuguese, an essential characteristic of the goods and services in question: it indicates the actual goods and services, not their link with the undertaking which makes or provides them. Accordingly the mark has no feature such as might differentiate it from its meaning as an actual description of the goods and services concerned.

( see paras 41-42, 44 )
The registration as a Community trade mark of the words ‘New Born Baby’, for ‘dolls to play with and accessories for such dolls in the form of playthings’ does not designate the quality, intended purpose or any other characteristic of those goods.

First of all, as to dolls to play with, even if the sign ‘New Born Baby’ could be regarded as descriptive of that which the dolls represent, this would not be sufficient to prove that the sign in question is descriptive of the dolls themselves. It cannot be considered to be so, other than in so far as the persons targeted, when making their purchasing decision, conflate the toy and what it represents. With regard, secondly, to accessories for dolls in the form of playthings, these do not represent newborn babies but other items. Nor, further, does the sign contain a descriptive indication of the intended purpose of the goods because the public targeted does not perceive a direct and specific link between the sign and those goods.

Registration may therefore not be refused under Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94.

(see paras 24-33)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Actionable measures - Measures producing binding legal effects - Assessment of those effects in the light of the substance of the measure - Commission decision declaring aid compatible with the common market - Aid under the multisectoral framework - Decision which does not adversely affect the company receiving the aid - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - No legal interest

(Art. 230 EC)

Summary

$$Only measures which produce binding legal effects such as to affect the interests of an applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position may be the subject of an action for annulment. To determine whether an act or decision produces such effects, it is necessary to look to its substance.

It follows that the mere fact that a decision declares notified aid compatible with the common market and thus, in principle, does not have an adverse effect on the applicant receiving the aid, does not dispense the Community Court from examining whether the finding made by the Commission in that decision has binding legal effects such as to affect the applicant's interests.

As regards decisions adopted under the rules laid down by the multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment projects, in so far as the maximum allowable aid intensity is determined on the basis of the calculation formula which includes in particular an adjustment coefficient for competition, the Commission's finding with regard to the specific coefficient applicable is likely to have binding legal effects since it affects the amount of aid which may be declared compatible with the common market. The effects of such a finding cannot, however, be regarded as affecting the interests of the undertaking receiving the aid where, at the end of the Commission's preliminary examination, the maximum allowable aid intensity is equal to or in excess of the amount of aid notified by the Member State concerned.

( see paras 36-38, 40-41 )
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)

12 June 2002

Case T-66/00

B

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Education allowance — Dependent child allowance — Conditions for granting — Recovery of undue payment’

Full text in French II-361

Application for:

annulment of the Commission's decision of 4 March 1999 discontinuing, with effect from 1 September 1997, the education allowance and dependent child allowance paid to the applicant.

Held:

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

Summary

In order to be eligible for dependent child allowance, both the conditions laid down by Article 2(3) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and the condition that the child is actually being maintained by the official, laid down by Article 2(2) of that annex, must be fulfilled. Even if it is conceded that there is a presumption that the child referred to by Article 2(3) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations is in fact, by virtue of his student status alone, a dependent of the official, that could not relieve the institution of the obligation to satisfy itself that the condition that the child is actually being maintained by the aforementioned official, as laid down by Article 2(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, is fulfilled. (see paras 32, 34) See: C-70/91 P Council v Brems [1992] ECR I-2973; T-75/89 Brems v Council [1990] ECR II-899, para. 23; T-134/99 Skrzypek v Commission [2000] ECRSC I-A-139 and II-633, para. 64

The granting of an education allowance is reserved for officials whose children satisfy the twofold condition of being dependent on the official for the purposes of Article 2(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and of being in regular fulltime attendance at an educational establishment. (see para. 38)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Fisheries - Common structural policy - Development of aquaculture and establishment of protected marine areas - Community financial assistance - Decision reducing the assistance granted - Discretion, subject to procedural safeguards for economic operators

(Council Regulation No 4028/86, Art. 44(1))

Summary

$$The Commission, in the context of the second sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 44(1) of Regulation No 4028/86 on Community measures to improve and adapt structures in the fisheries and aquaculture sector, which confers on it the power to suspend, reduce or discontinue the financial aid, if the project is not carried out as specified, has, even given substantial modifications carried out to the project without its consent, a discretion to assess the conformity, with regard to the subject-matter, structure and purpose of that project, of the alterations noted between the specifications thereof and the works actually carried out, in order to determine whether those alterations were acceptable or unacceptable.

In such a situation, the fundamental guarantees conferred on economic operators by the Community legal order in administrative procedures include the obligation on the part of the institution concerned to state sufficient reasons for its decisions. The purpose of that statement of reasons is to inform the addressee of the decision of the grounds of fact and law on which it is based, so as to enable the party concerned to determine, in particular, whether it is appropriate to submit it for review by the competent court.

( see paras 49, 52-54 )