ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Officials - Promotion - Administration' s discretion - Judicial review - Whether there was in fact a consideration of comparative merits

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 45)

2. Officials - Promotion - Complaint by a candidate who was not promoted - Decision rejecting the complaint - Reasons - Scope

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 45 and 90(2) )

3. Officials - Promotion - Consideration of comparative merits - Action taken by a consultative body not required by the Staff Regulations

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 45)

Summary

1. In order to evaluate the interest of the service and the merits to be taken into account in connection with the decision on promotion provided for in Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, the appointing authority has a wide discretion, and in that respect review by the Community judicature must be confined to the question whether, having regard to the bases and procedures available to the administration for its assessment, it has remained within the proper bounds and has not used its authority in a manifestly incorrect manner.

The discretion enjoyed by the appointing authority presupposes careful consideration of the candidates' files. Faced with a body of sufficiently consistent evidence that supports the complaint of the lack of any real consideration of the candidates' comparative merits, it is for the defendant institution to show, by objective evidence amenable to judicial review, that it observed the guarantees given by Article 45 of the Staff Regulations to officials eligible for promotion and considered the comparative merits.

2. Although the appointing authority is not required under Article 45 of the Staff Regulations to state reasons for its promotion decisions, especially as regards candidates who have not been promoted, it is nevertheless required under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations to state reasons for a decision rejecting a complaint challenging a promotion. However, since, under Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, promotions are 'by selection' , the reasons need be concerned only with the fulfilment of the legal conditions on which, under the Staff Regulations, the validity of the promotion depends. That does not mean that the institution concerned must set out in detail in what way it considered that the appointed candidate fulfilled the conditions in the vacancy notice.

3. Where an institution sets up an internal advisory committee not provided for by the Staff Regulations in order to obtain an opinion, regarding appointments to certain posts, in relation to the abilities and aptitudes of candidates, having regard to the qualifications required, this constitutes a measure designed to ensure that the institution, as appointing authority, has a better basis for carrying out the comparative examination of the merits of the candidates, as required by Article 45 of the Staff Regulations.

It follows that an opinion expressed by a joint committee on promotions must be one of the factors on which the appointing authority bases its own assessment of the candidates, even if it considers itself obliged not to follow it.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Officials - Promotion - Comparative examination of merits - A 2 posts - Involvement of an advisory body not provided for in the Staff Regulations - Administration free to decide its composition and terms of reference

(Staff Regulations, Art. 45)

2. Officials - Promotion - Discretion of the administration - Review by the Court - Limits

(Staff Regulations, Art. 45)

3. Officials - Promotion - Complaint by a candidate not promoted - Not upheld - Statement of reasons - Scope

(Staff Regulations, Arts 45 and 90(2) )

Summary

1. Whilst promotion decisions and the comparative examination of merits provided for in Article 45 of the Staff Regulations are the exclusive responsibility of the appointing authority, the latter may, during the phase preparatory to such decisions, bring in an advisory body, such as a committee entrusted with examination of the applications for an A 2 post, of which it is free to determine the composition and responsibilities.

2. The appointing authority enjoys a wide margin of discretion concerning the respective merits of candidates for promotion and the Court must restrict its review to consideration of the question whether the appointing authority has used its power in a manifestly incorrect way or for a purpose other than that for which it was granted.

3. Whilst it is true that the appointing authority is required, by virtue of Article 90(2), to give reasons for an express decision dismissing a complaint against a promotion decision, it is not required to disclose to the unsuccessful candidate the comparative assessment made by it of him and the successful candidate for promotion. The appointing authority may confine itself to a succinct statement of reasons concerning the fulfilment of the legal conditions on which the validity of a promotion depends.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Officials ° Pensions ° Pension rights acquired before entering the service of the Communities ° Transfer to the Community scheme ° Fixing by the general provisions of a time-limit for submission of request ° Whether permissible ° Administrative practice entailing extinction of rights on expiry of time-limit laid down ° Unlawful

(Staff Regulations, Annex VIII, Art. 11(2))

Summary

For the exercise of the option provided for in Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations to transfer to the Community scheme pension rights acquired under a national scheme, the administration cannot lay down conditions which are stricter than those provided for in the general provisions for giving effect to that article. Accordingly, the administration is not entitled to reject a request for the transfer of pension rights on the sole basis of the existence of a time-bar for the submission of the request where the general provisions for giving effect to Article 11(2) provide for that purpose only a straightforward time-limit, without ascertaining whether the special reasons put forward by the official concerned and beyond his control might justify the late submission of his application.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Officials ° Actions ° Interest in bringing an action ° Action against a decision already withdrawn when the action was brought ° Inadmissible

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

2. Officials ° Organization of departments ° Assignment of staff ° Discretion enjoyed by the administration ° Limits ° Interests of the service ° Observance of equivalence of posts

Summary

1. A person' s interest in bringing an action is to be appraised at the time when the action is brought. An action for annulment brought by an official against a decision of the administration which had already been withdrawn when the action was brought is therefore inadmissible. The fact that the decision was withdrawn subject to a review which might ultimately prompt the administration to adopt a new decision in the same terms cannot confer on the person concerned a present interest in bringing an action against the decision that was withdrawn.

2. The Community institutions enjoy a broad discretion to organize their departments to suit the tasks entrusted to them and to assign staff available to them in the light of such tasks, on condition however that the staff are assigned in the interests of the service and in conformity with the principle that assignment must be to an equivalent post.

Such discretion is indispensable in order to achieve effective organization of work and to adapt that organization to varying needs.
Keywords



Keywords

++++

1. Procedure ° Submission of new pleas in law during the course of the proceedings ° Relevant provisions of the Rules of Procedure laying down neither a time-limit nor any particular formality ° No time bar

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 48(2))

2. Actions for annulment ° Pleas in law ° Infringement of essential procedural requirements ° Notification, in breach of the Commission' s Rules of Procedure, of a decision not previously authenticated

(EEC Treaty, Art. 173; Commission' s Rules of Procedure, Art. 12)

3. Actions for annulment ° Pleas in law ° Infringement of essential procedural requirements ° Regularization after an action has been brought ° Not permissible

(EEC Treaty, Art. 173)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Officials ° Actions ° Act adversely affecting official ° Definition ° Change in conditions for performance of duties ° Organizational measure internal to department ° Exclusion ° Exceptions

(Staff Regulations, Art. 90(2))

2. Officials ° Competitions ° Notice of competition ° Purpose ° Information on arrangements for performance of duties ° Not binding on the administration

(Staff Regulations, Annex III, Art. 1(1))

Summary

1. A decision which does not affect the nature or the range of duties but merely the arrangements for their performance within the department to which the official is assigned is not an act adversely affecting an official within the meaning of Article 91 of the Staff Regulations, that is to say, an act directly and immediately affecting the legal situation of the official concerned by reason of its legal, material or financial consequences. It is merely an internal measure for the organization of a department and falls within the wide discretion which the administration has for this purpose. An application to the Court directed against such a decision could be rendered admissible only if special circumstances justify it. This might be the case either if the decision in issue were in the nature of a covert penalty or if it disclosed an intention to discriminate against the official concerned or, again, if it involved misuse of powers.

2. Under the Staff Regulations the essential purpose of a notice of competition is to inform potential candidates as accurately as possible of the nature of the conditions of eligibility for the post in order to enable them to judge whether they should apply for it. However, the information contained in the notice concerning the arrangements for the performance of duties has neither the object nor the effect of requiring the administrative authority to organize the department on a permanent basis exclusively in accordance with the arrangements described after the successful candidates have been recruited.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Competition ° Administrative procedure ° Request for information ° Indication of the legal basis and purpose of the request ° Need for the existence of a connection between the information requested and the infringement under investigation

(Council Regulation No 17, Art. 11(3))

2. Acts of the institutions ° Statement of reasons ° Obligation ° Scope ° Decision requiring information pursuant to Article 11 of Regulation No 17

(EEC Treaty, Art. 190; Council Regulation No 17, Art. 11(3))

3. Community law ° Principles ° Rights of the defence ° Observance during administrative proceedings ° Competition ° Decision requiring an undertaking to supply information ° Right to refuse to give an answer implying acknowledgment of an infringement

(Council Regulation No 17, Art. 11)

Summary

1. The Commission' s obligation to specify the subject-matter and purpose of a decision requiring information pursuant to Article 11 of Regulation No 17 is a fundamental requirement both in order to show that the information requested of the undertakings concerned is justified and also to enable those undertakings to assess the scope of their duty to cooperate while at the same time safeguarding their rights of defence. It follows that the Commission is entitled to require the disclosure only of information which may enable it to investigate putative infringements which justify the conduct of the inquiry and are set out in the request for information.

2. Article 11(3) of Regulation No 17 lays down the essential constituents of the statement of reasons for a decision requiring information to be supplied by providing that it must state the legal basis and the purpose of the request and also the penalties provided for in Article 15(1)(b) for supplying incorrect information. In that regard, the Commission is not required to communicate to the addressee of such a decision all the information at its disposal concerning presumed infringements or to make a precise legal analysis of those infringements, although it must clearly indicate the presumed facts which it intends to investigate.

3. Respect for the rights of the defence, as a fundamental principle, must be observed not only in administrative procedures which may lead to the imposition of penalties but also during preliminary inquiry procedures which may be decisive in establishing the unlawful nature of conduct engaged in by undertakings.

Accordingly, whilst the Commission is entitled, in the context of a request for information under Article 11 of Regulation No 17, to compel an undertaking to provide all necessary information, even if that information may be used to establish, against it or another undertaking, the existence of anti-competitive conduct, it may not, by means of a decision requiring information to be supplied, undermine the rights of defence of the undertaking concerned and compel it to provide answers which might involve an admission on its part of the existence of an infringement which it is incumbent on the Commission to prove.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Acts of the institutions - Statement of reasons - Obligation - Scope

(EC Treaty, Art. 190 (now Art. 253 EC))

2. Agriculture - Common agricultural policy - Food aid - Loans granted by the Community to the Republics of the former Soviet Union to finance purchases and supplies - Implementing rules - Recognition by the Commission that contracts are in compliance with the applicable Community provisions - Condition relating to price - Scope - Commission's discretion - Judicial review - Limits

(Commission Regulation No 1897/92; Council Decision 91/658)

Summary

1. The statement of reasons required by Article 190 of the Treaty (now Article 253 EC) must be appropriate to the act at issue and must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the institution which adopted the measure in question in such a way as to enable the persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for the measure and to enable the competent Community Court to exercise its power of review. The requirement to state reasons must be evaluated according to the circumstances of each case, in particular the content of the measure in question, the nature of the reasons given and the interest which the addressees of the measure, or other parties to whom it is of direct and individual concern, may have in obtaining explanations. It is not necessary for the reasoning to go into all the relevant facts and points of law, since the question whether the statement of reasons meets the requirements of Article 190 of the Treaty must be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also to its context and to all the legal rules governing the matter in question.

( see para. 35 )

2. The condition relating to price when contracts are awarded is a fundamental term of the operation of the machinery of the Community loan introduced by the Community in the context of food and medical aid to the Soviet Union and its constituent Republics. Inasmuch as it guaranteed the optimum use of the funds made available, it was designed to protect both the Community as lender and those Republics as recipients of the food aid.

Since Regulation No 1897/92 adopting detailed rules for the implementation of the loan granted by Decision 91/658 as food and medical aid to the Soviet Union and its constituent Republics requires the contracts to offer the most favourable purchase terms, the price proposed must be assessed in the light of all the contractual conditions, in particular those concerning delivery.

In carrying out that overall assessment, the Commission enjoys a discretion. In those circumstances, review by the Community judicature must be limited to verifying whether the procedural rules have been complied with, the contested decision is properly reasoned, and the facts have been accurately stated, and whether there has been a manifest error of assessment of the facts or a misuse of powers.

( see paras 46, 50-51 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Actions for annulment of measures ° Time-limits ° Point from which time starts to run ° Act neither published nor notified to the applicant ° Precise knowledge of the content and grounds ° Obligation, once the existence of the act is known, to ask for the full text thereof within a reasonable period

(EC Treaty, Art. 173, fourth para.)

2. Community law ° Principles ° Rights of the defence ° Scope ° Procedure for selection of projects for Community financial support ° Not covered

3. Actions for annulment of measures ° Jurisdiction of the Community judicature ° Claim that the Court should issue a direction for a new decision to be adopted after re-examination of the documentation ° Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 173)

Summary

1. Where an act is not published or notified, the period within which proceedings for annulment are to be instituted cannot start to run until the third party concerned has precise knowledge of the content and grounds of the act in question, always provided however that he asks, within a reasonable period, for the full text of the act in question.

2. It is in accordance with the procedure in financial support programmes established by the Community for candidates for such support not normally to be given a hearing during the selection procedure, which is conducted on the basis of the documentation submitted by them. That procedure is appropriate in situations where hundreds of applications must be evaluated and it therefore does not constitute an infringement of the right to a hearing.

3. In actions for annulment, claims that the Court should direct the Commission to adopt a new decision after re-examining the documentation must be rejected.

The Community judicature is not entitled, when exercising judicial review of legality, to issue directions to the institutions, and it is for the administration concerned to adopt measures to implement a judgment given in proceedings for annulment.
Where a manufacturer in a nonmember country markets its products in the common market through the intermediary of a company established in the Community which is linked to the manufacturer, handles customers' orders, sends them invoices and receives the relevant payments, carries out commercial functions and invoices to its customers prices which are not the same as those invoiced to it by the manufacturer and the manufacturer itself carries out the export formalities, the export price must be constructed on the basis of the price at which the imported product was first resold to an independent buyer, in accordance with Article 2(8)(b) of the basic antidumping regulation No 2423/88.

The purpose of that construction is to determine the real price of the product at the Community frontier, in order to define the price actually paid to the exporter for the product sold for export to the Community, as opposed to the price paid when that product is marketed in the Community.

Where necessary information is withheld, or the undertaking concerned does not supply it within a reasonable period, the adjustments to be made in accordance with Article 2(8)(b) are, pursuant to Article 7(7)(b) of the basic antidumping regulation, to be made on the basis of the facts available.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Acts of the institutions ° Statement of reasons ° Decision coupled with an erroneous statement of reasons ° Consequence ° Annulment ° Raising before the Court of other reasons which may be capable of justifying the decision ° Not permissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 190; Council Decision 92/217)

2. Non-contractual liability ° Conditions ° Actual and certain damage caused by a wrongful act ° Candidate for a fellowship having his application rejected for an erroneous reason ° Compensation for non-material damage subject to proof that the conditions prescribed for the grant of a fellowship are satisfied

(EC Treaty, Art. 215, second para.)

Summary

1. Where the only reason referred to by the Commission in its decision rejecting an application, sent to a candidate for a fellowship in the context of the specific research and technological development programme in the field of human capital and mobility, laid down by Council Decision 92/217, namely the fact that the applicant did not satisfy the nationality and mobility requirements fixed for the award of such a fellowship, is erroneous, that decision must be annulled.

The Commission cannot, in order to save its decision from such an annulment, rely on the fact that there were other reasons for rejecting the application. In any event, the Commission cannot, in support of the contested decision, properly rely on reasons which were not contained in that decision and were raised by it only after the bringing of the action, since it was only on the basis of the reasons set out in the contested decision communicated to him that the applicant could determine whether the rejection of the application was well founded and whether it was appropriate to bring proceedings before the Court. Since the Commission has not sufficiently proved that any regularization of the application is precluded, it is also unable to claim that the applicant has no legitimate interest in obtaining the annulment of the decision which, according to the Commission, could be replaced only by another decision to reject his application, since the conditions for the grant of a fellowship are not satisfied.

2. The Community can be held liable only if a number of conditions are satisfied as regards the illegality of the allegedly wrongful act committed by the institutions, the actual harm suffered and the existence of a causal link between the act and the damage alleged to have been suffered.

Consequently, a candidate for a fellowship who has had his application rejected for an erroneous reason but who, since he has not proved that he satisfied all the conditions required to obtain that fellowship, cannot show actual and certain damage, cannot claim compensation for non-material damage resulting from the loss of the chance to pursue his studies and research.