ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
The entitlement to the equivalent of a second month's basic salary, provided for by way of the installation allowance by the first subparagraph of Article 5(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, in the case of an official who is entitled to the household allowance simply reflects the taking into account of the expenses imposed on the family of the official appointed or transferred to a new place of employment by the change in place of residence which he is obliged to make in order to comply with the residence requirement laid down by Article 20 of the Staff Regulations.

For entitlement to that increase to be recognised, the change in the family's place of residence must therefore be a direct result of the official's obligation to reside in the place where he is employed.

(see paras 25-27)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber)

18 January 2001

Case T-65/00

Angelild Ioannou

v

Council of the European Union

‛Officials — Refusal of recruitment — Physical unfitness — Opinion of the medical committee — Judicial review — Comprehensible link between the medical findings and the conclusion of unfitness’

Full text in French II-67

Application for:

annulment of the Council's decision of 21 May 1999 refusing to appoint the applicant a probationary official upon the integration of the Schengen Secretariat into the General Secretariat of the Council on the ground of physical unfitness to perform the duties envisaged.

Held:

The decision of the Council of 21 May 1999 refusing to appoint the applicant a probationary official upon the integration of the Schengen Secretariat into the Secretariat of the Council on the ground of physical unfitness to perform the duties envisaged is annulled. The Council is ordered to pay the costs.

Summary

Officials — Recruitment — Refusal to appoint on grounds of physical unfitness — Judicial review — Scope (Staff Regulations, Arts 28(e) and 33) Officials — Recruitment — Refusal to recruit on grounds of physical unfitness — Consideration of present or future physical or psychological disorders — Whether permissible — Future disorders — Concept (Staff Regulations, Arts 28(e) and 33)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber)

19 September 2001

Case T-152/00

E

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Rejection of candidature — Infringement of the vacancy notice — Manifest errors of assessment — Discrimination — Misuse of powers’

Full text in French II-813

Application for:

annulment of the rejection of the applicant's candidature for the post of Head of Mediterranean Unit in the International Role Directorate of the Commission's Directorate-General for Science, Research and Development and of the appointment of P to that post and, secondly, for compensation for the damage allegedly caused by those two decisions.

Held:

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

Summary

Officials — Vacant post — Filling by promotion or transfer — Consideration of the comparative merits of candidates — Discretion of the administration — Limits — Compliance with the conditions laid down in the vacancy notice — Judicial review — Scope Officials — Actions — Pleas in law — Misuse of powers — Definition — Burden of proof and taking of evidence
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark - Decisions of the Office - Observance of the rights of the defence

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 73)

2. Community trade mark - Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character of a sign - Finding of absence of an additional element of imagination or a minimum amount of imagination insufficient to hold a sign to be devoid of any distinctive character

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

3. Community trade mark - Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark - Absolute grounds for refusal - Signs devoid of any distinctive character - LITE

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b) and (2))

Summary

1. The rights of the defence, observance of which is a general principle of Community law laid down in Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, which provides that decisions of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) are to be based only on reasons on which the parties have had an opportunity to present their comments, are infringed by a decision of a Board of Appeal of the Office which fails to accord the person concerned an opportunity to express his views on the absolute grounds for refusal of an application for registration of a Community trade mark which the Board applied of its own motion.

( see paras 13-15 )

2. The absence of distinctive character within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark cannot arise merely from the finding that a sign lacks an additional element of imagination or a minimum amount of imagination. A Community mark is not necessarily a work of invention and is founded not on any element of originality or imagination, but on its ability to distinguish goods or services on the market from goods or services of the same type offered by competitors.

( see para. 30 )

3. The word mark LITE, registration of which is sought in respect of foodstuffs and catering services, is devoid of any distinctive character under Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark. That word, which is created from a phonetic transcription of the English word light, is commonly used in the English-speaking part of the European Union as an everyday word in the food and catering industry to identify or distinguish a quality of foodstuffs. It serves only to inform the section of the public targeted about a characteristic of the goods or service at issue, namely the lightness of the foodstuffs and of the dishes prepared and served in the catering service.

( see paras 33-36, 39 )
In accordance with the principles of legal certainty and sound administration, the Commission is bound to respect the criteria that it has itself set out in the guidelines contained in its Call for Proposals 8/2000, entitled ‘Support for the Transnational Distribution of European Films and the Networking of European Distributors — “The Automatic Scheme’” implementing the subsidy system provided for by the programme encouraging the development and distribution of European audiovisual works (MEDIA II), and cannot declare a company which does not satisfy those criteria eligible for the automatic scheme.

Only the distribution companies which satisfy the cumulative criteria set out in paragraph 2.4 of the guidelines contained in the Commission's Call for Proposals 8/2000, entitled ‘Support for the Transnational Distribution of European Films and the Networking of European Distributors — “The Automatic Scheme’” implementing the programme encouraging the development and distribution of European audiovisual works (MEDIA II), are eligible for the automatic scheme.

Those criteria for eligibility are satisfied by a production and distribution company, even if it has concluded a subcontract with a production and distribution company in another Member State under which the latter undertakes to distribute the film in that other Member State, where: first, it is the sole holder of the exclusive rights to distribute those films in that State; second, it bears sole responsibility for the distribution costs, the subcontractor deducting the costs arising from distribution of the films from the film rental payments and the distributor reimbursing those advanced by the subcontractor; third, it distributes the films directly, the subcontractor being merely the ‘physical distributor’ and therefore, under paragraph 2.4, unable to be regarded as a ‘distributor’; fourth, it negotiates the date of the films release, for example by approving a marketing plan drawn up by the subcontractor which contains information on the release date, as paragraph 2.4 does not require that the release date be determined directly or exclusively by the distributor and it is sufficient that it has been negotiated by the distributor.

(see paras 26, 38, 51, 54-55, 66-67)
Case T-89/00

Europe Chemi-Con (Deutschland) GmbH

v

Council of the European Union

‛Anti-dumping — Termination of proceedings — Principle of equal treatment — Initial investigation in one procedure coinciding with a review in another procedure — Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 — Regulation terminating anti-dumping procedures — Retroactivity’

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition), 12 September 2002 II-3654

Summary of the Judgment

When the Community judicature annuls an act of an institution, that institution is required, under Article 233 EC, to take the measures necessary to comply with that judgment. In order to comply with the judgment and to implement it fully, the institution is required to observe not only the operative part of the judgment but also the grounds which led to that 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 illegal 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. 32)

An undertaking which has imported into the Community goods subject to anti -dumping duty has an interest in the annulment of a Council regulation terminating the anti-dumping procedure and abolishing that duty since the contested regulation contains an implied refusal of its request that the regulation be afforded more extensive retroactive effect than that adopted. The fact that the contested regulation is generally favourable to the applicant in no way diminishes its interest in the annulment of the part of the regulation unfavourable to it, namely the provision relating to the entry into force of the abolition of the duties as they apply to it. (see paras 34-35)
Since a decision must be self-sufficient, the reasons on which it is based may not be stated in written or oral explanations given subsequently when the decision is already the subject of proceedings brought before the Community judicature.

Although the letter and spirit of Regulation No 2309/93 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products suggest that a Community marketing authorisation will contain, as a general rule, only one name, there are no grounds for concluding, in the absence of any express provision in that regulation or Regulation No 542/95 concerning the examination of variations to the terms of a marketing authorisation falling within the scope of Regulation No 2309/93 that that name cannot be varied by the addition of other names where (i) the holder of the Community marketing authorisation demonstrates that that is rendered necessary by exceptional circumstances which may adversely affect public health and (ii) the variation applied for satisfies the criteria of the quality, safety and efficacy of the medicinal product.

Consequently, a decision which rejects an application to vary a Community marketing authorisation by adding two names on the sole ground that a medicinal product may never have more than one name is based on an incorrect interpretation of Regulations Nos 2309/93 and 542/95.

A decision which rejects an application for a variation consisting of the addition of a specific package layout without considering whether there are exceptional circumstances is also based on an incorrect interpretation of the applicable legislation.

(see paras 74, 79, 104)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Meaning — Measures producing binding legal effects — Declaration of the President of the European Parliament taking note of the vacancy of a seat following the application of national rules by the national authorities — Not covered — (Art. 230 EC; Act concerning the election of the representatives of the Assembly by direct universal suffrage, Art. 12(2))

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 under Article 230 EC. Thus, an action for annulment is available in the case of all measures adopted by the institutions, whatever their nature or form, which are intended to have legal effects.

The declaration of the President of the Parliament in the plenary session of 23 October 2000 by which, " in accordance with Article 12(2) of the [1976 Act], the ... Parliament takes note of the notification of the French Government declaring the disqualification of [the applicant] from holding office" is not capable of being the subject of an action for annulment under Article 230 EC.

The process of " taking note" of a vacancy of a seat of a Member of the European Parliament under Article 12(2) of the 1976 Act concerning the election of the representatives of the Assembly by direct universal suffrage refers not to the disqualification from office of the person concerned but to the simple fact that his seat has become vacant as a result of the application of national provisions. In other words, the role of the Parliament is not to " bring about" the disqualification from office, but merely to take note of the declaration, already made by the national authorities, that the seat is vacant, that is to say, of a pre-existing legal situation resulting exclusively from a decision of those authorities.

see paras 77-78, 90, 98
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Bananas — Import regime — Introduction of an export licence scheme affecting only Category A and C traders — Breach of the principle of non-discrimination not sufficiently serious — Incurring of non-contractual liability by the Community — None incurred — (Art. 288 EC; Commission Regulation No 478/95; Council Decision 94/800)

Summary

Non-contractual liability of the Community is not incurred by the introduction of the banana export licence scheme established by Council Decision 94/800 concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Community, as regards matters within its competence, of the agreements reached in the Uruguay Round multilateral negotiations (1986-1994) and by Regulation No 478/95 on additional rules for the application of Regulation No 404/93 as regards the tariff quota arrangements for imports of bananas into the Community and amending Regulation No 1442/93. Although the existence of a breach of a rule of law must be considered to be established because in Case C-122/95 Germany v Council the Court of Justice annulled the first indent of Article 1(1) of Council Decision 94/800 to the extent that the Council thereby approved the Framework Agreement, in so far as the latter exempts Category B operators from the export licence scheme for which it provides and, in Joined Cases C-364/95 and C-365/95 T. Port , the Court declared invalid Article 3(2) of Regulation No 478/95, and although in those two cases, the Court of Justice ruled that the provisions at issue had been adopted in breach of the principle of non-discrimination, which is a general principle of Community law for the protection of individuals, the Council and the Commission, in adopting those provisions, did not manifestly and gravely disregard the limits of their discretion having regard to the international dimension and the complex economic assessments involved in the introduction or amendment of a Community import scheme for bananas and, consequently, the principle of non-discrimination has not been infringed in the present case in a sufficiently serious manner.

see paras 63-65, 71
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Commission ' s refusal to continue infringement proceedings — Not included — (Art. 230 EC)

Summary

Individuals may not challenge a decision by the Commission not to bring infringement proceedings against a Member State

see para. 62
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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

2. Actions for damages – World Trade Organisation – Not possible to rely on the WTO Agreements in order to confer the lawfulness of a Community act – Exceptions – Community measure intended to implement a WTO Agreement or expressly and specifically referring thereto – Community regime governing the import of bananas – Incompatibility with the WTO rules established by the Dispute Settlement Body of the WTO – Judicial review of the lawfulness of that regime under the WTO rules – Excluded (Art. 288, second para., EC; Council Regulations Nos 404/93 and 1637/98; Commission Regulation No 2362/98) (see paras 102, 105-107)

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

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

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

Subject of the case

Re:

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

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicant to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the Council and the Commission;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.
Case T-186/00





Conserve Italia Soc. Coop. rl

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Agriculture – Guidance Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund – Discontinuance of financial aid – Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 – Principle of proportionality – Statement of reasons)»

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

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community funding for national projects – Applicants for, and beneficiaries of, EAGGF financial assistance required to provide information and to act in good faith



2.. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community funding – The submission of altered information relating to the ordering and delivery of materials benefiting from assistance constitutes an irregularity within the meaning of Article 24(2) of Regulation No 4253/88 – Breach of the obligation on applicants for, and beneficiaries of, EAGGF financial assistance to provide information and to act in good faith

(Council Regulation No 4253/88, Art. 24(2) and (3))

3.. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community funding – EAGGF financial assistance discontinued because of irregularities – Whether permissible – Legal basis

(Council Regulation no 4253/88, Art. 24(2) and (3))

4.. Acts of the institutions – Withdrawal – Unlawful acts – Conditions – Compliance with the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations



5.. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Structural reform – Common measures – Improvement of the conditions under which agricultural products are processed and marketed – EAGGF financial assistance discontinued for breach of fundamental obligations – Breach of the principle of proportionality – None

(Art. 5, third para., EC; Council Regulation No 355/77)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.
Case T-368/00





General Motors Nederland BV and Opel Nederland BV

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Competition – Distribution of motor vehicles – Article 81 EC – Regulations (EEC) No 123/85 and (EC) No 1475/95 – Partitioning of the market – General strategy aimed at restricting exports – Restriction of supply – Restrictive bonus policy – Ban on exports – Fine – Gravity and duration of the infringement – Proportionality – Guidelines for the calculation of fines)»

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), 21 October 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Agreements between undertakings – Meaning – Unilateral conduct – Not included – Individual measures applied to dealers and accepted by them – Included

(Art. 81(1) EC)

2.. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Agreements between undertakings – Onus on the Commission to prove the duration of the infringement

(Art. 81(1) EC)

3.. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Adverse effect on competition – Dealership agreements for sales of motor vehicles – Exclusion of export sales from the system of bonuses granted to dealers

(Art. 81(1) EC)

4.. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Adverse effect on competition – Criteria of assessment – Anti-competitive object – Sufficient finding

(Art. 81(1) EC)

5.. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination thereof – Criteria – Seriousness of the infringements – Factors to be taken into account

(Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2))

6.. Competition – Fines – Amount – Discretion of the Commission – Judicial review

(Art. 229 EC; Council Regulation No 17, Art. 17)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.