ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber),

12 July 2001

Case T-131/00

Robert Charles Schochaert

v

Council of the European Union

‛Officials — Refusal of promotion — Statement of reasons — Consideration of comparative merits of the candidates — Action for annulment’

Full text in French II-743

Application for:

annulment of the Council's decision not to promote the applicant to grade B 1 in the course of the 1999 promotions procedure.

Held:

The Council's decision not to promote the applicant to grade B 1 in the course of the 1999 promotion procedure is annulled. The Council is ordered to pay the costs.

Summary

Although the appointing authority is not obliged to give reasons for a promotion decision in so far as they affect candidates who have not been promoted, it must give reasons for its decision rejecting a complaint lodged under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations by one of the candidates, since the reasons given for that adverse decision are deemed to be the same as those for the decision which was the subject of the complaint. That obligation to state reasons is intended, on the one hand, to provide the official concerned with sufficient information to determine whether the act adversely affecting him is well founded and whether it is appropriate to bring legal proceedings before the Community judicature and, on the other, to enable the latter to review the legality of the promotion decision. In that context, the requirement to state reasons is satisfied by a decision rejecting a complaint which shows clearly that the appointing authority considered that the level of the responsibilities attaching to the duties of the person concerned, as compared with that of the responsibilities attaching to the duties of the other officials eligible for promotion, was one of the reasons for not promoting him. (see paras 19, 21) See: C-343/87 Culin v Commission [1990] ECR I-225, para. 13; T-142/95 Delvaux v Commission [1997] ECRSC I-A-477 and II-1247, paras 83 and 84; T-159/96 Wenk v Commission [1998] ECRSC I-A-193 and II-593, para. 114

For the purpose of the comparative examination of merits to be taken into consideration in making a promotion decision pursuant to Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, the appointing authority possesses a wide discretion, and in that connection review by the Community judicature must be confined to the question whether, having regard to the methods and processes by which the administration may have arrived at its assessment, it kept within proper bounds and did not use its power in a manifestly incorrect way. The Court cannot therefore substitute its assessment of the qualifications and merits of officials for that of the appointing authority. (see para. 36) See: 282/81 Ragusa v Commission [1983] ECR 1245, paras 9 and 13; T-283/97 Tliinus v Commission [1999] ECRSC I-A-69 and II-353, para. 42
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Regulation introducing safeguard measures in respect of sugar and mixtures of sugar and cocoa originating in the overseas countries and territories - Action brought by an undertaking producing those goods and exporting them from the overseas countries and territories to the Community - Inadmissible

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Commission Regulation No 2423/1999; Council Decision 91/482, Art. 109(1))

Summary

$$Natural or legal persons can be considered to be individually concerned by a measure of general application adopted by a Community institution only if the measure in question affects them because of certain attributes which are peculiar to them or by reason of circumstances in which they are differentiated from all other persons. Regulation No 2423/1999 introducing safeguard measures in respect of sugar falling within CN code 1701 and mixtures of sugar and cocoa falling within CN codes 1806 10 30 and 1806 10 90 originating in the overseas countries and territories (OCTs) is not of individual concern to an undertaking producing those goods and exporting them from the OCTs to the Community.

First, the fact that the applicant is one of the major producers of sugar and mixtures of sugar and cocoa in the OCTs and that there are only two undertakings operating in that sector in Aruba is not sufficient to distinguish the applicant for the purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC. The applicant is in an objectively determined situation which is comparable to that of any other undertaking which might now or at some time in the future be established in one of the OCTs and active on the sugar market.

Next, as regards the Commission's obligation, when it envisages taking safeguard measures on the basis of Article 109(1) of Decision 91/482 on the association of the overseas countries and territories to inquire, in so far as circumstances permit, into the negative effects which its decision might have on the economy of the OCTs in question as well as on the undertakings concerned, the applicant has not adduced evidence to the effect that the regulation had any negative effects on its situation.

( see paras 38-39, 42, 51, 57 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Acts of the institutions - Statement of reasons - Obligation - Scope - Commission decision reducing, on a proposal from a Member State, assistance from the European Social Fund for vocational training

(Art. 253 EC)

2. Social policy - European Social Fund - Financial assistance for vocational training - Commission decision based on Article 6(1) of Regulation No 2950/83 - Evaluation of complex facts and accounts - Judicial review - Limits

(Council Regulation No 2950/83, Art. 6(1))

Summary

$$1. The purpose of the obligation to state the reasons for an individual decision, laid down in Article 253 EC, is to provide the person concerned with sufficient information to make it possible to determine whether the decision is well founded or whether it is vitiated by an error which may permit its validity to be contested, and to enable the Community judicature to review the lawfulness of the decision. The extent of that obligation depends on the nature of the measure at issue and the context in which it was adopted.

Given, in particular, that a decision reducing the amount of European Social Fund assistance initially granted has serious consequences for the recipient of that assistance, such a decision must either itself show clearly the grounds which justify the reduction in the assistance initially granted or, if such grounds are not stated because the Commission has simply confirmed the proposal of a Member State to reduce that assistance, refer clearly to a measure of the competent authorities in the Member State concerned in which the latter clearly set out the reasons for such a reduction.

( see paras 34-37 )

2. The application of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 2950/83 on the implementation of Decision 83/516 concerning the tasks of the European Social Fund - under which, where assistance from the European Social Fund has not been used in conformity with the conditions laid down by the approval decision, the Commission may suspend, withdraw or reduce the assistance - may require the Commission to undertake an evaluation of complex facts and accounts. When undertaking such an evaluation, the Commission must therefore enjoy a considerable measure of latitude. Consequently, the Community judicature must, in examining whether that power was exercised lawfully, confine itself to examining whether the Commission committed a manifest error in assessing the information in question.

( see para. 50 )
Joined Cases T-185/00, T-216/00, T-299/00 and T-300/00

Métropole television SA (M6) and Others

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Competition — Decision granting exemption — Television rights — Eurovision system — Article 81(1) and (3) EC — Manifest error of assessment’

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), 8 October 2002 II-3808

Summary of the Judgment

Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Prohibition — Exemption — Conditions — Not possible to eliminate competition in respect of a substantial part of the products in question — Professional association of radio and television organisations — Agreements organising the joint acquisition of exclusive television rights to sporting events — Very limited access for nonmember undertakings to the rights acquired by the association — Agreements eliminating competition — Exemption excluded

It cannot properly be complained that the Commission has failed to define exactly the product market or geographic markets concerned when examining whether a set of agreements, such as that established by the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), a professional association of radio and television organisations, on the acquisition and exploitation of rights to broadcast sporting events could be granted an exemption under Article 81(3) EC, if it has taken as the basis for its examination the narrowest possible market, in this instance the market consisting of certain major international sporting events, such as the Olympic Games, and if that approach has not, in the specific case, affected its analysis of whether the condition for the grant of an exemption laid down in Article 81(3)(b) EC has been satisfied. (see para. 57)

The television programme exchange system set up by the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), a professional association of radio and television organisations, which provides for the joint acquisition of television rights to sporting events, comprises two types of restrictions on competition. First, the joint acquisition of such rights, their sharing and the exchange of signal restricts or even eliminates competition among EBU members which are competitors on both the upstream market, for the acquisition of rights, and the downstream market, for televised transmission of sporting events. In addition, that system gives rise to restrictions on competition as regards third parties since those rights are generally sold on an exclusive basis, so that EBU nonmembers would not in principle have access to them. While it is true that the purchase of televised transmission rights for an event is not in itself a restriction on competition likely to fall under Article 81(1) EC and may be justified by particular characteristics of the product and the market in question, the exercise of those rights in a specific legal and economic context may none the less lead to such a restriction. (see paras 63-64)
Article 15a(1) of Directive 75/319 relating to medicinal products provides that the variation, suspension or withdrawal of marketing authorisations ‘granted in accordance with the provisions of [Chapter III]’ of that directive, on the initiative of a Member State with a view to the protection of public health, falls within the exclusive competence of the Commission, when adopting a decision following an opinion of the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products in accordance with the procedures laid down in Articles 13 and 14 of that directive. Conversely, the variation, suspension and withdrawal of marketing authorisations which do not fall within the ambit of Article 15a remain, in principle, subject to the exclusive competence of the Member States.

The concept of a marketing authorisation granted in accordance with the provisions of Chapter III cannot be interpreted as also including authorisations harmonised following consultation of the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products under Article 12 of that directive.

Article 12 sets up, in the field of competence of the Member States, a purely consultative procedure, which is also optional and can, moreover, be initiated not only by the Member States concerned, but also by the Commission, or the applicant or holder of a marketing authorisation. In those circumstances, the principle that the Community is to act within the limits of the powers conferred upon it, precludes an interpretation of Article 15a to the effect that the harmonisation of certain marketing authorisations under a procedure based on Article 12, can have the effect of depriving the Member States concerned of their powers, by triggering the application of the arbitration procedure provided for in Article 15a in respect of the adoption of any subsequent decision regarding the suspension or withdrawal of such authorisations.

(see paras 121, 150, 155)
Case T-230/00





Daesang Corp. and Sewon Europe GmbH

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Competition – Cartel – Lysine – Guidelines for calculating the amount of fines – Turnover – Mitigating circumstances – Cooperation during the administrative procedure)»

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), 9 July 2000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination thereof – Guidelines adopted by the Commission – Obligation on the Commission to comply with them

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

2.. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination thereof – Criteria – Seriousness of the infringements – Taking into account of the total turnover of the undertaking concerned and the turnover achieved by sales of goods which were the subject-matter of the infringement – Limits

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

3.. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination thereof – Criteria – Seriousness of the infringements – Measure of the effective capacity to cause damage on the relevant market – Relevance of the market share held by the undertaking concerned

(Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2))

4.. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination thereof – Criteria – Seriousness of the infringements – Measure of the actual impact on competition of the infringing conduct of each undertaking – Relevance of the turnover achieved with the products forming the subject-matter of a restrictive practice

(Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2))

5.. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination thereof – Criteria – Cooperation of the undertaking during the administrative procedure – Reduction of the fine – Request for information – Investigation – Relevance

(Council Regulation No 17, Arts 11 and 15)

6.. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination thereof – Method of calculation defined by guidelines laid down by the Commission – Application of percentages to the basic amount of the fine

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

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.
Case T-353/00





Jean-Marie Le Pen

v

European Parliament





«(Act of the Parliament – Disqualification of a Member of the European Parliament from holding office – Application of national law – Action for annulment – Challengeable act – Inadmissibility)»

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), 10 April 2003

Summary of the Judgment
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber)

11 July 2002

Case T-163/01

Juan Pedro Perez Escanilla

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Promotion — Consideration of comparative merits — Action for annulment’

Full text in French II-717

Application for:

annulment of the Commission's decision not to promote the applicant to Grade A 4 in the 1999 promotion procedure.

Held:

The Commission's decision not to promote the applicant to Grade A 4 in the 1999 promotion procedure is annulled. The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

Summary

The appointing authority has a wide discretion in assessing the merits to be taken into consideration in a decision on promotion under Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and the review by the Community judicature is confined to determining whether, having regard to the various considerations which may have influenced the administration in making its assessment, it has remained within reasonable bounds and has not used its power in a manifestly incorrect way. The Court cannot therefore substitute its assessment of the qualifications and merits of the candidates for that of the appointing authority. However, the discretion which the administration is thus recognised as enjoying is circumscribed by the need to undertake a comparative consideration of the candidatures with care and impartiality, in the interest of the service and in accordance with the principle of equal treatment. In practice, that consideration must be undertaken on a basis of equality, using comparable sources of information. (see para. 28) See: T-76/92 Tsirimokos v Parliament [1993] ECR II-1281, paras 20 and 21; T-262/94 Baiwir v Commission [1996] ECRSC I-A-257 and II-739, para. 66; T-221/96 Manzo-Tafaro v Commission [1998] ECRSC I-A-115 and II-307, para. 16; T-157/98 Oliveira v Parliament [1999] ECRSC I-A-163 and II-851, para. 35

In a promotion procedure, the appointing authority is required to make its choice on the basis of a consideration of the comparative merits of the candidates eligible for promotion and of the reports on them. To that end, it has power under the Staff Regulations to undertake such consideration according to the procedure or method which it considers to be the most appropriate. The assessment of the merits of the officials eligible for promotion is therefore the decisive factor for all promotions, while the appointing authority may take candidates' age and seniority in grade or service into consideration only as a secondary factor. Where the merits of the officials eligible for promotion are equal, those additional criteria may even constitute a decisive factor in that authority's choice. (see para. 29) See: 62/75 De Wind v Commission [1976] ECR 1167, para. 17; T-557/93 Rasmussen v Commission [1995] ECRSC I-A-195 and II-603, para. 20; T-280/94 Lopes v Court of Justice [1996] ECRSC I-A-77 and II-239, para. 138; Manzo-Tafarov Commission, cited above, para. 18
Case T-171/01

Institut de l'audiovisuel et des télécommunications en Europe (IDATE)

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Arbitration clause — Community Trans-European Telecommunications Networks Programme — Contract relating to the organisation of seminars on using Euro-ISDN — Allowable costs’

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), 15 January 2003 II-64

Summary of the Judgment

Procedure — Reference to the Court on the basis of an arbitration clause — Contract providing for Community financial assistance in relation to the Trans-European Telecommunications Networks Programme — Request for reimbursement of certain costs — Definition of allowable costs — Costs invoiced by subcontractors

(Art. 238 EC)
In order for the Community to incur non-contractual liability, the applicant must prove the unlawfulness of the conduct alleged against the institution concerned, actual damage and the existence of a causal link between that conduct and the damage pleaded. If one of those conditions is not satisfied, the action must be dismissed in its entirety without its being necessary to examine the other conditions of noncontractual liability.

With respect to the first condition, which relates to unlawful conduct, there was a serious fault in the Commission's conduct where, in the course of a tender procedure published pursuant to Directive 93/36 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts, it repeatedly denied the existence of documents which in reality existed and refused to communicate those documents or extracts from the successful bid, but, when an action was brought before the Court of First Instance, communicated those documents on its own initiative and without the slightest reservation. However, although the Commission committed a number of serious faults during that procedure which, individually or at the very least taken together, must be regarded as fulfilling the first of the three conditions necessary for the noncontractual liability of the Community to be incurred, the unsuccessful bidder failed to show that the Commission should have awarded it the contract.

(see paras 18, 26-27, 107, 121)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness of conduct complained of — Damage — Causal link — (Art. 288, second para., EC)

2. Community law — Principles — Protection of legitimate expectations — Conditions

Summary

1. In order for the Community to incur non-contractual liability, the applicant must prove the unlawfulness of the alleged conduct of the institution concerned, actual damage and the existence of a causal link between that conduct and the damage pleaded. Where any one of those conditions is not satisfied, the action must be dismissed in its entirety and it is unnecessary to consider the other conditions for non-contractual liability.

see para. 23

2. The right to rely on the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, which is one of the fundamental principles of the Community, extends to any individual in a situation where the Community authorities, by giving him precise assurances, have caused him to entertain legitimate expectations. However, a person may not plead breach of the principle unless he has been given precise assurances by the administration.

Such assurances, in whatever form they are given, are precise, unconditional and consistent information from authorised and reliable sources. Nevertheless, neither a confirmation of receipt of a request for funding for a particular project expressly mentioning, in a clear and unambiguous way, that it does not constitute an authorisation and that consideration of the project will take place at a later date, nor a provisional communication of the result of the examination of a request for financing, sent explicitly subject to the final decision of the institution concerned, can be regarded as precise assurances from the Community administration leading an economic operator to entertain reasonable expectations.

see paras 26, 28-29, 32
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Single Judge)

7 May 2003

Case T-278/01

Eric den Hamer

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Staff report — Action for annulment — Action for damages’

Full text in French II-665

Application for:

first, annulment of the decision adopting the staff report of the applicant for the period 1995 to 1997 and, second, payment of damages in compensation for damage caused inter alia by the delay in drawing up that report.

Held:

The Commission is ordered to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 3000. The remainder of the application is dismissed. The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

Summary

In the absence of exceptional circumstances, a staff report cannot be annulled on the sole ground that it was drawn up late. Although delay in drawing up a staff report is capable of giving the official concerned a right to a remedy, such delay cannot affect the validity of the staff report or, in consequence, justify the annulment thereof. (see para 32) See: T-15/96 Liao v Council [1997) ECRSC I-A-329 and II-897, paras 34 and 35, and the case-law cited

Assessors enjoy a very wide discretion when judging the work of persons upon whom they must report. It is not for the Community judicature, save in the case of manifest errors as to the facts or misuse of powers, to review the merits of the assessment made of the occupational abilities of an official, where it involves complex value judgments which, by their very nature, are not amenable to objective verification. (see para 58) See: T-187/01 Mellone v Commission [2002] ECRSC I-A-81 and II-389, para 51, and the case-law cited

The absence, as a result of a breach of administrative duty, of the periodic report from an official's personal file is capable of giving rise to nonmaterial damage entitling him to compensation if his career could have been affected thereby or if that fact resulted in his being put in an uncertain or anxious frame of mind with regard to his future. (see para 82) See: T-78/96 and T-170/96 W v Commission [1998] ECRSC I-A-239 and II-745. para 233

The case-law granting the Commission, in the light of the wording of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, a reasonable period in which to draw up staff reports for its officials cannot apply where rules that are binding on the Commission make the conduct of the reports procedure subject to specific time-limits. (see para. 88)