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

20 September 2001

Case T-344/99

Lucía Recalde Langarica

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Expatriation allowance — Article 4(1 )(a) of the Staff Regulations — Article 26 of the Staff Regulations — Right to be heard’

Full text in Spanish II-833

Application for:

annulment of the Commission's decision of 26 February 1999 withdrawing the applicant's expatriation allowance and withholding from her remuneration the amounts paid in that respect.

Held:

the Commission's decision of 26 February 1999 is annulled. The claim that the Court should make any other appropriate order is dismissed as inadmissible requiring the Commission to fulfil its obligations under Article 233 EC. The Commission is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Summary

Officials — Decision affecting the administrative status of an official — Taking into account of matters not included in his personal file — Not permissible — Decisive influence — Annulment — Conditions

(Staff Regulations, Art. 26)

Observance of the right to be heard is, in all proceedings initiated against a person which are liable to culminate in a decision adversely affecting that person, a fundamental principle of Community law. That principle requires that the addressees of decisions which significantly affect their interests should be placed in a position in which they may effectively make known their views.

In the context of the European Civil Service, the principle of observance of the right to be heard is given expression, in particular, in Article 26 of the Staff Regulations, the purpose of which is to ensure that decisions taken by the appointing authority affecting the administrative status and career of the official concerned are not based on matters concerning his conduct which are not included in his personal file and have not been communicated to him.

Infringement of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations entails the annulment of a measure only if it is established that the documents in question could have had a decisive influence on the contested decision. The mere fact that documents were not placed on an official's personal file is not enough to justify annulment of a decision adversely affecting him if they were in fact brought to his knowledge.

(see paras 57-60)

See: 88/71 Brasseur v Parliament [1972] ECR 499, para. 11; 233/85 Bonino v Commission [1987] ECR 739, para. 11; C-32/95 P Commission v Lisrestal and Others [1996] ECR I-5373, para. 21; C-294/95 P Ojha v Commission [1996] ECR I-5863, paras 57, 67 and 68
Keywords



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Action brought against a decision of the Commission initiating the procedure provided for in Article 88(2) EC - Adoption in the course of the proceedings of a decision finding national measures incompatible with the common market - Action for annulment brought against the second decision - Same applicants and same arguments - Judgment given on the second action - First action rendered devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate

(Arts 230 EC and 88(2) EC)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope (Art. 253 EC) (see paras 75-86)

2. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Sugar – Specific measures for certain agricultural products in favour of the Azores and Madeira (Art. 299(2) EC; Council Regulation No 1600/92, Art. 3(3) and (4); Commission Regulation No 1481/2000; Council Decision 1999/468, Art. 4) (see paras 90-96, 109-128, 136-137, 143-147)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment, firstly, of the annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1434/1999 of 30 June 1999 establishing the sugar forecast supply balance for the 1999/2000 marketing year for the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands provided for in Council Regulations (EEC) No 1600/92 and (EEC) No 1601/92 (OJ 1999 L 166, p. 58); secondly, of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1481/2000 of 6 July 2000 establishing the sugar forecast supply balance for 2000/2001 for the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands provided for in Council Regulations No 1600/92 and No 1601/92 (OJ 2000 L 167, p. 6) and also of the annex thereto and, thirdly, of the annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1281/2001 of 28 June 2001 establishing the forecast supply balance for sugar for the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands provided for in Council Regulations No 1600/92 and No 1601/92 for the period 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2001 (OJ 2001 L 176, p. 12), inasmuch as they set the quantities of sugar considered necessary for supplying the Azores.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 13 September 2006 – Sinaga v Commission

(Joined Cases T-217/99, T-321/00 and T-222/01)

Sugar – Poseima Programme – Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92 – Sugar forecast supply balance for the Azores – Action for annulment – Admissibility – Definition of traditional shipment to the rest of the Community – Statement of reasons – Compliance with essential procedural requirements

1. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope (Art. 253 EC) (see paras 75-86)

2. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Sugar – Specific measures for certain agricultural products in favour of the Azores and Madeira (Art. 299(2) EC; Council Regulation No 1600/92, Art. 3(3) and (4); Commission Regulation No 1481/2000; Council Decision 1999/468, Art. 4) (see paras 90-96, 109-128, 136-137, 143-147)

Re:

ACTION for annulment, firstly, of the annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1434/1999 of 30 June 1999 establishing the sugar forecast supply balance for the 1999/2000 marketing year for the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands provided for in Council Regulations (EEC) No 1600/92 and (EEC) No 1601/92 (OJ 1999 L 166, p. 58); secondly, of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1481/2000 of 6 July 2000 establishing the sugar forecast supply balance for 2000/2001 for the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands provided for in Council Regulations No 1600/92 and No 1601/92 (OJ 2000 L 167, p. 6) and also of the annex thereto and, thirdly, of the annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1281/2001 of 28 June 2001 establishing the forecast supply balance for sugar for the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands provided for in Council Regulations No 1600/92 and No 1601/92 for the period 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2001 (OJ 2001 L 176, p. 12), inasmuch as they set the quantities of sugar considered necessary for supplying the Azores.

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action;
Case T-56/99





Marlines SA

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Competition – Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) – Price fixing – Proof of participation in a cartel – Duration – Error of assessment as to the facts)»

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

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Agreements between undertakings – Meaning

(EC Treaty, Art. 85(1) (now Art. 81(1) EC))

2.. Competition – Community rules – Undertakings – Infringements of Articles 85 or 86 of the Treaty (now Articles 81 EC and 82 EC) – Evidence – Correspondence between third parties

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

3.. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Agreements between undertakings – Proof of an undertaking's participation – Perception by other undertakings of its importance for establishing a common position

(EC Treaty, Art. 85(1) (now Art. 81(1) EC))

4.. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Undertaking – Meaning – Economic unit – Attribution of the infringements

(EC Treaty, Art. 85 (now Art. 81 EC))

5.. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Participation in meetings held by undertakings for an anti-competitive purpose – Sufficient basis for concluding that, if an undertaking has not distanced itself from the decisions taken, it participated in the subsequent arrangements

(EC Treaty, Art. 85(1) (now Art. 81(1) EC))

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.
According to Article 85 of the Staff Regulations, any sum overpaid is to be recovered if the recipient was aware that there was no due reason for the payment or if the fact of the overpayment was patently such that he could not have been unaware of it. The words ‘patently such’ are to be interpreted as meaning that the question is not whether the error was patent to the administration but whether it was patent to the recipient. Far from not needing to make any effort to reflect or check, the recipient is required to effect repayment where the error is one which does not escape the notice of an official exercising ordinary care, who is deemed to know the rules governing his salary. The factors taken into consideration in assessing the ability of the official concerned to make the necessary checks concern his level of responsibility, grade and seniority, the degree of clarity of the provisions of the Staff Regulations setting out the conditions for grant of the benefit at issue and the significance of the changes in his personal or family circumstances where payment of the sum in issue is linked to an assessment of such circumstances by the administration.

In that regard, it is not necessary for the official concerned, in the exercise of his duty of diligence, to be able to determine the precise extent of the error made by the administration. On the contrary, the fact that he has doubts about the validity of the payments in question is sufficient for him to be obliged to contact the administration so that it can carry out the necessary checks. A former official who was last in the relatively high Grade B1 and who has spent more than 25 years in the Community civil service must be prompted to suspect that his entitlement to the household allowance which he received as a married pensioner has become doubtful after the death of his spouse. He was in a position, by exercising normal care, to realise that the administration had made an error as from the time of his spouse's death.

Moreover, the fact that an official or pensioner has duly informed the administration of the change in his family circumstances cannot exempt him from his obligation to repay sums overpaid where, despite his declarations, the administration has continued to pay him allowances which are clearly incompatible with the relevant provisions of the Staff Regulations. That is especially true in the light of the clarity of Article 1(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and of the fact that the household allowance was the only family allowance which the person concerned was receiving at the time of the declaration of his spouse's death to the administration.

(see paras 27, 29, 30, 33-36)

See: T-93/92 Burck v Commission [1994] ECRSC I-A-55 and II-201, paras 27 and 28; T-122/95 Chabert v Commission [1996] ECRSC I-A-19 and II-63, paras 35, 41 and 42; T-92/94 Maslias v Parliament [1996] ECRSC I-A-249 and II-713, para. 61; T-14/99 Kraus v Commission [2001] ECRSC I-A-7 and II-39, para. 38 and the case-law cited therein, and para. 41
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

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

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

Summary

1. 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 ... intended purpose ... of the goods are not to be registered. As regards, in that respect, the registration of the term VITALITE sought for certain goods having a specific medical, nutritional or dietetic purpose and for food for babies and mineral and aerated waters, that term, even if it is read in French as vitalité, cannot be regarded as being able to serve to designate the intended purpose of food for babies or mineral and aerated waters. The word vitalité does not directly and immediately inform the consumer of one of the characteristics of food for babies or mineral and aerated waters. Consequently, the link between the meaning of the word vitalité, on the one hand, and the goods in question, on the other, does not seem to be sufficiently close to be caught by the prohibition laid down in Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94. In fact it is a case of evocation and not designation for the purposes of that provision. Accordingly, registration of the term VITALITE cannot be refused, pursuant to the abovementioned provision, in respect of food for babies or mineral and aerated waters, unlike all the other goods, which all have a specific medical, nutritional or dietetic purpose.

( see paras 18, 21, 24-25 )

2. Registrations of trade marks already made in Member States are only one factor which, without being given decisive weight, may merely be taken into consideration for the purposes of registering a Community trade mark.

( see para. 33 )
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)

15 November 2001

Case T-349/00

Giorgio Lebedef

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — 1974 framework agreement between the Commission and the trade unions/staff associations — Revision or modification — Consultation procedure — Introduction of new rules — Admissibility’

Full text in French II-1031

Application for:

annulment of the ‘Operational Rules on the consultation levels, the consultation body and related procedures’ agreed between the Commission and the majority of the trade unions and staff associations on 19 January 2000 or, alternatively, of the composition of the consultation body as provided for by those rules, in so far as the trade union ‘Action & Défense’ is excluded from that body.

Held:

The ‘Operational Rules on the consultation levels, the consultation body and related procedures’ agreed between the Commission and the majority of the trade unions and staff associations on 19 January 2000 are annulled, in so far as they exclude the trade union ‘Action & Défense’ from the consultation body. The Commission is ordered to pay all the costs.

Summary

Officials — Actions — Act adversely affecting an official — Concept — Operational rules excluding from the consultation body a trade union represented by an official (Staff Regulations, Art. 91(1)) Officials — Rights and obligations — Freedom of association — Right of trade unions and staff associations which are signatories of the framework agreement to participate in the consultation procedure — Exclusion of a trade union from the consultation body — Not permissible — Conditions
Operative part



Operative part

On those grounds,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Second Chamber)

hereby:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 March 2000 (Case R-506/1999-1) in so far as it concerns products falling within Class 3 of the Nice Agreement corresponding to the description `perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions; dentifrices';

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for annulment - Actionable measures - Definition - Measures producing binding legal effects

(Art. 230 EC; Commission Decision 94/90)

2. Commission - Right of public access to Commission documents - Decision 94/90 - Exceptions to the principle of access to documents - Whether documents to which access has been sought exist - Presumption that they do not based on assertion to that effect by institution concerned - Simple presumption which may be rebutted by relevant and consistent evidence

(Commission Decision 94/90)

3. Procedure - Request that the oral procedure be reopened - Conditions for admissibility

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 62)

Summary

$$1. Only a measure whose legal effects are binding on the applicant and are capable of affecting his interests is an act or decision which may be the subject of an action for annulment under Article 230 EC.

A letter of the Secretary General of the Commission indicating, in essence, that the documents requested by the applicants are not in the Commission's possession or do not exist amounts to a refusal to grant access and thus affects the applicant's interests.

Irrespective of whether or not the Commission is required to grant access to the requested documents in accordance with Decision 94/90 on public access to Commission documents, it nevertheless remains the case that such a letter constitutes a negative decision and that that decision is actionable.

( see paras 30-32 )

2. Decision 94/90 on public access to Commission documents is a measure conferring on citizens a right of access to documents held by the Commission. Clearly, however, the Commission cannot accede to a request for access to documents which do not exist. In accordance with the presumption of legality attaching to Community acts, where the institution concerned asserts that a particular document to which access has been sought does not exist, there is a presumption that it does not. That, however, is a simple presumption that the applicant may rebut in any way by relevant and consistent evidence.

( see para. 35 )

3. The Court of First Instance is required to accede to a request to reopen the oral procedure so that account may be taken of new facts only if the party concerned wishes to place before it facts which may have a decisive influence on the outcome of the case and which it was unable to put forward before the close of the oral procedure.

( see paras 52-53 )
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)

17 April 2002

Case T-325/00

Elke Sada

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Member of the temporary staff — Unemployment allowance — Refused’

Full text in German II-209

Application for:

annulment of the Commission's decision of 20 December 1999 refusing to grant the applicant an unemployment allowance under Article 28a of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities.

Held:

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

Summary

Officials — Temporary staff — Unemployment allowance — Conditions for granting — Termination of service attributable to the intention of the member of staff — Exclusion

(Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 28a)

The principal objective of the unemployment allowance scheme provided for in Article 28a of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants is to provide financial assistance for a member of the temporary staff who is obliged to terminate his service with the European Communities and who is subsequently unemployed. The second indent of Article 28a(1) excludes the possibility of unemployment allowance being granted to former members of the temporary staff who are unemployed after their contract with the European Communities has been terminated as a consequence of their own initiative (resignation) or of cancellation caused by their conduct (cancellation of the contract for disciplinary reasons). It is therefore clear that the purpose of Article 28a(1) is to guarantee financial assistance for a member of the temporary staff who is unemployed after a termination of service which is not attributable to any intention or wrongful conduct on his part. Consequently, where a claimant has refused an offer of extension of his contract in respect of the same post as that which he held as a member of the temporary staff and with identical working conditions, it must be held that, if termination of service took effect on the actual date of expiry of the contract of engagement, that is attributable solely to the intention of the person concerned. The defendant institution was therefore fully entitled not to grant the person concerned the unemployment allowance.

(see paras 32-36)
Case T-147/00

Les Laboratoires Servier

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Medicinal products for human use — Community arbitration procedures — Withdrawal of marketing authorisations — Competence — Serotonergic anorectics: dexfenfluramine, fenfluramine — Directives 65/65/EEC and 75/319/EEC’

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), 28 January 2003 II-88

Summary of the Judgment

In actions for annulment, the lack of competence of the institution which has adopted the contested measure constitutes a ground for annulment for reasons of public policy, which must be raised by the Community judicature of its own motion even though none of the parties has asked it to do so. (see para. 45)

Where the competent national authorities find that there are new data — as compared with the last assessment of the medicinal product in question — which, while not resolving the scientific uncertainty, may raise reasonable doubts as to the safety and/or efficacy of that medicinal product and lead to an unfavourable assessment of its benefit/risk balance, they are obliged, under Article 11 of Directive 65/65 on proprietary medicinal products, interpreted in accordance with the precautionary principle, which is a general principle of Community law, to suspend or withdraw the marketing authorisation of that medicinal product. (see para. 52)

In the absence of an express provision, the principle set out in the first paragraph of Article 5 EC that the Community is to act within the limits of the powers conferred upon it, precludes an interpretation of Article 12 of Directive 75/319 on proprietary medicinal products to the effect that it implicitly empowers the Commission to adopt a binding decision under the arbitration procedure provided for in Article 14 of that directive. (see para. 61)