ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . SERVANTS - DISMISSAL - REASONS VALID IN LAW - COURT'S RULING

2 . SERVANTS - INSTALLATION ALLOWANCE - REFUSAL BASED ON AN IRREGULAR DECISION OF DISMISSAL - ILLEGALITY

Summary

1 . AS WAS RECOGNIZED BY THE COURT IN JOINED CASES 43, 45 AND 48/59 AND IN CASE 44/59, THE ACTS OF AN AUTHORITY, IN THE CONTRACTUAL AS WELL AS IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE FIELD, ARE ALWAYS SUBJECT TO THE DICTATES OF PUBLIC INTEREST; THEREFORE EVERY DECISION OF DISMISSAL MUST BE BASED ON REASONS AFFECTING THE INTERESTS OF THE SERVICE AND MUST EXCLUDE ANYTHING OF AN ARBITRARY NATURE .

THIS REQUIREMENT EXISTS FROM THE DATE OF THE CREATION OF A LEGAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ADMINISTRATION AND ITS SERVANTS .

IN CONSEQUENCE, IT IS NOT NECESSARY IN THE PRESENT CASE TO SETTLE THE QUESTION WHETHER A DECISION OF DISMISSAL, COMING AT THE END OF A PERIOD OF PROBATION OF A SERVANT RECRUITED UNDER THE BRUSSELS RULES SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT STATE THE REASONS UNDERLYING IT, BECAUSE THERE ARE GROUNDS FOR CONCLUDING THAT SUCH A DECISION MUST IN ANY CASE BE FOUNDED ON REASONS VALID IN LAW .

HENCE THE COURT MUST RULE THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISHED THAT THE IMPUGNED DECISION IS FOUNDED ON A GROUND VALID IN LAW .

2 . IF THE CONDITIONS FOR PAYMENT OF THE INSTALLATION ALLOWANCE HAVE BEEN FULFILLED, THAT ALLOWANCE CANNOT BE REFUSED ON THE BASIS OF AN IRREGULAR DECISION OF DISMISSAL .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . PECUNIARY SANCTIONS AND PERIODIC PENALTY PAYMENTS - PROCEDURE - APPEAL - LEGAL ARGUMENTS NOT SUBMITTED AT THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS - ADMISSIBILITY

( ECSC TREATY, ARTICLE 36 )

2 . PRICE - PUBLICITY - ALIGNMENT - A POSTERIORI ALIGNMENT - INADMISSIBILITY

( ECSC TREATY, ARTICLE 60 ( 2 ) ( B ))

3 . ECSC TREATY - INFRINGEMENT - DEFENCE OF LEGITIMATE SELF-PROTECTION AMOUNTING TO JUSTIFICATION - CONCEPT

4 . DISCRIMINATION - CONCEPT OF COMPARABILITY

( ECSC TREATY, ARTICLES 3 ( B ) AND 4 ( B ))

5 . PENALTIES - FINE - AMOUNT - MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES - JUSTIFIED REFUSAL

Summary

1 . IN AN APPEAL AGAINST A PECUNIARY SANCTION OR A PERIODIC PENALTY PAYMENT A LEGAL ARGUMENT CANNOT BE DISMISSED FOR THE SOLE REASON THAT IT WAS NOT PRESENTED AT THE TIME OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS . TO EXCLUDE AN ARGUMENT ON THIS BASIS WHICH IS IN ANY EVENT INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE PURELY PRELIMINARY NATURE OF THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN BY ARTICLE 36 OF THE TREATY, WOULD UNDULY RESTRICT THE APPLICANT'S RIGHTS OF DEFENCE .

2 . THE RIGHT TO AN ALIGNMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 60 ( 2 ) ( B ) OF THE ECSC TREATY CONSTITUTES AN EXCEPTION TO THE PRINCIPLE OF LIST PRICES, BUT IT MUST NOT DIVEST THAT PRINCIPLE OF ALL EFFECT THROUGH THE EXCLUSION OF PUBLICITY BY MEANS OF ALIGNMENTS CARRIED OUT A POSTERIORI . AN ALIGNMENT WHICH, EVEN THOUGH CALCULATED CORRECTLY, IS MADE SOLELY IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY A POSTERIORI AN ABATEMENT OF LIST PRICES, CONTRAVENES THE GENERAL SCHEME OF THE TREATY AND ARTICLE 60 ( 2 ) ( B ) IN PARTICULAR .

3 . A DEFENCE OF LEGITIMATE SELF-PROTECTION CAPABLE OF JUSTIFYING AN INFRINGEMENT OF THE TREATY PRESUPPOSES AN ACTION TAKEN BY A PERSON WHICH IS ESSENTIAL IN ORDER TO WARD OFF A DANGER THREATENING HIM . THE THREAT MUST BE IMMEDIATE, THE DANGER IMMINENT, AND THERE MUST BE NO OTHER LAWFUL MEANS OF AVOIDING IT .

4 . THE CONCEPT OF COMPARABILITY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ECSC TREATY IS OBJECTIVE IN NATURE AND DOES NOT PERMIT PURELY SUBJECTIVE FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION . THE PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION WOULD OTHERWISE LOSE ITS EFFECT .

5 . AN UNDERTAKING CANNOT ESCAPE FROM THE STRICT OBLIGATION TO COMPLY WITH THE RULES OF THE TREATY ON THE GROUNDS THAT OTHER UNDERTAKINGS EMPLOY SIMILAR ILLEGAL DEVICES OR THAT IT IS IN A DIFFICULT SITUATION WHEN FOR THE TIME BEING THERE IS AN UNFAVOURABLE ECONOMIC STATE OF AFFAIRS . THE HIGH AUTHORITY IS JUSTIFIED IN REFUSING TO FIND THAT THESE ARE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . PROCEDURE - PRELIMINARY OBJECTION OF ILLEGALITY - PROCEEDINGS BEFORE A NATIONAL COURT OR TRIBUNAL - DIRECT APPLICATION TO THE COURT BY THE PARTIES TO THOSE PROCEEDINGS - INADMISSIBILITY

( EEC TREATY, ARTICLES 173, 184 )

2 . PROCEDURE - PRELIMINARY OBJECTION OF ILLEGALITY - ARTICLE 184 OF THE EEC TREATY - OBJECT

3 . PROCEDURE - PRELIMINARY RULING - PROCEEDINGS BEFORE A NATIONAL COURT OR TRIBUNAL - REQUEST ADDRESSED DIRECTLY TO THE COURT BY THE PARTIES TO THOSE PROCEEDINGS - INADMISSIBILITY

( EEC TREATY, ARTICLE 177 )

Summary

1 . IT IS CLEAR FROM THE WORDING AND THE GENERAL SCHEME OF ARTICLE 184, AND IN PARTICULAR FROM THE REFERENCE TO THE TIME LIMIT LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 173, THAT A DECLARATION OF THE INAPPLICABILITY OF A REGULATION IS ONLY CONTEMPLATED IN PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT OF JUSTICE ITSELF UNDER SOME OTHER PROVISION OF THE TREATY, AND THEN ONLY INCIDENTALLY AND WITH LIMITED EFFECT, AND THAT ARTICLE 184 DOES NOT PERMIT THE SAID TIME LIMIT TO BE AVOIDED .

2 . ARTICLE 184 DOES NOT PROVIDE A METHOD OF RECOURSE RUNNING CONCURRENTLY WITH THAT UNDER ARTICLE 173 . ITS SOLE OBJECT IS TO PROTECT AN INTERESTED PARTY AGAINST THE APPLICATION OF AN ILLEGAL REGULATION WITHOUT THEREBY IN ANY WAY CALLING IN ISSUE THE REGULATION ITSELF, WHICH CAN NO LONGER BE CHALLENGED BECAUSE OF THE EXPIRY OF THE TIME LIMIT LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 173 .

3 . THE PARTIES TO AN ACTION PENDING BEFORE A NATIONAL COURT OR TRIBUNAL ARE NOT ENTITLED TO MAKE A DIRECT REQUEST TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING . NEITHER THE TREATY NOR THE PROTOCOL IMPOSES SUCH A LIMITATION ON THE POWERS OF THE NATIONAL COURT, SINCE A QUESTION MAY ONLY BE REFERRED TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING UNDER THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN BY ARTICLE 177 .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . OFFICIALS - DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATION ADVERSELY AFFECTING SUCH OFFICIALS - REASONS FOR THE DECISION

( STAFF REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 25 )

2 . OFFICIALS - ESTABLISHMENT - DECISION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT BOARD - REASONS FOR THE DECISION

( STAFF REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 93 AND ANNEX X )

3 . OFFICIALS - PROFESSIONAL SKILLS - ASSESSMENT BY THE ADMINISTRATION - REVIEW BY THE COURT - LIMITS

4 . OFFICIALS - WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION ON THE PART OF THE ADMINISTRATION - NON-MATERIAL DAMAGE RESULTING FROM A LAWFUL MEASURE - IMPOSSIBILITY IN PRINCIPLE - EXCEPTION IN CASES OF SUPERFLUOUS CRITICISM 5 . COSTS - UNREASONABLY INCURRED

( RULES OF PROCEDURE, ARTICLE 69 ( 3 ))

Summary

1 . WHERE THE GROUNDS FOR A MEASURE ADVERSELY AFFECTING AN OFFICIAL ARE GIVEN CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY, SUCH A MEASURE IS REASONED .

2 . IN GIVING REASONS FOR ITS RECOMMENDATION ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN OFFICIAL THE ESTABLISHMENT BOARD NEED ONLY REFER TO THE ESTABLISHMENT REPORT DRAWN UP BY THE OFFICIAL'S SUPERIOR OFFICER .

3 . THE COURT CANNOT REVIEW THE REASONABLENESS OF AN ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROFESSIONAL SKILLS SHOWN BY AN OFFICIAL WHERE THIS ASSESSMENT INCLUDES COMPLEX VALUE - JUDGMENTS THE VERY NATURE OF WHICH EXCLUDES AN OBJECTIVE REVIEW .

4 . A MEASURE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO BE UNLAWFUL CANNOT CONSTITUTE A WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION AND THUS UNLAWFULLY PREJUDICE THE HONOUR AND REPUTATION OF THE PERSON TO WHOM IT REFERS, UNLESS IT CONTAINS SUPERFLUOUS CRITICISMS OF THAT PERSON .

5 . IF THE CONDUCT OF THE DEFENDANT HAS ENCOURAGED THE APPLICANT TO MAKE TWO APPLICATIONS WHEN ONE WOULD HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT TO SETTLE THE QUESTION IN DISPUTE IT HAS CAUSED HIM TO INCUR COSTS UNREASONABLY . HOWEVER, AS ONE APPLICATION HAS PROVED TO BE SUPERFLUOUS AND THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED THEREIN, HE MUST BEAR ANY COSTS INCURRED AFTER THE TIME AT WHICH HE COULD HAVE REALIZED THAT THERE WERE NO GROUNDS FOR PROCEEDING WITH THE ACTION . ( CF . SUMMARY OF THE JUDGMENT IN JOINED CASES 15/59 AND 26/59, NOV . 7, REC . 1960, P . 14 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . PROCEDURE - APPLICATION - REQUIREMENTS OF FORM

( RULES OF PROCEDURE, ARTICLE 38 )

2 . APPEALS AGAINST PECUNIARY SANCTIONS - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 36 OF THE ECSC TREATY NOT NECESSARY

3 . PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH THE COURT HAS UNLIMITED JURISDICTION - GROUNDS AVAILABLE

Summary

1 . CF . SUMMARIES IN CASES 7/56 AND 3/57 TO 7/57, REC . 1957, P . 88, N . 10, AND IN CASES 19/60, 21/60 2/61, 3/61, REC . 1961, P . 564, N . 3 .

PROCEDURE - APPLICATION - DETAILS REQUIRED

THE APPLICANT IS NOT BOUND TO CITE THE PROVISIONS ON WHICH HE RELIES; IT IS ENOUGH IF THE APPLICATION CONTAINS 'THE FACTS AND SUBMISSIONS ON WHICH THE APPLICATION IS BASED' AND 'THE CONCLUSIONS' ( PROTOCOL ON THE STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE, ARTICLE 22; RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE COURT, ARTICLE 29 ( 3 )).

*/ EN.656J0007 /*.

THE WORDS 'BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE GROUNDS' USED IN THE PROTOCOL ON THE STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE AND THE RULES OF PROCEDURE MEAN THAT, ALTHOUGH THE APPLICATION NEED NOT CONFORM WITH THE PHRASEOLOGY OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 33, IT MUST SPECIFY THE NATURE OF THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THE APPLICATION IS BASED . ALTHOUGH A MERE ABSTRACT STATEMENT OF THE GROUNDS IN THE APPLICATION DOES NOT ALONE SATISFY THIS REQUIREMENT, THE GROUNDS MAY BE EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF THEIR SUBSTANCE RATHER THAN OF THEIR LEGAL CLASSIFICATION PROVIDED THAT THE GROUND OF COMPLAINT RELIED UPON IS ESTABLISHED IN RELATION TO THE FACTS WHICH HAVE BEEN SET OUT .

*/ EN.660J0019 /*.

2 . ANY APPEAL AGAINST PECUNIARY SANCTIONS IMPOSED BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY IS BY ITS VERY NATURE BASED ON ARTICLE 36 OF THE TREATY AND THERE IS NO NEED TO INVOKE THAT ARTICLE EXPRESSLY .

3 . IN PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH THE COURT HAS UNLIMITED JURISDICTION THE APPLICANTS ARE ALSO ENTITLED TO AVAIL THEMSELVES OF THE GROUNDS SET FORTH IN ARTICLE 33 OF THE TREATY .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . OFFICIALS - INTEGRATION - ESTABLISHMENT BOARD - DUTIES

( STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS OF THE EAEC, ARTICLE 102 )

2 . OFFICIALS - INTEGRATION - INTEGRATION PROCEDURE - NON-DISCIPLINARY NATURE - INFRINGEMENTS BY SERVANTS OF RULES OF CONDUCT AS A CRITERION FOR ASSESSMENT

( STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS OF THE EAEC, ARTICLE 102 )

3 . OFFICIALS - INTEGRATION - INTEGRATION PROCEDURE - CONFRONTATION OF SERVANT CONCERNED WITH HIS IMMEDIATE SUPERIORS NOT ESSENTIAL

( STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS OF THE EAEC, ARTICLE 102 )

4 . OFFICIALS - INTEGRATION - MINUTES OF MEETINGS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT BOARD - COMMUNICATION PRIOR TO THE NOTIFICATION OF THE DECISION ON INTEGRATION NOT OBLIGATORY

( STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS OF THE EAEC, ARTICLE 102 )

5 . OFFICIALS - INTEGRATION - OPINION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT BOARD - GROUND OF COMPLAINT TO BE RAISED BY MEANS OF AN ACTION AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY CONFIRMING THAT OPINION

( STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS OF THE EAEC, ARTICLES 91 AND 102 ) 6 . OFFICIALS - INTEGRATION - TRANSITIONAL NATURE OF THE PROVISIONS RELATING THERETO

( STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS OF THE EAEC, ARTICLE 102 )

Summary

1 . THE ESTABLISHMENT BOARD REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 102 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS HAS THE TASK OF EVALUATING THE GENERAL CONDUCT OF THE PERSONS CONCERNED IN ORDER TO MAKE A VALUED JUDGMENT ON THEIR ABILITY TO CARRY OUT ON A PERMANENT BASIS THE DUTIES CORRESPONDING TO THEIR CLASSIFICATION IN THE HIERARCHY .

2 . THE INTEGRATION PROCEDURE DOES NOT HAVE THE CHARACTER OF A DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE . IT IS TRUE, HOWEVER, THAT INFRINGEMENTS OF THE RULES CONCERNING THE CONDUCT REQUIRED OF SERVANTS WORKING FOR AN ADMINISTRATION CONSTITUTE, IF THEY ARE SERIOUS OR REPEATED, ONE OF THE IMPORTANT CRITERIA FOR ASSESSMENT, EVEN IF SUCH INFRINGEMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN INDIVIDUALLY PUNISHED .

3 . THE INTEGRATION PROCEDURE DOES NOT REQUIRE THE CONFRONTATION OF THE SERVANT CONCERNED WITH HIS IMMEDIATE SUPERIORS .

4 . THE ADMINISTRATION CANNOT BE REGARDED AS BEING OBLIGED TO PASS TO THE PERSON CONCERNED THE MINUTES OF MEETINGS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT BOARD BEFORE NOTIFICATION OF THE DECISION OF THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY .

5 . ANY GROUND OF COMPLAINT BY AN OFFICIAL AGAINST AN UNFAVOURABLE OPINION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT BOARD CAN ONLY BE RAISED EFFECTIVELY BY MEANS OF AN ACTION AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY, SINCE THIS DECISION, WHICH CONSTITUTES THE FINAL STEP IN THE INTEGRATION PROCEDURE, IS REQUIRED TO CONFIRM THE OPINION .

CF . SUMMARY, PARAGRAPH 2, CASE 84/63 .

6 . ARTICLE 102 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS IS ONLY A TRANSITIONAL PROVISION OF THOSE REGULATIONS AND CONSEQUENTLY DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY GENERAL PROVISION FOR GIVING EFFECT THERETO WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 110 OF THE SAID REGULATIONS .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . OFFICIALS - APPEALS RELATING TO DECISIONS PRIOR TO THE PUBLICATION OF THE REGULATIONS - TIME-LIMITS

( STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS OF THE EAEC, ARTICLES 91 AND 102 )

2 . OFFICIALS - CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT CONCLUDED BEFORE THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS - APPEAL RELATING TO THE INTERPRETATION OF SUCH CONTRACTS - APPLICABILITY OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS AFTER ESTABLISHMENT

( STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS OF THE EAEC, ARTICLE 91 )

3 . OFFICIALS - EMPLOYMENT ON A CONTRACTUAL BASIS - LEGAL SYSTEM

Summary

1 . ARTICLE 91, IN SO FAR AS IT LAYS DOWN TIME-LIMITS FOR THE FILING OF APPEALS, APPLIES TO PREVIOUS DECISIONS ONLY FROM THE DATE OF ITS PUBLICATION .

THIS RULE APPLIES IN PARTICULAR TO DISPUTES CONCERNING THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 102 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS, WHICH LAYS DOWN TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS TO ENABLE THE STAFF REGULATIONS TO BE APPLIED TO SERVANTS WHO ARE ALREADY EMPLOYED . THESE PROVISIONS ARE IN ADDITION TO THE RULES PRESCRIBED BY THE STAFF REGULATIONS FOR THE RECRUITMENT OF OFFICIALS .

2 . HOWEVER, WHERE THERE IS A DISPUTE WHICH CONCERNS THE INTERPRETATION OF A CONTRACT CONCLUDED DURING THE PERIOD BEFORE THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS, THE RULES OF THE REGULATIONS, AND ESPECIALLY THOSE OF ARTICLE 91, CANNOT BE APPLIED BEFORE ESTABLISHMENT HAS BEEN DULY GRANTED .

3 . IT IS GENERALLY ACCEPTED THAT PUBLIC SERVANTS EMPLOYED ON A CONTRACTUAL BASIS ARE SUBJECT TO THE APPLICATION OF REGULATIONS RELATING TO THE FUNCTIONING OF THE SERVICE AND THAT THESE REGULATIONS APPLY TO SERVANTS TAKING UP THEIR DUTIES .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . MEASURES ADOPTED BY AN INSTITUTION - APPLICATIONS BY INDIVIDUALS AGAINST A DECISION ADDRESSED TO ANOTHER PERSON - DECISION OF DIRECT CONCERN TO THEM - CONCEPT

( EEC TREATY, ARTICLE 173 )

2 . MEASURES ADOPTED BY AN INSTITUTION - APPLICATIONS BY INDIVIDUALS AGAINST A DECISION ADDRESSED TO ANOTHER PERSON - DECISION OF INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO THEM - CONCEPT

( EEC TREATY, ARTICLE 173 )

3 . AGRICULTURE - COMMON ORGANIZATION OF MARKETS - CEREALS - PROTECTIVE MEASURES TAKEN BY MEMBER STATES - POWERS OF THE COMMISSION - CHARACTER - EXERCISE BY WAY OF DECISIONS DIRECTLY CONCERNING THE INTERESTED PARTIES

( EEC TREATY, ARTICLE 173, REGULATION NO 19 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE EEC OF 4 APRIL 1962, ARTICLE 22(2 ), OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES OF 20 APRIL 1962, P.942/62 )

Summary

1 . A DECISION WHICH COMES INTO FORCE IMMEDIATELY IS OF DIRECT CONCERN TO AN INTERESTED PARTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 173 OF THE EEC TREATY .

2 . CF . PARA . 1 OF SUMMARY IN CASE 1/64, ( 1964 ) ECR 413 .

PERSONS OTHER THAN THOSE TO WHOM A DECISION IS ADDRESSED MAY ONLY CLAIM TO BE INDIVIDUALLY CONCERNED IF THAT DECISION AFFECTS THEM BY REASON OF CERTAIN ATTRIBUTES WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THEM OR BY REASON OF CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THEY ARE DIFFERENTIATED FROM ALL OTHER PERSONS, AND BY VIRTUE OF THESE FACTORS DISTINGUISHES THEM INDIVIDUALLY JUST AS IN THE CASE OF THE PERSON ADDRESSED .

A DECISION OF GENERAL ECONOMIC SCOPE AND EFFECT WITHIN THE COMMON MARKET CANNOT BE OF INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO AN UNDERTAKING, EVEN IF THE LATTER OCCUPIES, A SPECIAL POSITION AS REGARDS THE RELEVANT PRODUCT IN THE MARKET OF ONE OF THE MEMBER STATES .

*/ 664J0001 /*.

3 . SINCE THEY COME INTO FORCE IMMEDIATELY DECISIONS OF THE COMMISSION AMENDING OR ABOLISHING PROTECTIVE MEASURES TAKEN BY MEMBER STATES FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE MARKET IN CEREALS ARE DIRECTLY APPLICABLE AND CONCERN INTERESTED PARTIES SUBJECT TO THEM AS DIRECTLY AS THE MEASURES WHICH THEY REPLACE . DECISIONS RETAINING PROTECTIVE MEASURES HAVE THE SAME EFFECT BECAUSE THEY DO NOT CONSTITUTE A MERE APPROVAL OF THESE MEASURES BUT RENDER THEM VALID .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT FOR PERSONS - MIGRANT WORKERS - INSURANCE - BENEFITS PAYABLE UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF A MEMBER STATE FOR INJURY SUFFERED IN THE TERRITORY OF ANOTHER STATE - RIGHT OF INSTITUTIONS LIABLE FOR PAYMENT OF BENEFIT WITH REGARD TO A THIRD PARTY ACCOUNTABLE FOR COMPENSATION - APPLICATION OF THE RELATIVE PROVISIONS

( REGULATION NO 3 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE EEC, ARTICLE 52 )

Summary

( A ) CF . PARA . 2(A ), SUMMARY, CASE 31/64, ( 1965 ) ECR 81 .

THE PROVISIONS OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 52 OF REGULATION N . 3 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE EEC CONCERNING SOCIAL SECURITY FOR MIGRANT WORKERS ARE APPLICABLE EVEN BEFORE A BILATERAL AGREEMENT, AS REFERRED TO IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THAT ARTICLE, HAS BEEN CONCLUDED BETWEEN THE MEMBER STATES CONCERNED, THIS PARAGRAPH BEING INTENDED ONLY TO ALLOW THE STATES TO SETTLE AMONG THEMSELVES ANY POSSIBLE DETAILS CONCERNING THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS IN ORDER TO FACILITATE THE THE ADAPTATION OF NATIONAL LAW TO THE COMMUNITY RULES .

*/ 664J0031 /*.

( B ) THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 52 OF REGULATION NO 3 ARE APPLICABLE TO FRONTIER WORKERS .

( C ) THE PROVISIONS OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THE SAID ARTICLE ARE APPLICABLE WHERE A WORKER WHO, UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF ONE MEMBER STATE, IS IN RECEIPT OF ONE OF THE BENEFITS MENTIONED IN ARTICLE 2 OF REGULATION NO 3 IN RESPECT OF AN INJURY SUSTAINED IN THE TERRITORY OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE, WHETHER OR NOT SUCH INJURY IS CONNECTED WITH HIS WORK, IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM COMPENSATION FOR THAT INJURY FROM A THIRD PARTY IN THE LATTER STATE'S TERRITORY .

CF . PARA . 2(B ), SUMMARY, CASE 31/64, ( 1965 ) ECR 81 .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . OFFICIALS - APPEALS - TIME-LIMITS - EXTENSION OF TIME BY MEANS OF A COMPLAINT WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 90 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS

( STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS OF THE ECSC, ARTICLE 91 )

2 . OFFICIALS - APPEAL AGAINST A MEASURE CONFIRMING A PREVIOUS DECISION - TIME-LIMIT FOR APPEAL AGAINST SUCH DECISION EXPIRED - LOSS OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

( STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS OF THE ECSC, ARTICLE 91 )

3 . PROCEDURE - JUDGMENT GRANTING ANNULMENT - LEGAL EFFECTS - LIMITED TO THE PARTIES AND TO THE PERSONS DIRECTLY CONCERNED BY THE MEASURE ANNULLED - JUDGMENT CONSTITUTING A NEW FACT - CONCEPT

Summary

1 . CF . PARAGRAPH 5, SUMMARY IN CASE 28/64, ( 1965 ) ECR 237 .

A REQUEST OR COMPLAINT PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 90 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS, ALTHOUGH CAPABLE OF BEING SUBMITTED AT ANY TIME, CANNOT NEVERTHELESS EXTEND THE PERIOD FOR LODGING AN APPEAL TO THE COURT UNLESS IT IS MADE WITHIN THE PERIOD LAID DOWN FOR THE LATTER .

*/ 664J0028 /*.

2 . A MEASURE WHICH MERELY CONFIRMS A PREVIOUS DECISION CANNOT REVIVE AN ALREADY TIME-BARRED RIGHT OF APPEAL AGAINST THAT DECISION .

CF . PARAGRAPH 1, SUMMARY IN JOINED CASES 50, 51, 53, 54 AND 57/64, ( 1965 ) ECR 825 .

3 . CF . PARAGRAPH 4 OF SUMMARY IN CASE 43/64 ( 1965 ) ECR 385 .

APART FROM THE ACTUAL PARTIES IN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT, THE ONLY PERSONS CONCERNED BY THE LEGAL EFFECTS OF A JUDGMENT OF THE COURT ANNULLING A MEASURE ARE, THE PERSONS DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE MEASURE WHICH IS ANNULLED . SUCH A JUDGMENT CAN ONLY CONSTITUTE A NEW FACTOR AS REGARDS THOSE PERSONS .

*/ 664J0043 /*.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF - ESTABLISHMENT - PRODUCTS IN LIST G - SILK - ITALIAN MARKET - ISOLATION - SUPPORT FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF PROTECTIVE MEASURES - NON-BINDING NATURE - NO DEROGATION FROM THE EEC TREATY - POWERS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE COMMISSION

( EEC TREATY, ARTICLES 14, 15 AND 226 )

PROTOCOL NO VIII, ARTICLE 2 OF THE AGREEMENT OF 2 MARCH 1960 REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PART OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF CONCERNING PRODUCTS IN LIST G ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES OF 20 DECEMBER 1960, P . 1855 )

Summary

ARTICLE 2 OF PROTOCOL NO VIII LAYS DOWN A POLICY WHICH THE COMMISSION MUST TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WITHOUT BEING BOUND BY ANY SPECIFIC LEGAL OBLIGATION . AS THIS PROVISION HAS NOT LAID DOWN ANY POSITIVE MEASURE OF LAW IT NEITHER INVOLVES A DEPARTURE FROM ARTICLE 14 OR 15 OF THE EEC TREATY, NOR SUBSTITUTES FOR THEM A SPECIAL RULE CONCERNING ITALIAN SILK PRODUCTS . MOREOVER, ARTICLE 2 OF PROTOCOL NO VIII INVOLVES NO DEPARTURE FROM ARTICLE 226 OF THE EEC TREATY . WHILE EXPRESSING ' SUPPORT FOR THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 226 OF THE TREATY ', THE MEMBER STATES INTENDED TO REMAIN WITHIN THE ACTUAL FRAMEWORK OF THAT ARTICLE AND LEAVE INTACT THE DISCRETIONARY POWER VESTED BY IT IN THE COMMISSION .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . OFFICIALS - RECRUITMENT - COMPETITION - PROCEEDINGS OF THE SELECTION BOARD - LEGAL NATURE - REGULARITY OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS CHALLENGEABLE ONLY BY WAY OF AN APPEAL AGAINST THE DECISION OF APPOINTMENT

( STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, ARTICLES 29 AND 91 )

2 . OFFICIALS - RECRUITMENT - COMPETITION - HOLDING OR REHOLDING OF A COMPETITION - EXCLUSIVE POWERS OF THE ADMINISTRATION - LIMIT OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT

( STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, ARTICLES 29 AND 91 )

3 . OFFICIALS - RECRUITMENT - COMPETITION - PROCEDURE - PROCEEDINGS OF THE SELECTION BOARD - FORMALITIES - SUBSTANTIVE NATURE - PURPOSE - INFRINGEMENT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE UNSUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES

( STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, ARTICLE 91; ANNEX III )

Summary

1 . THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SELECTION BOARD ARE NOT CHALLENGEABLE AS SUCH; THEIR LEGALITY MAY ONLY BE QUESTIONED IN AN APPLICATION DIRECTED AGAINST THE DECISION TO WHICH THEY WERE A PRELIMINARY .

2 . CF . PARAGRAPH 2, SUMMARY, CASE 11/65 ( 1965 ) ECR 1017 .

ASSESSMENT OF THE EXPEDIENCY OR NECESSITY OF ORGANIZING A COMPETITION LIES WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE DOMAIN OF THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY . IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE COURT CANNOT ORDER A COMPETITION TO BE HELD OR REHELD WITHOUT ENCROACHING UPON THE PREROGATIVES OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY .

*/ 665J0011 /*.

3 . THE REQUIREMENT LAID DOWN BY THE SIXTH PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 5 OF ANNEX III TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS, WHICH STATES THAT THE REPORT SENT TO THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY BY THE SELECTION BOARD FOR THE COMPETITION MUST BE REASONED, IS A REQUIREMENT OF SUBSTANCE . THE STATEMENT OF REASONS MUST BE SUCH AS TO ENABLE THE AUTHORITY TO EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION WITH JUDGMENT, WHICH MEANS THAT IT NEEDS TO BE INFORMED OF BOTH THE GENERAL CRITERIA EMPLOYED BY THE SELECTION BOARD AND THE MANNER IN WHICH THESE WERE APPLIED BY THE BOARD TO THE PERSONS APPEARING ON THE LIST OF SUITABLE CANDIDATES .

INFRINGEMENT OF THIS PRINCIPLE ADVERSELY AFFECTS THE UNSUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 91 .