ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Officials ° Recruitment ° Competition ° Competition based on qualifications and tests ° Refusal of admission to the tests ° Decision adversely affecting person concerned ° Obligation to state reasons ° Scope

(Staff Regulations, Art. 25, second para; Annex III, Art. 5)

Summary

The purpose of the obligation to state the reasons for any individual decision adopted under the Staff Regulations is to provide the person concerned with sufficient details to allow him to ascertain whether or not the decision is well founded and to make it possible for the decision to be the subject of judicial review. As regards the decision of a Selection Board not to admit a candidate to the tests, it is necessary for the Selection Board to state clearly the conditions in the notice of competition which it considers the candidate has not satisfied. Although, where there is a large number of candidates in a competition, the Selection Board may initially confine itself to stating the reasons for its refusal in a summary manner and informing the candidates only of the criteria and the result of the selection, the Selection Board must nevertheless subsequently provide an individual explanation to those candidates who expressly ask for it.

That requirement to state reasons is not satisfied where, in a letter sent to a candidate who has not been admitted to the tests, the Selection Board, after reconsidering his candidature at his request, does not specify the reasons for which his training and experience were considered to fall below the minimum laid down for admission laid down in the notice of competition.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Officials ° Assignment ° Transfer ° Principle of equivalence of posts ° Scope

(Staff Regulations, Art. 7(1))

2. Officials ° Assignment ° Transfer ° Administration' s duty to have regard to the interests of officials ° Reconciliation with the interests of the service

3. Officials ° Recruitment ° Vacancy ° Filling of post by promotion or transfer ° Comparative examination of the merits of the candidates ° Absence of most recent staff report

Summary

1. Under Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations, every official must be assigned by the appointing authority, by appointment or transfer, to a post in his category which corresponds to his grade.

The principle of equivalence of grade and post calls, in the event of a change in an official' s duties, not for a comparison between his present and previous duties but for a comparison between his present duties and the grade which he occupies within the scale of posts.

Accordingly, Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations does not preclude a transfer decision involving the attribution of new duties which, although different from those previously carried out by the official and seen by him as constituting a diminution of his duties and powers, are nevertheless in conformity with the post corresponding to his grade.

2. A change in an official' s assignment, which must be based primarily on the interests of the service, does not constitute a breach of the duty to have regard to the interests of officials where the administration remains within proper bounds in its use of its wide discretion in evaluating the interests of the service on the one hand and those of the official concerned on the other.

3. The absence of the latest staff report from the file of an official who has applied for a vacant post cannot vitiate the decision rejecting his candidature if, when the comparative examination of merits was carried out, the administration had at its disposal sufficient information on which it could reasonably base its decision.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Officials ° Remuneration ° Family allowances ° Child of two divorced officials actually maintained by both ° Simultaneous right of both officials to allowances, independently of the award of custody ° Payment of allowances to the person with custody

(Staff Regulations, Art. 67(1) and (2); Annex VII, Art. 1(2)(b), Art. 2(1) and (2) and Art. 3)

Summary

Only a child who is actually maintained by an official can be regarded as a dependent child within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 2(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and it is only in respect of such a child that the official is entitled to draw the family allowances provided for in Article 67(1) of the Staff Regulations. In this connection, there is nothing to prevent a child' s being regarded as being actually maintained by a number of persons at the same time. Consequently, where two divorced Community officials actually support jointly the children of their marriage and are therefore simultaneously responsible for those children, they are both entitled to the household allowance under Article 1(2)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and the dependent child allowance and the education allowance, as provided for in Article 2(1) and the first paragraph of Article 3 of Annex VII.

The person or persons who actually maintain the children must be determined in the light of the existing fact. It is not open to the administration simply to find that, because custody of the children is given to one of the officials by an order of court, that official alone actually maintains the children and that the other parent is therefore not entitled to the family allowances.

Family allowances, which are exclusively intended for the maintenance of children, are paid in favour of the person who, pursuant to legal provisions or by an order of court or of the competent administrative authority, has custody of the children. If that person is one of two divorced Community officials, the family allowances will be paid to that official both on his or her behalf and in his or her name and also on behalf and in the name of the other official, with the proviso that, in accordance with the general principle laid down in Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations, an official may not draw two allowances of the same kind.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Officials ° Obligation on the administration to provide assistance ° Scope

(Staff Regulations, Art. 24)

2. Officials ° Decision adversely affecting an official ° Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based ° Purpose

(Staff Regulations, Art. 25, second para.)

Summary

1. Although Article 24 of the Staff Regulations is devised primarily to protect Community officials against attacks by third parties, the duty to provide assistance laid down in that provision also exists in a case in which the perpetrator of the acts referred to by that provision is another official of the Communities.

When the administration is faced with an incident which is incompatible with the good order and tranquillity of the service, it must intervene with all the necessary vigour and respond with the rapidity and solicitude required by the circumstances of the case with a view to ascertaining the facts and, consequently, taking the appropriate action in full knowledge of the facts.

2. The requirement that a decision adversely affecting a person should state the reasons on which it is based is intended to enable the Community judicature to review the legality of the contested decision and to provide the person concerned with details sufficient to allow him to ascertain whether the decision is well founded or whether it is vitiated by an error which would allow its legality to be contested.
Keywords



Keywords

++++

Officials ° Competition ° Competition based on tests ° Conduct of tests ° Anonymity rule ° Breach attributable to a candidate ° Paper of the person concerned nullified

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 29, and Annex III)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Officials ° Reimbursement of expenses ° Daily subsistence allowance ° Purpose ° Probationary official who has previously been a member of the auxiliary staff and of the temporary staff ° Limitation of period of payment ° Not permissible

(Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 10; Conditions of Employment of Other Servants)

2. Officials ° Actions ° Unlimited jurisdiction ° Claim for payment ° Admissible

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

3. Officials ° Actions ° Prior administrative complaint ° Claim for default interest made for the first time before the Court of First Instance in the event of annulment of the contested decision ° Admissible

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

Summary

1. The daily subsistence allowance provided for in Article 10(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, to which a newly recruited official is entitled before moving to reside at his place of employment, is intended to compensate for the expenses and inconvenience occasioned by the need for an official to move and to establish a provisional residence at his place of employment while maintaining, also on a provisional basis, his previous residence.

No provision of the Staff Regulations or of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants lays down restrictive rules applicable to an official who is appointed a probationary official after having been a member of the auxiliary staff and then of the temporary staff, and no such restriction is necessary. In such circumstances, where the employment relationship has been precarious at all times, the daily subsistence allowance is granted for a specific purpose, namely to encourage the person concerned to refrain from transferring his residence, a move which, in the event of his not being established, would be premature and would, in the event of termination of his service, give rise to a double reimbursement of removal expenses. The person concerned must therefore be entitled, in return, to the grant of the daily subsistence allowance until the end of the period of precarious employment, plus one month, regardless of whether he has already received that allowance in earlier periods when his employment relationship was also precarious.

2. In an action of a financial character brought under Article 91 of the Staff Regulations, the Community judicature has unlimited jurisdiction, so that a claim for an order requiring payment of compensation is admissible.

3. In proceedings by officials, a claim for default interest in the event of annulment of the contested decision need not, in order to be admissible before the Court of First Instance, have been expressly mentioned in the prior administrative complaint.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Acts of the institutions ° Statement of reasons ° Obligation ° Scope ° Decision refusing to recognize the existence of aid

(EEC Treaty, Art. 190)

2. State aid ° Definition ° Financial conditions laid down by the public authorities governing the assistance given, in the taking of bets, by the body managing betting on horse-racing in one Member State to the equivalent body in another Member State ° No advantage to the recipient ° Excluded

(EEC Treaty, Art. 92(1))

Summary

1. The statement of reasons in decisions adopted by the Community institutions must be such as to enable the Community judicature to exercise its power of review of the legality of the decision and to enable the person concerned to ascertain the matters justifying the measure adopted, so that he can defend his rights and verify whether the decision is well founded.

A decision by which the Commission refuses to recognize the existence of aid must be regarded as being sufficiently reasoned where the facts and legal considerations essential to the decision are set out, even though not all the Commission' s reasoning is revealed. The person adopting a decision is not required to give all the relevant factual and legal details and the question whether the statement of the reasons on which a decision is based is sufficient may be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also to the context in which it was adopted and to all the legal rules governing the matter in question.

2. A measure cannot be described as State aid within the meaning of Article 92(1) of the Treaty if it has not provided any advantage to the alleged recipient.

The Commission was thus right, after carrying out complex economic appraisals, to decide that the arrangements made by the public authorities, whereby the body responsible for managing betting on horse-races in one Member State, having deducted a levy on bets which it takes on behalf of the equivalent body in another Member State on races held in the second Member State, transfers a proportion of the levy to the latter body, do not constitute State aid, even though those arrangements are different from those applied in relation to bets on races run on national territory if, after an examination of all the arrangements governing the flow of funds between the two bodies managing, each on its own territory, betting on races, it reached the conclusion, without committing any manifest error of assessment, that the transfer of levy does not involve sums higher than the recipient body would have collected if it had itself taken abroad the bets relating to the races falling under its sphere of responsibility.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Officials ° Recruitment ° Classification in step ° Additional seniority in step ° Member of the temporary staff appointed as an official ° Equal treatment

(Staff Regulations, Art. 32)

Summary

The non-retroactivity of Regulation No 3947/92 which inserted the third paragraph of Article 32 into the Staff Regulations cannot, in accordance with the principle of equal treatment, preclude immediate application of that provision to all persons who fall within its scope, including members of the temporary staff appointed as officials before that regulation entered into force. The provision in question merely states that members of the temporary staff appointed as officials in the same grade immediately following the period of temporary service are to retain their seniority in step and does not contain any restriction as regards the date of such appointment.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Decision to close the file on a complaint lodged by an association of beneficiaries of an undertaking's mutual provident association objecting to State aid awarded to that undertaking - Decision not affecting the legal sphere of the association - Inadmissible

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

Summary

An association formed by the beneficiaries of a mutual provident association of an undertaking integrated in the general social security scheme is not entitled to contest a decision by which the Commission closes the file on a complaint lodged by that association objecting to State aid allegedly awarded to that undertaking in the form, first, of the difference between the amount which the undertaking actually paid to the mutual association by way of contributions and the normal amount payable to the general social security scheme - which, owing to a reduction coefficient, it did not have to pay - and, secondly, of annulment of a guarantee which the undertaking was required to maintain in force so that the mutual association could always count on adequate cover for the benefits which it had to supply over a certain period.

The decision to close the file, which is in reality addressed to the Member State concerned, does not produce binding legal effects of such a nature as significantly to alter the legal situation of such an association, since, if repayment to the Member State were to be ordered, that State would, having regard to the national law in question, be under no obligation then to pay the contributions to the members of the association; moreover, there is nothing to support the view that the association could be revived.

Furthermore, an association of employees of an undertaking which allegedly benefited from a State aid in no way competes with that undertaking and cannot establish an interest in bringing proceedings on account of competitive effects.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Officials ° Organization of departments ° Determination of the level at which a post is to be filled ° Heads of units ° Discretion of the administration ° Publication of an A 3/A 4/A /5 vacancy notice and setting of the level at which the post was to be filled after the candidatures had been received ° Unlawful

(Staff Regulations, Arts 29(1)(a) and 45(1))

Summary

Since Article 7 of the Staff Regulations and Annex I thereto do not require posts of head of unit necessarily to be filled at Grade A 3 and since the requirement that the post must correspond to the grade does not mean that the institutions are obliged to define the duties attaching to each basic post in the same terms, there is nothing to prevent posts of head of unit from being filled at Grade A 3, A 4 or A 5, depending on the importance of the tasks entrusted to the unit concerned.

However, a procedure for filling head of unit posts which consists of publishing an A 3/A 4/A /5 vacancy notice and deciding the level at which the post in question is to be filled after the candidatures have been received and once the authority which is to take that decision is thus already acquainted with both the identities and files of the various candidates is illegal. Such a procedure runs counter to the requirement that the level at which a post is to be filled should be set objectively, having regard solely to the interests of the service, by reference to its importance, irrespective of the qualifications of the candidate or candidates. It may also lead to the rejection of a candidate, once the level of the post has been fixed, without any examination of his merits, simply because in the light of his grade he cannot seek to be appointed, whereas the notice of vacancy gave him that opportunity. By virtue of Articles 29(1)(a) and 45(1) of the Staff Regulations, the appointing authority is obliged to consider the comparative merits of the candidates within the self-imposed limits of legality set by the vacancy notice.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Acts of the institutions - Statement of reasons - Obligation - Scope - Decision imposing fines for infringement of the competition rules - Additional explanations during the proceedings before the Court - Whether permissible

(ECSC Treaty, Art. 15)

2 ECSC - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Prohibited - Infringement - Attribution of responsibility - Economic successor

(ECSC Treaty, Art. 65(1) and (5))

Summary

1 The statement of reasons required under Article 15 of the ECSC Treaty must enable the person concerned to ascertain the matters relied upon to justify the measure adopted so that, if necessary, he can defend his rights and verify whether the decision is well founded; secondly, it must enable the Community judicature to review the legality of the decision. The requirement must be considered in the light of the circumstances of the case, in particular the content of the measure in question, the nature of the reasons relied on and the context in which the measure was adopted.

In the case of a decision imposing fines for infringement of the competition rules, where the undertaking concerned has set out, both in its reply to the statement of objections and in its written submissions, all the elements of fact and of law which in its view will serve to refute the Commission's argument, there is nothing to prevent the latter from explaining before the Court of First Instance the reasoning set out in that decision by referring to the factual background described by the undertaking itself.

2 In certain circumstances, an infringement of the competition rules may be imputed to the economic successor of the legal person responsible - even where the latter has not ceased to exist on the date on which the decision finding the infringement is adopted - so that the effectiveness of those rules will not be compromised because of changes to, inter alia, the legal form of the undertakings concerned.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Actions for annulment - Actionable measures - Measures intended to produce legal effects - Commission proposal to close an anti-dumping proceeding - Intermediate preparatory measure - Excluded

(EC Treaty, Art. 173; Council Regulation No 2423/88, Art. 9)

2 Actions for failure to act - Failure remedied after commencement of proceedings - Action rendered devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate

(EC Treaty, Art. 175)

Summary

3 In the case of acts or decisions drawn up in a procedure involving several stages, and particularly at the end of an internal procedure, it is only those measures which definitively determine the position of the institution upon the conclusion of that procedure which are open to challenge and not intermediate measures whose purpose is to prepare for the final decision.

A proposal to terminate an anti-dumping proceeding made by the Commission to the Advisory Committee and the Council must be considered to be an intermediate measure, which is intended to prepare the final decision and cannot be regarded as an act against which an action will lie.

Thus it is apparent from Article 9 of the basic anti-dumping Regulation No 2423/88 that, as regards the termination of an anti-dumping proceeding without the imposition of protective measures, the Community legislature intended to establish a decision-making mechanism based on a power shared between the Commission, on the one hand, and the Advisory Committee and the Council, on the other. Under that mechanism, when the Commission's proposal to terminate the proceeding is rejected, the proceeding cannot be terminated and the case is referred back to the Commission for re-examination in the light of the position adopted by the Council.

4 When, in the context of an action for failure to act, the measure to which the proceedings relate is adopted after the action was brought, but before judgment has been given, the action no longer has any purpose, with the result that there is no longer any need to adjudicate.