ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Under the first indent of Article 44(1) of Regulation No 4028/86 on Community measures to improve and adapt fisheries and aquaculture structures, the Commission may decide to reduce the financial aid granted to a joint enterprise if the project is not carried out as specified. The exercise of the power to reduce aid thus conferred upon the Commission is not conditional on the finding of unlawful enrichment of the beneficiary of the aid.

The Commission is not in breach of the principle of proportionality when it decides, pursuant to the first indent of Article 44(1) of Regulation No 4028/86 on Community measures to improve and adapt fisheries and aquaculture structures, to reduce by one tenth the financial aid granted to a joint enterprise created for the purpose of exploiting and where applicable using, with the primary consideration being given to the supply of the Community market, the fishery resources of waters falling within the sovereignty and/or jurisdiction of a specific third country, on the ground that that enterprise has not complied with an essential condition for the proper management and stability of the international relations between the Community and nonmember countries in the framework of the fisheries policy, that is, the obligation to fish in the waters of the third country referred to in the decision to grant assistance.

It was reasonable for the Commission to consider that a less severe sanction was likely to compromise the sound management of the structural policy for fisheries and to invite fraud, since beneficiaries of aid would be tempted to change fishing zones without informing the Commission, at the risk only of having that aid reduced in a symbolic manner or, in any event, to an extent less than that which corresponds to the seriousness and duration of the infringement.

(see paras 90-91, 112, 114)
A letter of the Commission which definitively rejects, without examination, a ‘complaint’ lodged under Article 23(1) of Regulation No 2820/98 applying a multiannual scheme of generalised tariff preferences for the period 1 July 1999 to 31 December 2001 and which thus alters the legal position of the ‘complainer’ as a person with an interest in the temporary withdrawal of the European Community's generalised tariff preference system who has brought to the Commission's attention a case referred to in Article 22(1) of that regulation has legal effects capable of affecting the interests of that letter's addressee. It is therefore a measure against which the addressee may bring an action for annulment under Article 230 EC.

Article 27 of Regulation No 2820/98 applying a multiannual scheme of generalised tariff preferences for the period 1 July 1999 to 31 December 2001 cannot be construed as meaning that the mere fact that anti-subsidy measures have been imposed on the goods forming the subject-matter of a ‘complaint’ requesting initiation of the procedure for the temporary withdrawal of the benefit of the generalised tariff preference system and that the exception provided for by Article 27 is not applicable precludes the Commission from requesting that consultations be initiated under Article 23 of that regulation and then, if necessary, from opening an investigation under Article 25 of that regulation into the existence of the case envisaged by Article 22(1 )(e), namely unfair trading practices. Consequently, the rejection of a ‘complaint’ on the basis of such a misinterpretation of Regulation No 2820/98 must be annulled.

(see paras 88-89)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)

16 January 2003

Cases T-75/00

Augusto Fichtner

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Disciplinary measures — Removal from post — Engagement in outside activities without prior authorisation’

Full text in Italian II-51

Application for:

first, annulment of the Commission decision imposing on the applicant the disciplinary measure of removal from his post, with maintenance of retirement pension rights, on the ground that he had engaged in outside activities without prior authorisation, and, second, payment of compensation.

Held:

The application is dismissed. The parties are to bear their own costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

Summary

According to the third paragraph of Article 12 of the Staff Regulations the obligation to seek permission from the appointing authority arises as soon as the official wishes to engage in an outside activity, whether gainful or not, or to carry out any assignment outside the Communities. That obligation applies without exception and makes no distinction according to the nature or importance of the activities or assignment concerned. It is therefore solely for the appointing authority, pursuant to the second sentence of the third paragraph of Article 12 of the Staff Regulations, to evaluate the characteristics of the activity or assignment when considering the request for permission. Without valid permission the official concerned must not engage in the outside activity contemplated. (see paras 31-32) See: T-74/96 Tzoanos v Commission [1998] ECRSC I-A-129 and II-343. para. 66

It is possible that, in order to determine the seriousness of the breaches of obligations alleged against an official, the appointing authority may find it necessary to assess their effect on his performance, particularly where the alleged conduct consists of engagement in unauthorised external activities. However, where the official has, on several occasions during the hearing provided for in Article 87 of the Staff Regulations, been informed that the disciplinary procedure related solely to his alleged unauthorised outside activities and not to his conduct in the service or his performance, any assessment of the performance of the official concerned, including the evaluation of the impact of his outside activities on the performance of his duties in the service of the institution, necessarily falls outside the scope of the disciplinary procedure in question. (see paras 72-74) See: 403/85 F. v Commission, cited above; Williams v Court of Auditors , cited above; Onidi v Commission, cited above
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 72-75, 81
Keywords



Keywords

Applications for interim measures – Actionable measures – Definition – Measures producing binding legal effects – Failure to adopt a proposal for a regulation imposing an anti-dumping duty – Effect of the regulatory nature of the anti-dumping procedure – None (Art. 230 EC; Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 6(9)) (see paras 30-32)

2. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Failure to adopt a proposal for a regulation imposing a definitive anti‑dumping duty (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 384/96) (see para. 35)
Case T-56/00





Dole Fresh Fruit International Ltd

v

Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities





«(Bananas – Common organisation of the markets – Decision 94/800/EC – Regulation (EC) No 478/95 – Export licence scheme – Action for damages)»

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), 6 March 2003

Summary of the Judgment
Case T-195/00





Travelex Global and Financial Services Ltd and Interpayment Services Ltd

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Non-contractual liability – Directive 89/104/EEC – Trade marks – Official euro symbol)»

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

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Procedure – Introduction of new pleas in law in the course of the proceedings – Conditions – New plea – Definition

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 48(2))

2.. Actions for damages – Distinct nature – Exhaustion of domestic remedies – Exception – Impossibility of obtaining satisfaction before national courts – Infringement of a registered trade mark

(Arts 235 EC and 288, second para., EC)

3.. Approximation of laws – Trade marks – Directive 89/104 – Right of the owner of a registered trade mark to contest its unlawful use – Sign identical or similar to the trade mark – Use in the course of trade – Definition – Use of the official euro symbol to designate the single currency – Not included

(Council Directive 89/104, Art. 5(1)(b))

4.. Approximation of laws – Trade marks – Directive 89/104 – Right of the owner of a registered trade mark to contest its unlawful use – Likelihood of confusion – Assessment – Likelihood of association – Insufficient

(Council Directive 89/104, Art. 5(1)(b))

5.. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Lawful act – Real damage, causal link and unusual and special damage – Cumulative nature

(Art. 288, second para., EC)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Grand Chamber) of 14 December 2005 − Laboratoire du Bain v Council et Commission

(Case T-151/00)

Non-contractual liability of the Community – Incompatibility of the Community regime governing the import of bananas with the rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) – Imposition by the United States of America of retaliatory measures in the form of increased customs duty levied on imports from the Community, pursuant to a WTO authorisation – Decision of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body – Legal effects – Community liability in the absence of unlawful conduct of its institutions – Causal link – Unusual and special damage

1. 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)

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

The Court:

Dismisses the action;

Orders the applicant to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the Council and the Commission;
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber)

16 April 2002

Case T-51/01

Joachim Fronia

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Reorganisation of the Commission's administrative structures — Reassignment of a former Head of Unit as an ad personam adviser’

Full text in French II-187

Application for:

annulment of the decisions under which, at the time of the reorganisation of the Commission's administrative structures, the applicant was not kept on as an acting Head of Unit but reassigned as an ad personam adviser.

Held:

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

Summary

The principle that the post to which an official is assigned should correspond to his grade calls, in the event of a change in an official's duties, for a comparison, not between his present and previous duties, but between his present duties and his grade. Accordingly, there is nothing to preclude the adoption of a decision involving the assignment of new duties which, although different from those previously carried out by the official and seen by him as constituting a diminution of his responsibilities, are nevertheless in conformity with the post corresponding to his grade. Consequently, even an actual diminution of the official's responsibilities does not constitute a breach of the principle of correspondence between post and grade unless his duties, taken as a whole, fall clearly short of those corresponding to his grade and post, taking account of their character, importance and scope. In terms of the principles governing the Community civil service, an institution has the power, within the limits of the Staff Regulations, to assign to a member of staff lower-grade duties than those which he carried out before. In that regard, the personal interests of the official in securing the progress of his career cannot legitimately override the interests of the service as defined by the institution, in particular in the context of a reorganisation. (see paras 53, 57) See: T-59/91 and T-79/91 Eppe v Commission [1992] ECR II-2061, paras 49 and 51; W. v Commission, cited above, para. 104, and the case law cited therein

In the context of a reorganisation of departments, a decision reassigning an official, which merely reassigns him together with his post without providing for him to continue in his previous duties, concerns the administrative status of that official only. In the absence of an appointment to a vacant post, the appointing authority is not required to make a choice based on the comparative merits of several candidates. Consequently, it is not required to consult the official's staff report with a view to possible comparison with the reports of other officials. (see para. 62)
The appointing authority has a broad discretion, in particular where the post to be filled is in Grade A 1 or A 2, when comparing the merits of the candidates for such a post. However, the exercise of that broad discretion presupposes a meticulous examination of the candidates' files and scrupulous observance of the requirements set out in the vacancy notice, so that that authority is required to reject any candidate who does not meet those requirements. The vacancy notice constitutes a legal framework which the appointing authority imposes on itself and to which it must adhere strictly.

For the purpose of verifying that the appointing authority has not acted outside the scope of the vacancy notice and has thus acted solely in the interest of the service within the meaning of Article 7 of the Staff Regulations, the Court must first acquaint itself with the conditions laid down for filling the vacant post and then verify whether the candidate chosen by that authority to occupy that post did indeed satisfy those conditions.

Such a review does not mean that the Court is substituting its own assessment of the candidates' respective qualifications for that of the appointing authority. It must confine itself to the question whether, having regard to the considerations which may have influenced the administration in making its assessment, the latter remained within reasonable bounds and did not use its power in a manifestly incorrect way. The appointing authority's assessment cannot be called in question unless there is a manifest error.

(see paras 50-53)

See: C-35/92 P Parliament v Frederiksen [1993] ECR I-991, paras 15, 16 and 17; T-20/89 Moritz v Commission [1990] ECR II-769, para. 29; T-586/93 Kotzonis v ESC [1995] ECR II-665, para. 81; T-21/96 Giannini v Commission [1997] ECRSC I-A-69 and II-211, paras 19 and 20; T-159/96 Wenk v Commission [1998] ECRSC I-A-193 and II-593, paras 63 and 64; T-203/97 Forvass v Commission [1999] ECRSC I-A-129 and II-705, para. 45; T-143/98 Cendrowicz v Commission [1999] ECRSC I-A-273 and II-1341, paras 39 and 40; T-351/99 Brumter v Commission [2001] ECRSC I-A-165 and II-757, paras 71 and 72; T-95/01 Coget and Others v Court of Auditors [2001] ECRSC I-A-191 and II-879, para. 113
The absence of distinctive character, within the meaning of Article 7(1 )(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, of a compound mark — that is to say, a mark composed of several elements — cannot be determined solely by reference to the relative importance of certain elements of which it is composed as compared with that of other elements of the mark, in respect of which an absence of distinctive character has been established. A compound mark cannot fall under the abovementioned article if one of its composite elements is distinctive in respect of the goods and services concerned. That is true even if the sole distinctive element of the compound mark is not dominant in relation to the other composite elements of the mark.

Accordingly, the distinctive character of a compound mark must be assessed in the light of all the elements of which it is composed.

(see para. 36)
The time-limits prescribed in Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations for lodging complaints and bringing proceedings are intended to ensure the clarity and certainty of legal situations and are a matter of public policy, so that they cannot be left to the discretion of the parties or the Court. Any exceptions to or derogations from those time-limits must be interpreted restrictively.

The concept of excusable error, in the context of time-limits for initiating proceedings, can concern only exceptional circumstances in which, in particular, the conduct of the institution concerned has been, either alone or to a decisive extent, such as to give rise to pardonable confusion in the mind of a party acting in good faith and exercising all the diligence required of a normally experienced person. That is not the case where the administration sends a letter to a complainant in which it apologises for the delay in examining his complaint and gives an assurance that it will be dealt with as soon as possible, without any attempt to dissuade the person concerned from appealing against the implied decision to reject the complaint.

(see paras 48, 54-56)

See: C-246/95 Coen [1997] ECR I-403, para 21; T-33/89 and T-74/89 Blackman v Parliament [1993] ECR II-249. para 34; T-514/93 Cobrecaf and Others v Commission [1995] ECR II-621, para 40; T-131/95 Progoulis v Commission [1995] ECR-SC I-A-297 and II-907, para 36; T-142/00 Van Huffel v Commission [2001] ECRSC I-A-219 and II-1011, para 28
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Signs devoid of any distinctive character — Combination of shades of orange and grey — (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b))

Summary

A trade mark consisting of a combination of two colours, namely an orange rectangle corresponding to colour reference Pantone 164c above a grey rectangle corresponding to colour reference Pantone 428u, in respect of which registration is sought for machines in Class 7 of the Nice Classification, is devoid of distinctive character in respect of the products referred to for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark. When viewed as a whole, such a sign, composed simply of a combination of a shade of orange and a shade of grey, is abstract and imprecise in relation to the products in question and does not show any systematic arrangement or definite separation of those colours. Consequently, the relevant public will not see in that combination a sign that products thus coloured come from the same undertaking, but will rather see it merely as an aspect of the finish of the products.

see paras 35-36, 42-43