ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the General Court of 14 June 2022 — FZ and Others v Commission

(Case T-236/21) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Remuneration - Commission staff posted to a third country - Interim update of correction coefficients - Manifest error of assessment - Retroactive effect - Legal certainty - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2022/C 303/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: FZ and the 15 other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to the order (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. Maes, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin, I. Melo Sampaio and A.-C. Simon, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicants seek annulment of their pay slips established by the European Commission for the month of July 2020, by which it was decided to apply, for the first time, the correction coefficients laid down, with retroactive effect from 1 October 2019 and 1 January 2020.

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

2. FZ and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 242, 21.6.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 27 October 2022 — Coulter Ventures v EUIPO — iWeb (R)

(Case T-457/21) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 482/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Coulter Ventures LLC (Columbus, Ohio, United States) (represented by R. Dissmann, L. Jones and M. Lotz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by M. Eberl and D. Gája, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervener before the General Court: iWeb GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by T. Boddien, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 June 2021 (Case R 2789/2019-4).

Operative part of the order

1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

2. Coulter Ventures LLC and iWeb GmbH shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

(1) OJ C 391, 27.9.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Etablissements Nicolas v EUIPO — St. Nicolaus (NICOLAS)

(Case T-373/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 418/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Etablissements Nicolas (Thiais, France) (represented by: T. de Haan, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Frydendahl and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: St. Nicolaus a.s. (Liptovský Mikuláš, Slovakia) (represented by: V. Jakubička, lawyer)

Objet

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 21 April 2021 (Case R 1195/2020-4).

Operative part of the order

1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

2. Etablissements Nicolas and St. Nicolaus a.s. shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

(1) OJ C 338, 23.8.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 18 May 2022 — OF v Commission

(Case T-80/22) (1)

(2022/C 284/83)

Language of the case: French

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 138, 28.3.2022.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 12 October 2022 — Saure v Commission

(Case T-165/22) (1)

(Action for annulment - Access to documents - Refusal to grant access - Lis pendens - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 463/77)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hans-Wilhelm Saure (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: C. Partsch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara, K. Herrmann and A. Spina, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2022) 870 final of 7 February 2022 refusing access to certain documents.

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Mr Hans-Wilhelm Saure shall, in addition to bearing his own costs, pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 198, 16.5.2022.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 20 July 2022 — Sanoptis v EUIPO — Synoptis Pharma (SANOPTIS)

(Case T-30/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 359/92)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sanoptis Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Rost, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Synoptis Pharma sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Sanoptis Sàrl, seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 November 2021 (Case R 850/2021-4).

Operative part of the order

1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

2. Sanoptis Sàrl shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 119, 14.3.2022.
Order of the President of the General Court of 11 November 2022 — Belaruskali v Council

(Case T-528/22 R)

(Interim relief - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)

(2023/C 24/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Belaruskali AAT (Soligorsk, Belarus) (represented by: V. Ostrovskis, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J. Rurarz, B. Driessen and A. Boggio-Tomasaz, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicant seeks suspension of the operation of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2022/881 of 3 June 2022 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 153, p. 77), in so far as that decision concerns the applicant, and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/876 of 3 June 2022 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 153, p. 1), in so far as that regulation concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the order

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 7 October 2022 — ON v Commission

(Case T-103/22) (1)

(Action for annulment - Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2288 - Regulation (EU) 2021/953 - EU Digital COVID Certificate - Freedom of movement for persons - Restrictions - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 463/75)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: ON (represented by: D. Mimrová, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Montaguti and M. Salyková, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2288 of 21 December 2021 amending the Annex to Regulation (EU) 2021/953 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the acceptance period of vaccination certificates issued in the EU Digital COVID Certificate format indicating the completion of the primary vaccination series (OJ 2021 L 458, p. 459).

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. ON shall bear his own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 191, 10.5.2022.
JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

1 March 2007

Case F-72/05

Mohammad Reza Fardoom and Michael Ashbrook

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Officials – Reimbursement of expenses – Mission expenses – Refusal to sign the travel orders requested in the context of union activities – Interest in bringing an action – Inadmissibility)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Fardoom and Mr Ashbrook seek annulment of the decisions of 4 November 2004 of the Head of Unit for ‘Social dialogue, enlargement and relations with national public administrations’ of the Directorate-General for Personnel and Administration refusing to sign the travel orders submitted in order to attend a meeting on 13 September 2004 organised by the Member of the Commission responsible for administrative affairs, audit and anti-fraud.

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

Summary

Officials – Actions – Interest in bringing an action

(Staff Regulations, Arts 60, first para., 90 and 91)

An official cannot demonstrate a vested, current interest in bringing an action for annulment against a decision refusing to sign a ‘no expenses’ travel order, in other words one which gives rise to no reimbursement of travel costs or daily allowances, where that refusal has not resulted in the official’s absence being set against his annual leave. Since the annulment of the contested decision has no effect on his financial situation, he cannot rely on an interest that is merely and, in the present case, broadly hypothetical, based on the possibility that the administration may set that absence against his annual leave in future.

(see paras 35-37)
JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Second Chamber)

22 November 2007

Case F-67/05

Christos Michail

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Officials – Appraisal – Career development report – 2003 appraisal – Action for annulment – Action for damages)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Michail seeks annulment of his career development report for the period from 1 April to 31 December 2003, annulment of the decision of 15 April 2005 rejecting his complaint against the 2003 career development report, and an order for the Commission to pay him compensation of EUR 90 000 for the non-material harm he alleges he has suffered.

Held: The applicant’s career development report for the period from 1 April to 31 December 2003 is annulled. The remainder of the application is dismissed. The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

Summary

Officials – Reports procedure – Career development report

(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)

Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and Article 1(2) of the General Provisions for Implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, adopted by the Commission, must be interpreted as preventing the administration from awarding a merit mark to an official who has not been entrusted with any duties. While the award of a mark intended to evaluate an official’s achievements and individual performance in the light of the results to be attained is an obligation where the official has been assigned particular duties, it is not, by contrast, appropriate to make such an award where the official concerned has not been entrusted with any duty capable of being assessed. Consequently, where the official reported on, although working, has not been entrusted with any duty capable of being assessed during the reference period, the career development report must be annulled. That annulment means that the administration must seek a suitable way of mitigating the absence of a merit mark, by awarding an appropriate number of points.

(see paras 30-31, 33-34)
JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Third Chamber)

11 December 2008

Case F-93/07

Beatriz Acosta Iborra and Others

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Officials – Promotion – 2006 promotion procedure – Ability to work in a third language)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Ms Acosta Iborra and nine other Commission officials seek, in particular, annulment of the decisions not to promote them for the 2006 promotion procedure.

Held: The decisions not to promote the applicant and nine other Commission officials for the 2006 promotion procedure is annulled. The Commission is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the applicants. The Council of the European Union, which intervened in support of the Commission, is to bear its own costs.

Summary

1. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Contested act not produced

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(3) to (6))

2. Officials – Promotion – Conditions – Demonstration of ability to work in a third language

(Staff Regulations, Art. 45(2); Annexes III, Art. 7, and XIII, Art. 11)

1. Where an applicant has failed to attach the contested decision to his application and the Registrar, contrary to Article 44(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, has not invited him to rectify that omission, the Community judicature cannot deny him the opportunity to do so by declaring his action inadmissible for failure to comply with the conditions of Article 44(4) of those Rules of Procedure.

(see para. 18)

See:

F-48/06 Avanzata and Others v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I‑A‑0000 and II‑A‑0000, paras 49 and 50

2. Article 45(2) of the Staff Regulations, in the version resulting from Regulation No 723/2004 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of employment of other servants, which requires officials to demonstrate, before their first promotion, their ability to work in a third language, applies only from the entry into force of the joint implementing provisions adopted by the institutions by mutual agreement.

Since the legislature has, in any event, under Article 11 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, precluded its application to promotions that take effect prior to 1 May 2006, Article 45(2) cannot be applied prior to the entry into force of those joint implementing provisions under the terms required by the legislature, that is to say, with a guarantee that it will be uniformly applied in the different institutions, and with a connection between this new requirement under the Staff Regulations and the opportunity for officials to have training in a third language. Thus an institution cannot apply that article of the Staff Regulations according to rules which it alone has laid down.

(see paras 33-36)
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

Officials – Working conditions – Allowance for shiftwork

(Staff Regulations, Art. 56a)

Individual decisions of an institution must be annulled which refuse to grant the allowance for ‘shiftwork’ provided for in Article 56a of the Staff Regulations to officials carrying out such work, required by the ‘exigencies’ of the telephone switchboard to which they are assigned, whereas that shiftwork is ‘a regular and permanent feature’, the institution, in granting that allowance by individual decisions adopted at a later date than the abovementioned decisions, has itself given implied but clear recognition that the applicants satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 56a for granting the allowance, and whereas, lastly, it cannot be disputed that their material working conditions were the same before and after the date on which the individual decisions were adopted granting them that allowance.

In that respect, it would be incorrect to claim that Article 56a of the Staff Regulations is not applicable on the ground that the shiftwork performed by the officials does not result from formal decisions by that institution.

Similarly, the fact that those officials do not work overtime and work fewer hours per week than the normal working hours for that institution does not call into question their entitlement to the allowance provided for in Article 56a of the Staff Regulations. That provision does not require either that overtime be worked or that the number of hours worked per week should be equal to the normal number for that institution. In any event, in view of the personal and family inconvenience caused by a weekly work schedule organised into shifts, it is not unreasonable for switchboard operators to work 7.5 hours fewer per week than the normal number in that institution.

(see paras 21-23)
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

1. Officials – Reports procedure – Career development report – Assessment showing a decline compared with previous report – Obligation to state reasons

(Staff Regulations, Arts 25 and 43)

2. Officials – Reports procedure – Career development report – Obligation for appraisal to cover the entire reference period

(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)

1. Career development reports, which do not constitute decisions within the meaning of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, are governed by the special provisions referred to in Article 43 of the Staff Regulations. However, the administration is obliged to state in a sufficient and detailed manner the reasons on which each career development report is based and to give the person concerned an opportunity to make observations on those reasons, compliance with those requirements being all the more important where the assessment shows a decline compared with the previous report. Where the decline in assessment is limited, the administration may comply with its obligation to state reasons by justifying the decline concisely, such as by making slight changes to the analytical assessments of the official’s performance compared with the assessments given in the previous career development report.

(see para. 45)

See:

122/75 Küster v Parliament [1976] ECR 1685, paras 24 and 25

T-187/01 Mellone v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I‑A‑81 and II‑389, para. 27 and the case-law cited therein; T-16/03 Ferrer de Moncada v Commission [2004] ECR-SC I‑A‑261 and II‑1163, para. 56; T-50/04 Micha v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑339 and II‑1499, para. 36

F‑65/05 Sequeira Wandschneider v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000, para. 96; F-93/08 N v Parliament [2009] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000, para. 82

2. It is clear from the provisions of Article 1 of the general implementing provisions for Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, adopted by the Commission, that the career development report, which is intended to assess an official’s efficiency, ability and conduct in the service, must cover the whole of the reporting period and not just part of it. However, even if the reporting officer committed a manifest error of assessment by confining his appraisal of the efficiency of the official reported on to part of the reporting period, that irregularity would be such as to entail the annulment of the career development report only in so far as it was not rectified by the countersigning officer or the appeal assessor, the latter being reporting officers in their own right.

(see paras 52, 56)

See:

T-326/01 Lebedef v Commission [2003] ECR-SC I‑A‑273 and II‑1317, para. 61; T-43/04 Fardoom and Reinard v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑329 and II‑1465, para. 90

F‑71/06 Lebedef-Caponi v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑115 and II‑A‑1‑629, para. 48; F-28/06 Sequeira Wandschneider v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000, paras 43 and 48; F-34/07 Skareby v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000, para. 58, on appeal before the Court of First Instance, Case T‑91/09 P
JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

28 June 2011

Case F-128/10

Aurora Mora Carrasco and Others

v

European Parliament

(Civil service — Officials — Inter-institutional transfer in the course of the promotion period during which the official would have been promoted in his institution of origin — Competent institution to decide on the promotion of the official transferred)

Application: brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Ms Mora Carrasco, Ms Serrano Jimenez and Mr Görlitz seek annulment of the decision of the European Parliament not to promote them to grades AST 8, AST 5 and AD 7 respectively in the 2009 promotion period.

Held: The action is dismissed. The Parliament is ordered to bear the costs of the applicants in addition to its own costs.

Summary

Officials — Promotion — Consideration of comparative merits — Inter-institutional transfer in the course of the promotion period — Competence of the institution of origin to decide on promotion

(Staff Regulations, Art. 45)

In accordance with the requirements of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, where an official is eligible for promotion in the course of the year during which he is transferred, the appointing authority competent to decide on his promotion is that of the institution of origin.

Article 45 of the Staff Regulations states that promotion is effected after consideration of the comparative merits of the officials eligible for promotion and that, when considering their comparative merits, the appointing authority takes account in particular of the reports on the officials concerned.

In order to decide whether an official should be promoted with retroactive effect to 1 January of the year N (or even, more generally, during year N), the appointing authority can only, in practice, compare the past merits of officials, in particular during the year N-1 (and in the light of the assessment reports on the performance of those officials during the years N-1 and earlier). To that end, it is necessary to compare the merits of the officials transferred with those of the officials who were still their colleagues during the year prior to their transfer, and that assessment can only legitimately be conducted by the institution of origin.

(see paras 34-35, 39)