ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Officials ° Reimbursement of expenses ° Daily subsistence allowance ° Purpose

(Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 10)

2. Officials ° Place of recruitment ° Determination ° Place of habitual residence at the time of recruitment ° Definition ° Centre of the official' s interests

(Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 7(3))

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 only until such time as he removes in order to reside at his place of employment, is intended to cover the expense and inconvenience occasioned by the need to travel and establish a provisional residence at the place of employment, whilst retaining, likewise provisionally, his previous residence.

The allowance cannot therefore be paid to an official who does not prove that he has been exposed to such expense or inconvenience.

2. The concept of habitual residence at the time of recruitment, to which the general provisions for implementation of the Staff Regulations adopted by an institution refer for the purpose of determining an official' s place of recruitment, in the absence of any definition in the Staff Regulations, must be taken to mean the place where the person concerned has established, and intends to maintain, the permanent or habitual centre of his interests. The fact of residing in a place for the sole purpose of pursuing studies there does not of itself, in the absence of other relevant factors, mean that the person concerned intended to transfer the centre of his interests to that place.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Officials ° Actions ° Interest in bringing proceedings ° Action by a candidate for a vacant post against appointment of another candidate ° Neither candidate satisfying the conditions of the vacancy notice ° Admissibility by reason of the applicant' s interest where the post has been filled in accordance with other conditions

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

2. Officials ° Organization of services ° Detailed list of posts ° Legal status ° None

3. Officials ° Promotion ° Consideration of comparative merits ° Discretion of the administration ° Limits ° Compliance with the conditions laid down by vacancy notice

(Staff Regulations, Art. 45)

4. Officials ° Administration' s obligation of assistance ° Scope

(Staff Regulations, Art. 24)

Summary

1. A candidate for a vacant post may bring an action contesting a decision appointing another candidate to that post if he can show a legitimate, certain and existing interest in obtaining the annulment of that appointment.

That is the case with regard to a candidate who does not meet the conditions laid down by the vacancy notice but who, if he obtained the annulment of the appointment of his only competitor on the ground that the latter did not meet them either, could make possible a re-assessment of his qualifications for filling the post in question in the framework of a procedure for filling it in accordance with other conditions.

2. A detailed list of posts drawn up in an institution is an internal document which does not possess the characteristics of an administrative measure, does not produce legal effects and is intended purely for purposes of information.

3. There is an assumption that the exercise by the appointing authority of its discretion in evaluating the interests of the service and the merits to be taken into account in connection with a promotion decision will include careful examination of the files and meticulous regard to the requirements laid down in the vacancy notice. As the essential purpose of the vacancy notice is to inform those concerned as accurately as possible of the nature of the conditions required to occupy the post in question, the vacancy notice is the legal framework which the appointing authority lays down for itself. However, if the appointing authority finds that the conditions required in the vacancy notice are more exacting than the needs of the service demand, it is entitled to reopen the promotion procedure on a new basis, after withdrawing the original vacancy notice and replacing it by an amended notice. On the other hand, it can only reject candidates who do not meet the conditions laid down by the original vacancy notice if it intends to make its selection on the basis of that notice.

4. The obligation of assistance laid down by Article 24 of the Staff Regulations is concerned with the defence of officials by the institution against the acts of third parties and not against acts emanating from the institution itself, the review of which is governed by other provisions of the Staff Regulations.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Acts of the institutions - Statement of reasons - Obligation - Scope

(EEC Treaty, Art. 190)

2 Acts of the institutions - Statement of reasons - Obligation - Scope - Decision applying the competition rules

(EEC Treaty, Art. 190)

3 Acts of the institutions - Statement of reasons - Obligation - Scope - Decisions - Rectification of a defect in the statement of reasons during the pre-litigation stage - Not permissible

(EEC Treaty, Art. 190)

Summary

4 The statement of reasons must enable the Community judicature to exercise its power of review as to the legality of the decision and the person concerned to ascertain the matters justifying the measure adopted so that he can defend his rights and verify whether or not the decision is well founded.

Persons concerned by a decision may always be expected to make a certain effort to interpret the reasons if the meaning of the text is not immediately clear, and Article 190 of the Treaty is not infringed if it is possible to resolve ambiguities in the statement of reasons by means of such interpretation.

5 The extent of the duty to state reasons enshrined in Article 190 of the Treaty must be assessed practically in the light of the circumstances of the case. In the case of a decision whose purpose is to hold that there has been an infringement of the competition rules and to make orders, yet which amounts at the same time to a partial rejection of a complaint and suspends the examination of a complaint as regards other issues raised, the Commission is not under a duty to respond to all the factual and legal issues raised by the complainant undertakings.

However, the statement of reasons of such partial rejection does not satisfy the requirements of Article 190 of the Treaty where the considerations set out in the decision on the outcome of the complaint might have been capable of justifying the partial suspension of its examination, whereas it is not possible, by interpreting those considerations, to identify the reasons for which some of the complaints raised met with a different outcome, namely implied rejection.

6 A decision must be self-sufficient and the reasons on which it is based may not be stated in written or oral explanations given subsequently when the decision in question is already the subject of proceedings brought before the Community judicature.

In this connection, whilst reasoning the beginnings of which are set out in the contested measure may be enlarged upon and clarified during the proceedings, the situation is different where the contested decision is not reasoned.
42

The Commission points out that in recruiting, promoting and assigning staff, the institutions of the European Communities must be guided primarily by the interests of the service and that they have a wide discretion to adopt specific decisions. As regards the filling of posts at Grades A 5/A 4/A 3, that discretion is exercised within the framework of the procedure laid down by the Commission's decision of 19 July 1988 concerning the filling of middle-management posts, published in Administration Notices No 578 of 5 December 1988, which, according to the Commission, is intended to separate the question of the grade at which a post is fixed from the question of the duties performed by the person appointed to the post. The Commission contends that the applicant has not produced any evidence showing that it exercised its powers in an arbitrary or manifestly erroneous manner. The Commission also contests the applicant's assertion that the post of Adviser to the Director-General of the CPS was offered to him during a meeting held on 6 December 1990 and contends that this assertion is not supported by any documentary evidence. As regards the applicant's complaint that the vacancy notice was not properly distributed at the time when he submitted his application, the Commission claims that the vacancy notice was published and displayed in the customary way but that it had proved impossible to distribute a copy to individual members of staff in due time and that in any event, this omission did not prejudice the applicant. As regards the contention that the applicant's staff report for the period 1981 to 1983 was not complete at the time when the decision was taken not to promote him, the Commission points out that the Advisory Committee had more recent information, such as the staff reports drawn up since 1983, which were all complete, and the applicant's curriculum vitae, so that the staff report for the period 1981 to 1983 could not have influenced the Commission's decision. Finally, the Commission contends that the applicant has not produced any evidence to show that his nationality influenced that decision.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for annulment ° Natural or legal persons ° Measures of direct and individual concern to them ° Implementation of a loan granted by the Community to the Soviet Union and its constituent republics ° Commission decision addressed to the borrower, refusing to recognize amendments made to contracts concluded between the agent designated by the borrower and an undertaking to which the contract is awarded as being in conformity with the applicable Community provisions ° Action brought by the undertaking ° Inadmissibility

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

2. Actions for annulment ° Jurisdiction of the Community judicature ° Claims for restoration of the applicant' s rights ° Inadmissibility

(EC Treaty, Art. 173)

Summary

1. In the implementation of a loan granted by the Community to the Soviet Union and its constituent republics in order to enable agricultural and food products and medical supplies to be imported, an undertaking awarded a contract for the supply of wheat is not directly concerned, within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty, by a Commission decision addressed to the financial agent of the borrowing republic refusing to recognize amendments made to the contracts concluded between the contracting undertaking and the agent designated for that purpose by the borrowing republic as being in conformity with the applicable Community provisions, since that undertaking has a legal relationship only with the party with whom it contracts, namely the agent appointed to conclude purchase contracts, whilst the Commission has legal relations only with the party with whom it contracts, namely the financial agent of the borrowing republic, and the action of the Commission, whose role is merely to verify that the conditions laid down by the Community rules are fulfilled, does not therefore affect the legal validity of the aforementioned contracts.

It follows that the undertaking to which the contract is awarded does not have the right to bring proceedings for annulment of the decision in question.

2. In an action for annulment based on Article 173 of the Treaty, the role of the Community judicature is restricted to reviewing the legality of the contested act. In those circumstances, a claim for restoration of the applicant' s rights goes beyond the limits of the jurisdiction conferred on the Community judicature by the Treaty and must therefore be declared inadmissible.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Common commercial policy ° Protection against dumping ° Review procedure ° New investigation ° Conditions ° Sufficient evidence of dumping and of resulting injury

(Council Regulation No 2423/88, Art. 4(1), 7(1), 14(2) and 15)

2. Common commercial policy ° Protection against dumping ° Injury ° Relevant Community production ° Exclusion of producers connected with undertakings responsible for dumping ° Discretion of the institutions ° Conditions for exercise

(Council Regulation No 2423/88, Art. 4(5))

3. Common commercial policy ° Protection against dumping ° Discretion of the institutions ° Scope of judicial review

(Council Regulation No 2423/88)

4. Common commercial policy ° Protection against dumping ° Procedure ° Duration more than a year ° Whether permissible ° Condition ° Reasonable period

(Council Regulation No 2423/88, Art. 7(9)(a))

Summary

1. According to Article 7(1) of the basic anti-dumping regulation, Regulation No 2423/88, the existence of sufficient evidence of dumping and the injury resulting therefrom is always a pre-requisite for the opening of an investigation, whether at the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding or in the course of a review of a regulation imposing anti-dumping duties.

Moreover, in the absence of specific provisions regarding the determination of injury, in the context of a review initiated by the institutions under Article 14 and 15 of the basic regulation, a regulation modifying existing anti-dumping duties after such a procedure must establish the existence of injury within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic regulation.

2. Article 4(5) of the basic anti-dumping regulation, Regulation No 2423/88, indicates that it is for the institutions, in the exercise of their discretion, to determine in each case whether for the purpose of determining the injury caused by dumping they should exclude from Community production Community producers connected to the exporters or importers or who themselves import the allegedly dumped product.

3. Undertakings seeking the annulment of an anti-dumping regulation are entitled to put before the Court all the information which is necessary to enable it to be ascertained whether the Community institutions have observed the procedural guarantees accorded to them and whether they have not made errors of law or of fact or been influenced by considerations which would amount to a misuse of powers. In that context the Court may not intervene in the appraisal reserved to the Community authorities by the basic regulation but must exercise its normal power of review over a discretion granted to a public authority.

4. Although the one-year period for completing the investigation in an anti-dumping proceeding mentioned in Article 7(9)(a) of the basic anti-dumping regulation, Regulation No 2423/88, is a guideline and not a mandatory time-limit, the investigation must not extend beyond a reasonable period, to be determined in the light of the circumstances of the case.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Common commercial policy ° Protection against dumping ° Application for the reimbursement of anti-dumping duties pursuant to Article 16 of Regulation No 2423/88 ° Objective ° Challenge to validity of the regulation imposing the definitive duties or application for review of the general findings ° Not permitted ° Finding of injury in the course of an action directed against a decision given on an application for reimbursement ° Excluded

(Council Regulation No 2423/88, Art. 16)

2. Common commercial policy ° Protection against dumping ° Application for review and application for the reimbursement of anti-dumping duties made pursuant to Articles 14 and 16 respectively of Regulation No 2423/88 ° Separate procedures ° Challenge in the course of an action directed against the decision given on an application for reimbursement to acts or omissions relating to a review procedure ° Excluded

(Council Regulation No 2423/88, Arts 14 and 16)

Summary

1. Article 16 of the basic anti-dumping regulation No 2423/88 gives an applicant importer the opportunity to establish, on the assumption that the relevant findings were generally accurate, that the actual dumping margin is lower in his individual case than the margin on the basis of which the anti-dumping duties were imposed, but it does not however permit the validity of the regulation imposing the duties to be challenged or a review of the general findings made during the previous investigations to be requested.

Since the issue of the existence of injury within the meaning of Articles 2(1) and 4 of the basic regulation has nothing to do with the procedure followed in the case of an application for reimbursement under Article 16, cited above, it cannot be raised in the course of an action directed against a decision given on such application.

2. The review procedure provided for by Article 14 and the reimbursement procedure provided for by Article 16 of basic anti-dumping regulation No 2423/88 are separate procedures reflecting different objectives. Even if those two procedures may be undertaken at the same time, the fact remains that the Commission' s acts or omissions in the context of the procedure for review under Article 14 may not be challenged by means of an action directed against a decision adopted in the context of a procedure for examining applications for reimbursement under Article 16.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Plea of illegality - Incidental nature - Principal action inadmissible - Plea inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 184)

2 Actions for annulment - Actionable measures - Acts which produce binding legal effects - Letter of the Commission confined to providing information on request concerning aid covered by a general scheme - Excluded

(EC Treaty, Arts 93(2) and 173)

Summary

3 The possibility afforded by Article 184 of the Treaty of pleading the inapplicability of a measure of general application forming the legal basis of the contested decision does not constitute an independent right of action and recourse may be had to it only as an incidental plea. More specifically, Article 184 may not be invoked in the absence of an independent right of action.

4 Any measure which produces binding legal effects and is such as to affect the interests of an applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position is an act or decision which may be the subject of an action under Article 173 for a declaration that it is void.

Accordingly, a letter in which the Commission answers a request for information from a professional association of producers by sending a copy of a decision approving a Member State's general regional aid scheme, informing it that an undertaking has in fact requested aid from the government of that Member State and informing it that such aid is covered by the general scheme, application of which need not be the subject of specific approval by the Commission, may not be the subject of an action for annulment.

Such a letter, of which the import cannot be influenced by the mere fact that it was signed by the member of the Commission responsible for competition policy, does no more than provide information and does not constitute either a refusal to initiate the procedure under Article 93(2) or the rejection of a complaint.
Keywords



Keywords

1. Economic and social cohesion - Projects relating to tourism and the environment - Grant of Community financial assistance - Proof of interference by officials such as to necessarily delay the performance of a project financed by the Commission - Onus on the Commission to prove that the actions in question had no impact on the management of the project

2. Acts of the institutions - Statement of reasons - Obligation - Scope - Commission decision to reduce the amount of Community financial assistance - Reason given by the Commission during the proceedings which was not mentioned in the contested decision - Not permissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 190 (now Art. 253 EC))
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Procedure ° Originating application ° Procedural requirements ° Identification of the subject matter of the proceedings

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c))

2. Actions for annulment ° Natural or legal persons ° Measures of direct and individual concern to them ° Call for nominations for the office of Ombudsman

(EC Treaty, first and fourth paras of Art. 173)

Summary

1. Since, according to Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, an application must indicate the subject-matter of the proceedings, which means that the subject-matter should be sufficiently precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence in that regard and the Court to understand the purpose of the applicant' s claims, a form of order seeking the annulment of all the acts relating to the procedure for appointing the European Ombudsman, which cannot be identified from the content of the application, must, where it is not sufficiently precise, be declared inadmissible.

2. Under the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty, the admissibility of an action for annulment instituted by a natural person against a decision of which he is not the addressee is subject to the condition that the contested decision is of direct and individual concern to him. In this respect, a person may only claim to be individually concerned within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty if the contested decision affects him by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to him or by reason of circumstances in which he is differentiated from all other persons and by virtue of these factors distinguishes him individually just as in the case of the person addressed.

Accordingly, an action seeking the annulment of a call for nominations for the office of European Ombudsman which, by its nature, is addressed to an unspecified number of persons, must be declared inadmissible without there being any need to consider the question whether the contested act constitutes an act of the Parliament intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties, within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Fisheries - Common structural policy - Development of aquaculture and establishment of protected marine areas - Community financial aid - Commission decision declaring certain expenditure incurred by the recipient to be ineligible - Infringement of the audi alteram partem principle - Failure to consult the Standing Committee on the Fishing Industry - None - Conditions

(Council Regulation No 4028/86, Art. 44(1); Commission Regulation No 1116/88, Art. 7)

Summary

In the context of Community financial aid granted under Regulation No 4028/86 on Community measures to improve and adapt structures in the fisheries and aquaculture sector, in respect of modernization works and the establishment of fish-farming installations, a Commission decision declaring certain expenditure to be ineligible on the ground that major modifications had been made to the project originally approved, without prior notification, does not infringe the principle of the right to be heard where the recipient of financial aid was in a position to explain, prior to adoption of the decision, the reasons for non-compliance with the conditions laid down, and where the requirements stipulated in that regard in Article 7 of Regulation No 1116/88 were essentially observed.

Moreover, inasmuch as the Commission was properly entitled to conclude that the expenditure deemed ineligible could not be taken into consideration, since it did not come within the terms of the project approved, such a decision does not constitute a decision to reduce, for the purposes of Article 44(1) of Regulation No 4028/86, the aid originally granted to the recipient, but in actual fact merely notes that a part of the expenditure for which the recipient claims payment does not relate to the project as originally accepted, with the result that the Commission was not required to consult the Standing Committee on the Fishing Industry, as provided for in the abovementioned provision.