ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Social policy - European Social Fund - Financial assistance for vocational training - Decision reducing assistance initially granted - Reduction on account of failure to comply with the conditions laid down in the decision of approval - Whether in breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - No such breach

(Council Regulation No 2950/83, Art. 6(1))

2 Acts of the institutions - Statement of reasons - Obligation - Scope - Commission decision reducing, on a proposal from a Member State, assistance from the European Social Fund for vocational training

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

Summary

1 It is clear from Article 6(1) of Regulation No 2950/83 that the grant of funding from the European Social Fund (ESF) depends on the recipient's compliance with the conditions laid down by the Commission in the decision of approval. Where those conditions are not satisfied, the recipient cannot, relying on the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, expect payment in full of the amount granted in that decision.

Accordingly, an undertaking which has manifestly failed to comply with the rules in force cannot rely on that principle in order to contest the lawfulness of a Commission decision. The Commission has the power to reduce ESF financial assistance on the ground that the conditions laid down in the decision of approval have been infringed.

2 The purpose of the obligation, laid down in Article 190 of the Treaty (now Article 253 EC), to state the reasons on which an individual decision is based is to enable the Community judicature to review the legality of the decision and to provide the person concerned with sufficient information to make it possible to ascertain whether the decision is well founded or whether it is vitiated by a defect which may permit its legality to be contested. The extent of that obligation depends on the nature of the measure in question and on the context in which it was adopted.

A decision reducing the amount of ESF assistance initially granted must, in view of the serious consequences for the recipient, either clearly incorporate the grounds justifying that reduction or - in view of the fact that the grant of ESF financial assistance is based on close collaboration between the Commission and the Member States - refer with sufficient clarity to a measure of the competent national authorities in the Member State concerned, in which the reasons for such a reduction are clearly set out.
A selection board for a competition is required to ensure, by safeguarding the stability of its composition in accordance with the rules governing its work, that the marking criteria are applied consistently to all candidates, particularly in the oral test. In that regard, a selection board's failure to abide by the rules governing its work may, having regard to the importance of the principle of equal treatment in the procedure in question, be characterised as a breach of essential procedural requirements.

Where the Court characterises such a failure to comply with the rules governing the work of a selection board as a breach of essential procedural requirements, the Selection Board's decision not to enter a candidate's name on the list of suitable candidates must be annulled without its being necessary for the person concerned to prove that there has been any particular adverse effect on his subjective rights or to show that the results of the competition might have been different if the essential procedural requirements in question had been complied with.

(see paras 41 to 56)

See: C-291/89 Interhotel v Commission [1991] ECR I-2257, para. 17; C-304/89 Oliveira v Commission [1991] ECR I-2283, para. 21; T-44/91 Smets v Commission [1994] ECRSC I-A-97 and II-319, paras 54, 58 and 60; T-50/98 Rasmussen v Commission [1999] ECRSC I-A-63 and II-319, paras 22 and 27; T-102/98 Panadeas v Committee of the Regions [1999] ECRSC I-A-193 and II-1091, para. 70
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. ECSC - Provisions relating to discrimination as regards pricing and other conditions of purchase - Commission's powers

(ECSC Treaty, Arts 4(b) and (d), 63(1) and 66(7))

2. ECSC - Provisions relating to discrimination as regards pricing and other conditions of purchase - Commission's obligation to examine complaints

(ECSC Treaty, Arts 4(b) and (d)), 63(1) and 66(7)

3. ECSC - Provisions relating to discrimination as regards pricing and other conditions of purchase - Commission's decision rejecting a complaint - Obligation to state reasons - Review of the Court's own motion

Summary

1. The powers conferred on the Commission by Article 63(1) of the ECSC Treaty enable it not only to oblige the authorities of the Member States to bring to an end for the future any systematic discrimination which the Commission has found to exist but also, on the basis of that finding, to draw all the consequences as regards the effects which such discrimination may have had in relationships between purchasers and producers within the meaning of Article 4(b) even before the Commission took action, in order to ensure the effectiveness of the prohibition laid down in Article 4(b). The ECSC Treaty deals exhaustively with discrimination practised by purchasers and provides victims of such discrimination with effective judicial protection.

As a result, it is clear that the combined provisions of Articles 4(b) and 63(1) of the ECSC Treaty, on the one hand, and of Articles 4(d) and 66(7) of that Treaty, on the other, empower the Commission to consider infringements that were still occurring on the date on which the complaint against them was lodged.

( see paras 61-63 )

2. Under the ECSC Treaty, the Commission has sole jurisdiction to consider alleged infringements relating to discrimination as regards pricing and other conditions of purchase. Where it receives a complaint concerning such infringements, the Commission is bound to undertake an examination.

( see para. 85 )

3. Where, under the ECSC Treaty, a Commission decision dismissing a complaint alleging discriminatory pricing and abusive royalties is vitiated by a failure to state reasons, such a failure prevents judicial review of the substance of that decision which the Court is obliged of its own motion to undertake.

( see para. 114 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Community trade mark - Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Exception - Acquisition through use - Scope - Trade mark devoid of distinctive character in a part of the Community - Acquisition through use in that same part

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(3))

Summary

$$In order to have the registration of a trade mark accepted under Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, the distinctive character acquired through the use of that trade mark must be demonstrated in the substantial part of the Community where it was devoid of any such character under Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of that regulation.

( see para. 27 )
Although a complaint through administrative channels is an indispensable preliminary to bringing an action against an act adversely affecting a person to whom the Staff Regulations apply, it is not the function of that complaint to bind strictly and absolutely the judicial stage of the proceedings, provided that the claims submitted at the latter stage change neither the cause nor the subject-matter of the complaint. That applies to an action for the annulment of the decisions which gave rise to the complaint, in which the pleas in law relied on in support of the claim for annulment are closely linked to the grounds of challenge in the complaint.

Even where a plea in law does not formally appear in a complaint through administrative channels, it may be considered to be closely linked to it provided that its purpose is only to refute an argument raised by the appointing authority in the decision rejecting the complaint.

Since the appointing authority put forward its views on the matter in the course of the administrative procedure, the fact that the complaint is silent in that respect does not undermine the principles of legal certainty and observance of the rights of the defence underlying the rule of consistency between the administrative complaint and the appeal.

(see paras 35, 38-40)

See: T-78/96 and T-170/96 W v Commission [1998] ECRSC I-A-239 and II-745, para. 66; C-316/97 P Parliament v Gaspari [1998] ECR I-7597, paras 17 and 18
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark - Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark - Signs of which a trade mark may consist - Condition - Distinctive character - Assessment in relation to the goods or services for which registration applied for

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 4)

2. Community trade mark - Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark - Absolute grounds for refusal - Trade marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of a product - Term DOUBLEMINT

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c))

Summary

1. It follows from Article 4 of Regulation No 40/94, according to which the decisive factor if a sign capable of being represented graphically is to be eligible for registration as a Community trade mark is its capacity to distinguish the goods of one undertaking from those of another, that the distinctiveness of a sign whose registration is sought can be assessed only in relation to the goods or services in respect of which registration of the sign is applied for.

( see paras 17-18 )

2. When it provided in Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark that trade marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin or the time of production of the goods or of rendering of the service, or other characteristics of the goods or service are not to be registered, it was the intention of the legislature that such signs should, by their purely descriptive nature, be regarded as incapable of distinguishing the goods of one undertaking from those of another. By contrast, signs or indications whose meaning goes beyond the merely descriptive are capable of being registered as Community trade marks.

As regards, in this respect, the registration of the term DOUBLEMINT sought for certain goods which may be flavoured with mint, that term does not enable the public concerned immediately and without further reflection to detect the description of a characteristic of the goods in question. The numerous meanings of that composite term - each element of which is a common word of the English language - are immediately apparent, at least by association or allusion, to an average English-speaking consumer and thus deprive that sign of any descriptive function, for the purposes of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94, whereas for a consumer who does not have a sufficient mastery of the English language the term will, by its very nature, have a vague and fanciful meaning. The term DOUBLEMINT therefore has an ambiguous and suggestive meaning which is open to various interpretations. The multiplicity of possible semantic combinations precludes the consumer from remembering one of them in particular. Consequently, that term cannot be characterised as exclusively descriptive and cannot be denied registration on that ground.

( see paras 19-20, 29-31 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Council decision laying down the detailed arrangements for the integration of the Schengen Secretariat into the General Secretariat of the Council - Action brought by persons employed in the Schengen Secretariat but not satisfying the conditions for appointment as officials in the General Secretariat of the Council - Inadmissibility

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC and Art. 249 EC; Council Decision 1999/307)

Summary

$$The term decision in the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC has the technical meaning employed in Article 249 EC. A decision as so defined is distinguished from an act of a legislative nature, and the criterion for distinguishing between them lies in the general application or otherwise of the measure in question. A measure cannot be regarded as constituting a decision if it applies to objectively determined situations and produces legal effects with respect to categories of persons envisaged generally and in the abstract. In this connection, the fact that a measure may have different specific effects for the individuals to whom it applies cannot deprive it of its general and abstract character. Moreover, the general application and hence the legislative nature of a measure are not affected by the fact that it is possible to determine the number or even the identity of the persons to whom it applies at a given moment, as long as it is established that it applies by virtue of an objective legal or factual situation, defined in relation to the objective of the measure.

Council Decision 1999/307 laying down the detailed arrangements for the integration of the Schengen Secretariat into the General Secretariat of the Council, despite being entitled a decision, is a measure of general application which applies to objectively determined situations.

Moreover, it cannot be considered that, in that it affects them by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to them or by reason of circumstances which differentiate them from all other persons, that measure is of individual concern to persons who were indeed in the service of the Schengen Secretariat, long before its integration into the General Secretariat of the Council, but who do not satisfy the conditions set out in Article 3 to be appointed as officials in the General Secretariat of the Council.

( see paras 35-36, 40-41, 44, 56 )
Keywords



Keywords

Procedure - Reference to the Court of First Instance on the basis of an arbitration clause - Contract providing for Community financial assistance for a research and development project - Request for reimbursement of certain costs - Counterclaim by the Commission for reimbursement of overpayment

(EC Treaty, Art. 181 (now Art. 238 EC); Decision No 1110/94/EC of the European Parliament and the Council; Council Decision 94/802)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark - Filing an application for a Community trade mark - Right of priority - Application for a trade mark accompanied by a claim of priority - Examination by the Office of whether all the requirements, both substantive and formal, have been satisfied

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 29)

2. Community trade mark - Registration procedure - Withdrawal, restriction and amendment of trade mark applications - Request for correction of a mark - Request directly linked to a claim of priority - Effect on the examination of the request for correction

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 29 and 44(2))

Summary

1. In the case of an application for a Community trade mark accompanied by a claim of priority, made in accordance with Article 29 of Regulation No 40/94, the fact that the applicant's intention is to apply for registration of the same mark as that on which he relies for the purpose of claiming priority does not, as such, mean that there is no point in examining the claim of priority or that a claim of priority could never be rejected because the document evidencing the priority would be compelling for the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) as regards showing the applicant's intention. An application for a Community trade mark accompanied by a claim of priority cannot be accepted automatically on the basis of an absolute presumption that the applicant's intention is to apply for the same mark as that by reference to which he claims priority, but must be subjected to an examination in which the Office considers whether all the requirements, both substantive and formal, have been satisfied.

( see paras 43-44 )

2. By providing for the possibility of amending a Community trade mark application at the request of the applicant in the cases set out in Article 44(2) of Regulation No 40/94 and under certain specific conditions in order, in particular, to correct errors of wording or of copying, or obvious mistakes, provided that such correction does not substantially change the trade mark, the Community legislature sought to achieve two aims. First, it wished to avoid the difficulties - including the need for the applicant to file a new application - which would be occasioned by an absolute prohibition of amendment of applications for a trade mark. Second, in limiting that possibility by requiring that the amendment should not substantially change the trade mark, the legislature meant to prevent the abuses that might result from a very liberal system of amendment and thus to protect the interests of third parties so far as the availability of signs is concerned.

Where the request for correction of the Community trade mark applied for is directly linked to a claim of priority in the sense that the correction is intended to make the spelling of that mark coincide with that of the mark applied for earlier, this factor is one which must be taken into account in construing the requirement, mentioned above, that the amendment should not substantially change the trade mark.

( see paras 48-49 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for annulment - Actionable measures - Measures intended to have binding legal effects - Letter from the Commission merely informing an operator of the state of the file concerning his application for the inclusion of a given substance in one of the annexes to Regulation No 2377/90 - Excluded

(Art. 230 EC; Council Regulation No 2377/90)

2. Actions for failure to act - Institution called upon to act - Definition of a position under the second paragraph of Article 175 of the Treaty (now the second paragraph of Article 232 EC) - Meaning - Definition of position supervening after the bringing of an action - Removal of subject-matter of the action - No need to adjudicate

(Art. 232, second para., EC)

Summary

1. Any measure which produces binding legal effects such as to affect the interests of an applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position constitutes an act or decision which may be the subject of an action for annulment for the purposes of Article 230 EC. A letter from the Commission which merely explains the reasons for delays in the classification of a substance in one of the annexes to Regulation No 2377/90 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin, and which states that the Commission will complete the formalities prescribed by that regulation once a new opinion from the Committee for Veterinary Medicinal Products becomes known, does not constitute a decision which may be the subject of an action for annulment. Such a letter, which merely informs the operator concerned of the state of the file, does not alter his legal position.

( see paras 43-45 )

2. A letter emanating from an institution, stating that examination of the questions raised by a formal notice is in progress, does not constitute a definition of position which brings to an end a failure to act for the purposes of the second paragraph of Article 232 EC. However, where such a definition of position occurs after an action for failure to act is brought, it terminates the institution's failure to act and removes the subject-matter of the action, so that there is no longer any need to adjudicate.

( see paras 61, 67-68 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Fisheries — Common structural policy — Development of aquaculture and establishment of protected marine areas — Community financial assistance — Commission ' s power to review — Decision to discontinue assistance — Simple administrative and management decision — Adoption by way of delegated authority — Lawfulness — Seriousness of the consequences for the beneficiary of assistance — Irrelevant — (Council Regulation No 4028/86, Art. 44(1))

2. Fisheries — Common structural policy — Commission decision ordering discontinuance of Community financial assistance — Procedural irregularity — Procedure which is not aimed at the protection of the rights and interests of the beneficiaries of assistance — Annulment of the decision — Not possible

3. Fisheries — Common structural policy — Community financial assistance — Sale within the Community of the undertaking benefiting from assistance — Need for prior approval of the Commission — Beneficiary of assistance required to provide information and to act in good faith

Summary

1. A decision to discontinue Community financial assistance adopted under Article 44 of Regulation No 4028/86 on Community measures to improve and adapt structures in the fisheries and aquaculture sector in the context of the supervision of the implementation of a project for which the beneficiary had obtained aid, subject to certain conditions, must be deemed a measure of management or administration of the aid scheme established by that regulation, and as such may be adopted under the system of delegated authority. The fact that the decision in question, which discontinues aid previously granted, may entail serious consequences for the beneficiary cannot cast doubt on this assessment.

see para. 43

2. A procedural irregularity will, as a rule, entail the annulment of a decision in whole or in part only if it is shown that, in the absence of such irregularity, the contested decision might have been substantively different. Any breach of the internal procedure to be followed by the Commission in connection with a decision to discontinue Community financial assistance, which does not aim to protect the rights and interests of beneficiaries of aid, cannot be pleaded as a formal defect which may entail the annulment of the contested decision.

see para. 49

3. A transfer of ownership of the investments which have received Community aid is a fundamental change in the aid conditions in so far as the person carrying out the project is replaced. The Commission is therefore entitled to complain that the vendor company which benefited from the aid did not inform it or the national authorities of a sale which took place on a given date until the time of a second inspection carried out two years later. The failure to do so constitutes a breach of the obligation to provide information and to act in good faith, which is inherent in aid schemes and is essential for their effective functioning.

see paras 59-60
Case T-254/99





Maja Srl

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 – Community aid – Sale of business – Implementation of project – Procedure for discontinuance of aid – Action for annulment)»

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), 12 March 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Fisheries – Common structural policy – Development of aquaculture and establishment of protected marine areas – Community financial assistance – Commission's power to review – Decision to discontinue assistance – Simple administrative and management decision – Adoption by way of delegated authority – Lawfulness – Seriousness of the consequences for the beneficiary of assistance – Irrelevant

(Council Regulation No 4028/86, Art. 44(1))

2.. Fisheries – Common structural policy – Commission decision ordering discontinuance of Community financial assistance – Procedural irregularity – Procedure which is not aimed at the protection of the rights and interests of the beneficiaries of assistance – Annulment of the decision – Not possible



3.. Fisheries – Common structural policy – Community financial assistance – Sale within the Community of the undertaking benefiting from assistance – Need for prior approval of the Commission – Beneficiary of assistance required to provide information and to act in good faith



1.

2.

3.