ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 381/28

Order of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Pannonhalmi Főapátság v Parliament

(Case T-453/14) (1)

((Action for annulment - Petition addressed to the Parliament concerning ownership of Lónyay castle in Rusovce (Slovak Republic) - Petition declared inadmissible - Obligation to state reasons - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

(2015/C 381/30)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Magyar Bencés Kongregáció Pannonhalmi Főapátság (Pannonhalma, Hungary) (represented by: D. Sobor, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: A. Pospíšilová Padowska and T. Lukácsi, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the Petitions Committee of the European Parliament of 16 April 2014 whereby that Committee declared the petition presented by the applicant on 26 June 2013 inadmissible on the ground that it did not fall within the sphere of activity of the European Union.

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Magyar Bencés Kongregáció Pannonhalmi Főapátság shall pay the costs.

3. There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene by the Slovak Republic and by Hungary.

(1) OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 27/76

Order of the General Court of 11 November 2015 — salesforce.com v OHIM (MARKETINGCLOUD)

(Case T-389/14) (1)

(2016/C 027/97)

Language of the case: English

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

(1) OJ C 329, 22.9.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 389/58

Order of the General Court of 8 October 2015 — Nieminen v Council

(Case T-464/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2010 and 2011 promotion procedures - Decision not to promote the appellant to grade AD 12 - Right to a fair hearing - Rights of defence - Scope of the judicial review at first instance - Manifest error of assessment - No error of law and of distortion - Appeal manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

(2015/C 389/66)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Risto Nieminen (Kraainem, Belgium) (represented by: initially, M. de Abreu Caldas, D. de Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, and subsequently, J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and E. Rebasti, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 10 April 2014 in Nieminen v Council (F-81/12, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:50), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Mr Risto Nieminen shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 106/46

Order of the General Court of 19 January 2016 — Klass v OHIM — F. Smit (PLAYSEAT and PLAYSEATS)

(Case T-540/14) (1)

(2016/C 106/55)

Language of the case: Dutch

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

(1) OJ C 329, 22.9.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/53

Order of the General Court of 30 November 2015 — Gmina Kosakowo v Commission

(Case T-217/14) (1)

((Action for annulment - Replacement of the contested act during proceedings - No need to adjudicate))

(2016/C 038/70)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Gmina Kosakowo (Kosakowo, Poland) (represented by: M. Leśny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Grespan, S. Noë and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2014/883/EU of 11 February 2014 on the measure SA.35388 (13/C) (ex 13/NN and ex 12/N) — Poland — Setting up the Gdynia-Kosakowo Airport (OJ 2014 L 357, p. 51).

Operative part of the order

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

2. The European Commission shall bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by Gmina Kosakowo as regards the main proceedings.

3. Gmina Kosakowo shall bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by the Commission as regards the proceedings for interim relief.

4. The Republic of Poland shall bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 202, 30.6.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 53/29

Order of the General Court of 16 December 2016 — Ica Foods v EUIPO — San Lucio (GROK)

(Case T-774/14) (1)

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

(2017/C 053/35)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Ica Foods SpA (Pomezia, Italy) (represented by: A. Nespega, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: San Lucio Srl (San Gervasio Bresciano, Italy) (represented by: F. Sangiacomo, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 September 2014 (Case R 1815/2013-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between San Lucio Srl and Ica Foods SpA.

Operative part of the order

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

2. Ica Foods SpA and San Lucio Srl 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 26, 26.1.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 305/34

Order of the General Court of 10 June 2016 — Klymenko v Council

(Case T-494/14) (1)

((Action for annulment - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Admissibility - Proof that inclusion on the list is justified - Manifestly well-founded action))

(2016/C 305/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Oleksandr Klymenko (Kyiv, Ukraine) (represented by: M. Shaw QC, and I. Quirk, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and J.-P. Hix, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Implementing Decision 2014/216/CFSP of 14 April 2014 implementing Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 111, p. 91) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 381/2014 of 14 April 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 111, p. 33), in so far as they relate to the applicant.

Operative part of the order

1. Council Implementing Decision 2014/216/CFSP of 14 April 2014 implementing Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 381/2014 of 14 April 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine are annulled in so far as they relate to Mr Oleksandr Klymenko.

2. The Council of the European Union shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Mr Klymenko.

(1) OJ C 292, 1.9.2014.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT - GENERAL DECISION OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY - APPLICANT UNDERTAKINGS AND ASSOCIATIONS OF UNDERTAKINGS - ADMISSIBILITY

( TREATY, ART . 33 )

Summary

FOR AN APPLICATION BY AN UNDERTAKING OR BY AN ASSOCIATION OF UNDERTAKINGS AGAINST A GENERAL DECISION OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY TO BE ADMISSIBLE IT IS ENOUGH FOR THE APPLICANT FORMALLY TO ALLEGE THAT THERE HAS BEEN A MISUSE OF POWERS AFFECTING IT . THE ALLEGATION MUST INDICATE THE REASONS FOR WHICH THE APPLICANT CONSIDERS THAT THERE HAS BEEN A MISUSE OF POWERS AFFECTING IT . IF THE APPLICANT IS AN ASSOCIATION OF UNDERTAKINGS, IT IS SUFFICIENT FOR IT TO CLAIM THAT THERE HAS BEEN A MISUSE OF POWERS AFFECTING ONE OR MORE UNDERTAKINGS WHICH ARE MEMBERS OF THE ASSOCIATION . THE TREATY DOES NOT IMPOSE ANY FURTHER CONDITION FOR AN APPLICATION TO BE ADMISSIBLE SUCH AS, FOR EXAMPLE, PROOF THAT A MISUSE OF POWERS AFFECTING THE APPLICANT HAS ACTUALLY BEEN COMMITTED, SINCE THIS LATTER QUESTION GOES TO THE SUBSTANCE .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . EMPLOYEES OF THE COMMUNITY - ACTIONS AGAINST INSTITUTIONS - JURISDICTION OF THE COURT

( TREATY, ART . 42 )

2 . EMPLOYEES OF THE COMMUNITY - ACTIONS AGAINST INSTITUTIONS - APPLICATIONS - ADMISSIBILITY - NO TIME-LIMIT

( TREATY, ART . 33, STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE, ART . 39 )

3 . EMPLOYEES OF THE COMMUNITY - APPOINTMENT - PROBATIONARY PERIOD - ASSESSMENT BY THE ADMINISTRATION - REVIEW BY THE COURT

4 . PROCEDURE - PROOF - BURDEN OF PROOF

5 . DAMAGE - UNCERTAIN DAMAGE - NO COMPENSATION

Summary

1 . THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT DERIVES FROM ARTICLE 42 OF THE TREATY IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN THE CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE RELEVANT STAFF REGULATIONS .

2 . SINCE THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR TIME-LIMITS EITHER IN RESPECT OF APPLICATIONS THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS OR OF APPLICATIONS TO THE COURT, A TIME-LIMIT SIMILAR TO THAT IN ARTICLE 33 OF THE TREATY AND IN ARTICLE 39 OF THE STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE CANNOT BE APPLIED BY ANALOGY HAVING REGARD TO THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE AFOREMENTIONED ARTICLES .

3 . IT IS FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY TO EVALUATE IN ITS DISCRETION THE CAPACITY OF CANDIDATES TO CARRY OUT GIVEN DUTIES AND FOR THE COURT WHERE APPROPRIATE TO REVIEW THE WAYS AND MEANS WHICH MAY HAVE LED TO THIS EVALUATION . AN UNFAVOURABLE ASSESSMENT OF THE CAPACITY OF A CANDIDATE TO BE EMPLOYED AS A TRANSLATOR CANNOT REASONABLY BE MADE AS A RESULT OF A SINGLE TRANSLATION .

4 . WHERE THERE IS A STRONG PRESUMPTION IN SUPPORT OF AN ARGUMENT IT IS FOR THE OTHER PARTY TO REBUT IT .

5 . UNCERTAINTY WITH REGARD TO THE OUTCOME WHICH A PROBATIONARY PERIOD WOULD HAVE HAD IF IT HAD DULY TAKEN PLACE RULES OUT CERTAIN DAMAGE . NON-MATERIAL DAMAGE BY REASON OF THE IMPROPER NATURE OF THE DECISION TO REFUSE A DEFINITIVE APPOINTMENT MAY BE COMPENSATED BY SUCCESSIVE OFFERS OF A NEW POST INVOLVING POSSIBILITIES OF PROMOTION .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT - DEFINITION OF A DECISION - CRITERIA APPLICABLE IN THE LEGAL ASSESSMENT OF A MEASURE BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY - EFFECT OF DECLARATION BY SERVANTS OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY - DISTINCTION BETWEEN A DECISION AND AN INTERNAL OFFICE DIRECTIVE .

Summary

( A ) THE LEGAL ASSESSMENT OF A MEASURE BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY DEPENDS ABOVE ALL ON ITS SUBJECT-MATTER AND ON ITS CONTENT .

( B ) WHEN THE HIGH AUTHORITY SENDS A LETTER TO AN AUXILIARY AGENCY ENTRUSTED BY IT WITH THE EXECUTION OF CERTAIN PRECISE FUNCTIONS, INFORMING IT OF CERTAIN GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND IN PARTICULAR INSTRUCTING IT TO CONTINUE A CERTAIN PRACTICE FOLLOWED UP TILL THEN, THAT LETTER MAY CONSTITUTE A MERE INTERNAL OFFICE DIRECTIVE, EVEN IF IT WAS PUBLISHED IN THE JOURNAL OFFICIEL AND IF IT REFERS TO MEASURES WHICH THE AGENCY MUST TAKE IN REGARD TO UNDERTAKINGS IN THE COMMUNITY . IN ANY EVENT, THIS IS TRUE IF IT EMERGES FROM THE LETTER THAT THE HIGH AUTHORITY DID NOT INTEND TO TAKE A DECISION, BUT INTENDED MERELY TO CONFIRM PRINCIPLES WHICH IT BELIEVED, RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY, TO BE LOGICALLY TO INFER FROM ITS PREVIOUS DECISIONS . THE FACT THAT A SERVANT OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY HAS DESCRIBED SUCH A LETTER TO A THIRD PARTY AS A " DECISION " DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE ABOVE STATEMENT ( TREATY ESTABLISHING THE ECSC, ARTICLE 33 ).
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . EQUALIZATION SCHEME - IMPORTED FERROUS SCRAP EQUALIZATION FUND ( OCCF ) - ACTIVITIES OF THAT AGENCY - LIABILITY OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY

( ECSC TREATY, ARTICLE 53 )

2 . COMPETITION - PROHIBITED PRACTICES - BOYCOTTING - POWERS OF INTERVENTION OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY

( ECSC TREATY, ARTICLE 65 )

Summary

1 . ONLY IN CASES WHERE THE OCCF'S ACTIONS CONCERN THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EQUALIZATION SCHEME, AND THUS ARE IN THE NATURE OF AN OFFICIAL DUTY, CAN THEY BE CONSIDERED DIRECTLY TO GIVE RISE TO THE LIABILITY OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY .

2 . ARTICLE 65 ( 1 ) AND ( 5 ) OF THE ECSC TREATY, PROHIBITING CONCERTED PRACTICES TENDING TO DISTORT NORMAL COMPETITION WITHIN THE COMMON MARKET, ENABLES THE HIGH AUTHORITY TO INTERVENE AGAINST THE ORIGINATORS OF A BOYCOTT WHICH DISPLAYS THIS FEATURE .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . MEASURES ADOPTED BY INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY - DECISIONS OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY - STATEMENT OF REASONS - CRITERIA

( ECSC TREATY, ARTICLE 15 )

2 . MEASURES ADOPTED BY INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY - DECISIONS OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY - ENFORCEABLE DECISIONS - STATEMENT OF REASONS - SCOPE OF THE OBLIGATION TO STATE REASONS

( ECSC TREATY, ARTICLES 15 AND 92 )

3 . MEASURES ADOPTED BY INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY - DECISIONS OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY - STATEMENT OF REASONS - REFERENCE TO PREVIOUS MEASURES - INADEQUATE STATEMENT OF REASONS

( ECSC TREATY, ARTICLE 15 )

Summary

1 . CF . SUMMARY N . 4, CASE 14/61, REC . 1962, P . 253 .

A STATEMENT OF REASONS MUST BE DEEMED ADEQUATE, UNDER THE TERMS OF ARTICLES 15 AND 33 OF THE TREATY, WHEN IT ENABLES BOTH THE PARTIES CONCERNED AND THE COURT TO DISCOVER THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY'S REASONING .

*/ EN.661J0014 /*.

2 . CF . SUMMARY N . 4, CASE 9/56, REC . 1958 ( JANVIER-JUILLET ), P . 13 .

DECISIONS OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY ADOPTED IN APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 92 OF THE TREATY MUST CONTAIN AN EXACT AND DETAILED STATEMENT OF ALL THE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS COMPRISED IN THE CLAIM PAYMENT OF WHICH THEY MAKE ENFORCEABLE . ONLY AN ACCOUNT OF THAT KIND CAN MAKE POSSIBLE A REVIEW BY THE COURT

*/ EN.656J0009 /*.

3 . THE MERE REFERENCE TO PREVIOUS MEASURES CANNOT BE REGARDED AS COMPLIANCE WITH THE OBLIGATION TO STATE THE REASONS UPON WHICH A DECISION IS BASED .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . OFFICIALS - PROMOTION - CRITERIA FOR ASSESSMENT - ABSENCE OF PERIODICAL REPORTS DURING PERIOD OF ADAPTATION OF STAFF REGULATIONS - DECISION NOT BASED ON SUCH REPORTS - VALIDITY

( EEC STAFF REGULATIONS, ARTICLES 43, 45, 110 )

2 . OFFICIALS - PROMOTION - OBLIGATIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATION - GENERAL PRINCIPLES

( EEC STAFF REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 45 )

3 . OFFICIALS - PROMOTION - CRITERIA FOR ASSESSMENT - OBLIGATION TO CONSULT PERSONAL FILES OF CANDIDATES

( EEC STAFF REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 45 )

Summary

1 . IF THE ADMINISTRATION DURING THE PERIOD OF ADAPTATION OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS PROMOTES AN OFFICIAL WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO BASE THE PROMOTION UPON THE REPORTS PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 43 OF THE REGULATIONS, THIS FACT CANNOT OF ITSELF BE REGARDED AS A GROUND FOR THE NULLITY OF THE PROMOTION .

CF . PARA . 2 OF SUMMARY IN CASE 27/63 .

2 . THE ADMINISTRATION, WIDE AS ITS DISCRETIONARY POWERS MAY BE, MUST, IN THE CASE OF PROMOTION - IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 45 ( 1 ) OF THE REGULATIONS - TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE COMPARATIVE MERITS OF EACH CANDIDATE ON A BASIS OF EQUALITY AND USING COMPARABLE SOURCES OF INFORMATION .

3 . IN RESPECT OF PROMOTIONS THE ADMINISTRATION MUST BASE ITS ASSESSMENT UPON A CONSULTATION OF THE PERSONAL FILES OF THE CANDIDATES IN WHICH MUST APPEAR IN PARTICULAR THE OPINIONS OF THEIR IMMEDIATE SUPERIORS .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS - WORKERS - RELATED PROVISIONS - CRITERIA FOR INTERPRETATION

( EEC TREATY, ARTICLES 48 TO 51 )

2 . FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS - WORKERS - MANDATORY APPLICATION OF THE LEGISLATION OF THE STATE IN WHICH THE PERSON CONCERNED IS EMPLOYED

( EEC TREATY, ARTICLES 48 TO 51; REGULATION N . 3 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE EEC OF 25 SEPTEMBER 1958 CONCERNING SOCIAL SECURITY FOR MIGRANT WORKERS ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF 16 DECEMBER 1958 ), ARTICLE 12 )

3 . FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS - WORKERS - SIMULTANEOUS APPLICATION OF SEVERAL SYSTEMS OF LEGISLATION - ADMISSIBILITY OF PRINCIPLE - PERMISSIBILITY OF GRANT OF SUPPLEMENTARY PROTECTION BY WAY OF SOCIAL SECURITY BY A STATE OTHER THAN THAT IN WHICH THE PERSON CONCERNED IS EMPLOYED

Summary

1 . IN CASE OF DOUBT, MEASURES TAKEN IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLES 48 TO 51 OF THE TREATY MUST BE CONSTRUED SO AS TO AVOID PLACING MIGRANT WORKERS IN AN UNFAVOURABLE POSITION, PARTICULARLY WITH REGARD TO SOCIAL SECURITY .

2 . ARTICLE 12 OF REGULATION N . 3 OBLIGES THE STATE IN WHOSE TERRITORY WAGE-EARNERS OR ASSIMILATED WORKERS ARE EMPLOYED TO APPLY ITS LEGISLATION TO THEM .

3 . ARTICLE 12 OF REGULATION N . 3 DOES NOT PROHIBIT THE APPLICATION OF THE LEGISLATION OF A STATE OTHER THAN THAT IN WHICH THE INSURED PERSON WORKS EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT IT REQUIRES THAT PERSON TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE FINANCING OF A SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION WHICH IS UNABLE TO PROVIDE HIM WITH ADDITIONAL ADVANTAGES IN RESPECT OF THE SAME PERIOD .

IT IS ACCORDINGLY PERMISSIBLE FOR SUCH A STATE TO PROVIDE FOR THE GRANT OF RIGHTS TO BENEFITS IN FAVOUR OF THE INSURED PERSON EVEN IF HE ENJOYS, IN RESPECT OF THE SAME RISK AND PERIOD, SIMILAR RIGHTS UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF THE STATE IN WHICH HE WORKS .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . PROCEDURE - CONCLUSIONS IN THE APPLICATION - AMENDMENT IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS - PROHIBITED IN PRINCIPLE - PERMISSIBILITY IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES

( RULES OF PROCEDURE, ARTICLE 42(2 ))

2 . OFFICIALS - DISPUTES WITH THE ADMINISTRATION - CLASSIFICATION AS THE SUBJECT OF AN APPEAL - DISPUTES OF A FINANCIAL CHARACTER WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 91(1 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS OF THE EEC-EAEC - ADMISSIBILITY

Summary

1 . AMENDMENT OF THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE APPLICATION IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS ONLY PERMISSIBLE IF SUCH AMENDMENT IS BASED ON MATTERS OF LAW OR OF FACT WHICH COME TO LIGHT IN THE COURSE OF THE WRITTEN PROCEDURE .

2 . AN OFFICIAL IS ENTITLED TO REQUEST THE COURT TO GIVE A RULING ON THE LEGALITY OF HIS CLASSIFICATION AS SUCH AN APPEAL CONSTITUTES A DISPUTE OF A FINANCIAL CHARACTER, WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 91(1 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . OFFICIALS - RECRUITMENT - GENERAL COMPETITION - RIGHT OF APPEAL OF PARTICIPANTS - CANDIDATES FROM OUTSIDE THE COMMUNITIES

( ECSC, EEC AND EAEC STAFF REGULATIONS, ARTICLES 27 AND 91 )

2 . OFFICIALS - STAFF REGULATIONS - GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR GIVING EFFECT THERETO - DUTY TO ADOPT SUCH PROVISIONS - PROCEDURE RELATING TO COMPETITION

( ECSC STAFF REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 107; EEC AND EAEC STAFF REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 110 )

Summary

1 . CANDIDATES IN GENERAL COMPETITIONS, EVEN THOSE FROM OUTSIDE THE COMMUNITIES, MAY INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT CONCERNING A POSSIBLE INFRINGEMENT OF THE RULES CONCERNING PROCEDURE RELATING TO COMPETITION .

2 . CF . PARA . 4 OF SUMMARY IN CASE 16/64, ( 1965 ) ECR 135 .

( A ) THE EXPRESSION 'THE GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR GIVING EFFECT TO THESE STAFF REGULATIONS' APPEARING IN ARTICLE 110 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS OF THE EEC AND THE EAEC REFERS IN THE FIRST INSTANCE TO THE PROVISIONS WHICH EACH INSTITUTION IS OBLIGED TO MAKE IN EXECUTION OF CERTAIN MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF THE REGULATONS, SUCH AS THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 2, AND THE SECOND SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 5 ( 4 ).

IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH RULES THE OBLIGATION TO ADOPT 'GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR GIVING EFFECT' TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS CAN BE RECOGNIZED ONLY IN THE CASES IN WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF THE REGULATIONS ARE NOT SUFFICIENTLY EXPLICIT BY THEMSELVES .

( B ) THE PROVISIONS OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE PROCEDURE FOR COMPETITIONS ARE SUFFICIENTLY CLEAR BY THEMSELVES .

*/ 664J0016 /*.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . OFFICIALS - APPEALS - EXPIRY OF TIME-LIMIT - REQUEST OR COMPLAINT WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 90 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS - BAR TO RIGHT OF ACTION

2 . OFFICIALS - APPEALS - FAILURE TO ACT ON THE PART OF THE ADMINISTRATION - CONCEPT

( STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS OF THE EEC, ARTICLE 91 )

3 . PROCEDURE - APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT - JUDGMENT - LEGAL EFFECTS - LIMITED TO THE PARTIES AND TO THE PERSONS DIRECTLY CONCERNED BY THE MEASURE ANNULLED - JUDGMENT CONSTITUTING A NEW FACTOR - CONCEPT

Summary

1 . A REQUEST OR COMPLAINT THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS WHICH IS NOT MADE WITHIN THE PERIOD ALLOWED FOR FILING APPEALS TO THE COURT CANNOT, UPON THE EXPIRY OF THIS PERIOD, ESCAPE BEING TIME-BARRED .

2 . A REPLY GIVEN BY THE ADMINISTRATION INFORMING THE OFFICIAL CONCERNED THAT HIS REQUEST OR COMPLAINT WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 90 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS IS UNDER CONSIDERATION AMOUNTS TO A FAILURE TO GIVE A DECISION .

CF . PARAGRAPH 5, SUMMARY IN JOINED CASES 42 AND 49/59, ( 1961 ) ECR 106 .

3 . CF . PARAGRAPH 4, SUMMARY IN CASE 43/64 ( 1965 ) ECR 385 .

APART FROM THE ACTUAL PARTIES IN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT, THE ONLY PERSONS CONCERNED BY THE LEGAL EFFECTS OF A JUDGMENT OF THE COURT ANNULLING A MEASURE ARE, THE PERSONS DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE MEASURE WHICH IS ANNULLED . SUCH A JUDGMENT CAN ONLY CONSTITUTE A NEW FACTOR AS REGARDS THOSE PERSONS .

*/ 664J0043 /*.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . OFFICIALS - DISPUTES WITH THE ADMINISTRATION - APPEAL THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS MADE WITHIN THE TIME-LIMIT FOR APPEAL TO THE COURT - TIME-LIMIT FOR APPEAL TO THE COURT RETAINED - REJECTION OF APPEAL THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS - NOTIFICATION TO APPLICANT - DATE OF NOTIFICATION CONSTITUTING THE DATE FROM WHICH TIME RUNS IN RESPECT OF THE DATE FROM WHICH TIME RUNS IN RESPECT OF TIME-LIMIT FOR LODGING AN APPEAL TO THE COURT

( STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS OF THE EAEC, ARTICLES 90, 91 )

2 . OFFICIALS - VOCATIONAL COMPETENCE - ASSESSMENT BY THE ADMINISTRATION - JURISDICTION OF THE COURT - LIMITS

( STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS OF THE EAEC, ARTICLE 91 )

3 . OFFICIALS - PROMOTION - LIST OF THOSE PROPOSED FOR PROMOTION - EXCLUSION - NO REQUIREMENT TO GIVE REASONS

( STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS OF THE EAEC, ARTICLES 25, 45 )

4 . OFFICIALS - DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM - HEARING OF THE PERSON CONCERNED THROUGH THE INTERMEDIARY OF A SENIOR OFFICIAL - PERMISSIBILITY

( STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS OF THE EAEC, ARTICLE 87 )

Summary

1 . IT APPEARS FROM ARTICLES 90 AND 91 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS, READ TOGETHER, THAT APPEALS THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS ARE SUBJECT TO THE SAME TIME-LIMIT AS APPLIES TO APPEALS TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE, PROVIDED THAT THEY WERE THEMSELVES INSTITUTED WITHIN THE TIME LAID DOWN FOR APPEALS TO THE COURT . IN THE CASE OF A REJECTION OF AN APPEAL THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS, THE DATE ON WHICH THE APPLICANT BECOMES AWARE OF THIS REJECTION CONSTITUTES THE TERMINATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE AND MARKS THE DATE FROM WHICH TIME BEGINS TO RUN IN RESPECT OF THE TIME-LIMIT FOR LODGING AN APPEAL TO THE COURT .

2 . THE COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO SUBSTITUTE ITS OWN VALUE JUDGMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENTS OF THE LOCAL VOCATIONAL COMPETENCE OF AN OFFICIAL BY THE ADMINISTRATION ( CF . PARA . 3, SUMMARY, JOINED CASES 35/62 AND 16/63, ( 1963 ) ECR 403 ).

3 . ARTICLE 45 OF THE EAEC STAFF REGULATIONS DOES NOT REQUIRE DECISIONS REGARDING PROMOTION TO BE REASONED IN RESPECT OF CANDIDATES NOT PROMOTED . A FORTIORI, THERE IS NO OBLIGATION TO GIVE REASONS FOR PROPOSALS FROM AN INTERNAL ADMINISTRATIVE BODY HAVING ONLY CONSULTATIVE POWERS . ( CF . PARA . 3, SUMMARY, CASE 27/63, ( 1964 ) ECR 251 ).

4 . IN DISCIPLINARY MATTERS THE HEARING OF THE PERSON CONCERNED MAY BE ENTRUSTED TO A SENIOR OFFICIAL .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

PROCEDURE - JUDGMENT GRANTING ANNULMENT - LEGAL EFFECTS - LIMITED TO THE PARTIES AND TO THE PERSONS DIRECTLY CONCERNED BY THE MEASURE ANNULLED - JUDGMENT CONSTITUTING A NEW FACTOR - CONCEPT

Summary

CF . PARAGRAPH 3, SUMMARY IN CASE 28/64 ( 1965 ) ECR 237 .

THE MERE FACT OF THE EXISTENCE OF A SINGLE SECRETARIAT CANNOT ESTABLISH THE LEGAL UNITY OF THE COUNCILS OF MINISTERS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, AS EACH OF THESE COMMUNITIES HAS A SEPARATE LEGAL PERSONALITY AND AS THE TREATIES DID NOT ESTABLISH THE COUNCILS AS A COMMON INSTITUTION .

*/ 664J0028 /*.