ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Injury – Establishing a causal link – Obligations of the institutions – Calculation of the price undercutting of the imports at issue – Obligation to make a fair comparison between the price of the product concerned and the price of the like product of the Union industry – Comparison to be made between prices obtained at the same level of trade – Need to compare prices at a particular level of trade – None

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2016/1036, Arts 2(9), as well as 3(2) and (3))

(see paragraphs 215-225, 231, 233-249)
Competition – Administrative procedure – Commission decision finding an infringement – Identification of the offences subject to sanction – Requirements arising from the principle of effective judicial protection – Clarity and precision of the operative part of the decision – Assessment – Precedence of the wording of the provision over the grounds

(Art. 101 TFEU; EEA Agreement, Art. 53; EC-Switzerland Air Transport Agreement, Arts 8 and 11(2); Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47)

(see paragraphs 132, 336, 340-345)
1.

Common foreign and security policy – Civilian missions of the European Union – Staff – International civilian staff members – Actions for damages – Jurisdiction of the EU judicature – Staff member employed under successive fixed-term contracts – First employment contracts conferring jurisdiction on the courts of a Member State – Final contracts containing a jurisdiction clause conferring jurisdiction on the Court of Justice of the European Union – Scope of the arbitration clause – Action seeking to establish the unlawfulness of a decision not to accept the application of that staff member following an internal competition and of a decision not to renew her final employment contract – Included (Arts 268 and 272 TFEU) (see paragraphs 42-45, 47)
EU institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Exceptions to the right of access to documents – Refusal to grant access – Obligation to state reasons – Scope

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Recitals 1, 2, 4 and 11 and Arts 1 and 4)

(see paragraphs 23-25, 27, 28, 30)
Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject matter of the dispute – Brief statement of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Identification of pleas in law by reference to their substance and not their formal characterisation

(Art. 263 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d))

(see paragraphs 64-66)
Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Burden of proof

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 170a(1) and 170b)

(see paragraph 11)
Officials – Disciplinary measures – Procedure – Hearing of the official concerned by the appointing authority – Lack of attendance by the official concerned on the basis of a medical certificate – Presumption of incapacity to enter an appearance – Rebuttable – Burden of proof – Possibility for the official concerned to be represented or to submit written comments

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 41(2)(a), 51(1) and 52(1); Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex IX, Arts 4 and 22(1))

(see paragraphs 5 [16, 40, 45], 6)
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 October 2022 –

Freebird Airlines Europe

(Case C‑302/22)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Article 5(3) – Compensation for air passengers in the event of long delays to flights – Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation – Extraordinary circumstances – Collision between an aircraft and birds – Emergency braking manoeuvre leading to damage to the tyres of that aircraft)

Transport – Air transport – Regulation No 261/2004 – Article 5(3) – Compensation and assistance to passengers – Cancellation or long delay of flights – Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation – Condition – Extraordinary circumstances – Concept – Interruption of the take-off phase of an aircraft caused by the collision of that aircraft with birds and resulting in an emergency braking manoeuvre damaging the tyres of that aircraft – Included – All reasonable measures taken by the air carrier to avoid cancellation or delay – Scope – To be determined by the national court

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 261/2004, recitals 14 and 15 and Arts 5(3) and 7)

(see paragraphs 16-23, operative part)

Operative part

Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91,

must be interpreted as meaning that the interruption of the take-off phase of an aircraft caused by the collision of that aircraft with birds and resulting in an emergency braking manoeuvre damaging the tyres of that aircraft comes within the scope of the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’, for the purposes of that provision.
Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Burden of proof

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 170a(1) and 170b)

(see paragraph 12)
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Question referred in the context of a dispute coming under national law and not under EU law – Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court

(Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 53(2))

(see paragraphs 30, 31, operative part)
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 October 2022 –

Comune di Portici

(Case C‑777/21) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Article 49 TFEU – Freedom of establishment – Article 56 TFEU – Freedom to provide services – Road traffic – Registration and taxation of motor vehicles – Vehicle registered in a Member State – Driver residing in the Member State where the vehicle is registered and in another Member State – Legislation of a Member State prohibiting persons who have resided in that Member State for more than 60 days from driving in that Member State a vehicle registered in another country)

Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Restrictions – National legislation prohibiting a self-employed worker residing in a Member State for more than 60 days from driving in that Member State a vehicle registered in another Member State – Vehicle neither intended to be used essentially in the first Member State nor, in fact, used in that manner – Not permissible – No justification

(Article 49 TFEU)

(see paragraphs 16-19, 22, 23, 25-31 and operative part)

Operative part

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which prohibits a self-employed worker who has resided in that Member State for more than 60 days from driving in that Member State a vehicle registered in another Member State where the vehicle is neither intended to be used essentially in the first Member State on a permanent basis nor is, in fact, used in that manner.

( 1 ) OJ C 148, 4.4.2022.
1.

Actions brought by officials – Time limits – Point from which time starts to run – Decision not to admit a candidate to the next phase of a competition – Time limit running from the day on which the results of the previous phase of the competition are communicated – Referral to the Ombudsman before the proceedings are initiated – Irrelevant (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 90(2)) (see paragraph 4 (9-11))
Order of the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) of 4 October 2022 –

Teritorialna direktsia na NAP – Plovdiv

(Case C‑49/20) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Articles 53 and 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Directive (EU) 2015/849 – Scope – National legislation requiring payments over a certain amount to be made exclusively by bank transfer or by deposit into a payment account)

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Reply can be clearly deduced from the case-law – Application of Article 99 of the Rule of Procedure (Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 99) (see paragraph 32)

2. Approximation of laws – Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing – Directive 2015/849 – Scope – Prohibition on making payments over a certain amount in cash – Obligation to make a bank transfer or a deposit into a payment account – Precluded (European Parliament and Council Directive 2015/849) (see paragraphs 37-39, 41, 43, 44, operative part)

Operative part

Legislation of a Member State which provides that domestic payments, the amount of which is equal to or exceeds a set threshold, are to be made only by bank transfer or by deposit into a payment account, regardless of the entity or the reason for paying in cash, since it applies to all payments in cash between natural and legal persons without distinction, does not fall within the scope of Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC.

( 1 ) OJ C 137, 27.4.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 27 October 2022 –

Stadt Mainz

(Case C‑544/21) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Freedom to provide services – Directive 2006/123/EC – Article 15(1), (2)(g) and (3) – Services in the internal market – Fees of architects and engineers – Fixed minimum tariffs – Direct effect of provisions of EU law and possible inapplicability of national legislation)

1. Freedom of establishment – Freedom to provide services – Services in the internal market – Directive 2006/123 – Scope ratione temporis – Contract concluded before the entry into force of the directive and having exhausted all of its effects prior to the deadline for transposition of that directive – Not included (European Parliament and Council Directive 2006/123, Arts 44(1) and 45) (see paragraphs 19, 20, 23, 24, operative part)

2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Admissibility – Limits – Hypothetical questions referred in a context excluding a useful answer – Question raised concerning a dispute confined within a single Member State – National legislation on the fees of architects and engineers – Parties established in the Member State concerned and services carried out in the territory of that Member State – Inadmissibility (Arts 49 and 267 TFEU) (see paragraphs 26-29, 31-33)

Operative part

Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market does not apply to a situation in which a contract was concluded before the entry into force of that directive and where all the effects of that contract were exhausted prior to the deadline for the transposition of the directive.

( 1 ) OJ C 2, 3.1.2022.
Judicial proceedings – General Court seised under an arbitration clause – Counterclaim by the Commission seeking full reimbursement of the grants paid under the grant agreements concluded under the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Policy Support Programme – Act not constituting a decision adversely affecting the applicant – No infringement of the right to good administration and of the rights of the defence

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(a))

(see paragraphs 44, 46, 48, 49)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . INTERPRETATION OF JUDGMENT - ADMISSIBILITY - RIGHT OF ACTION

( STATUTE, ART . 37 ).

2 . INTERPRETATION OF JUDGMENT - ADMISSIBILITY - CONCEPT OF " IN DOUBT "

( STATUTE, ART . 37 ).

3 . INTERPRETATION OF JUDGMENT - ADMISSIBILITY - PARTS OF A JUDGMENT CAPABLE OF BEING INTERPRETED

( STATUTE, ART . 37 ).

4 . INTERPRETATION OF JUDGMENT - WELL FOUNDED - OBSCURITIES IN THE JUDGMENT TO BE INTERPRETED

( STATUTE, ART . 37 ).

5 . INTERPRETATION OF JUDGMENT - WELL-FOUNDED - LIMITS OF RIGHT OF INTERPRETATION

( STATUTE, ART . 37 ).

Summary

1 . IN THE EVENT OF SEVERAL APPLICATIONS MADE AGAINST THE SAME DECISION OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY AND WHERE AS A RESULT OF ONE OF THESE APPLICATIONS THE DECISION IS ANNULLED, THE OTHER APPLICANTS HAVE EACH THE RIGHT TO ASK FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF THE JUDGMENT IN SO FAR AS THE LATTER HAS RULED ON THE LEGAL QUESTION WHICH THEY HAVE ALSO RAISED .

THIS IS ALSO SO WHERE ONE OF THE PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS AGAINST THE DECISION HAS BEEN DECLARED WELL FOUNDED .

2 . IT IS ENOUGH FOR IT TO BE SAID TO BE " IN DOUBT " WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 37 OF THE STATUTE THAT THE PARTIES SHOULD INTERPRET THE JUDGMENT DIFFERENTLY .

3 . APART FROM THE OPERATIVE PART, THE GROUNDS WHICH DETERMINE IT MAY BE THE SUBJECT OF INTERPRETATION . THIS IS NOT SO OF PASSAGES WHICH ARE ANCILLARY AND COMPLETE OR EXPLAIN THE BASIC GROUNDS .

4 . THE APPLICATION FOR INTERPRETATION OF A JUDGMENT IS NOT WELL FOUNDED WHERE THE JUDGMENT OF WHICH INTERPRETATION IS SOUGHT CONTAINS NO OBSCURITIES .

5 . IN A JUDGMENT OF INTERPRETATION THE COURT CAN ONLY MAKE CLEAR THE MEANING AND SCOPE OF A PREVIOUS JUDGMENT; IT CANNOT DEAL WITH PROBLEMS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN SETTLED BY THIS JUDGMENT .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . PROCEDURE - APPLICATION - CONCLUSIONS - AMENDMENT - REQUIREMENTS OF FORM

2 . WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION - CERTIFICATES DRAWN UP BY A NATIONAL AUTHORITY RECOGNIZED AS SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS - WRONGFUL ACT COMMITTED BY A NATIONAL OFFICIAL IN DRAWING UP SUCH CERTIFICATES - ABSENCE OF CHECKING BY THE COMMUNITY

Summary

1 . AN AMENDMENT OF THE CONCLUSIONS, EVEN IF ADMISSIBLE, IS SUBJECT TO THE STRICTEST REQUIREMENTS AS REGARDS ITS PRECISION AND CONTENT AND MUST BE DONE IN A FORMAL MANNER .

2 . SEE SUMMARY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CASE 23/59, REC . 1959, P . 245 .

( A ) IF, AT THE TIME WHEN CERTIFICATES OF ORIGIN, RECOGNIZED BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY AS SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS, ARE DRAWN UP, A WRONGFUL ACT IS COMMITTED BY A NATIONAL OFFICIAL WHO ACTS NEITHER IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDERS GIVEN BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY NOR ON BEHALF OF OR IN THE NAME OF THAT INSTITUTION BUT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF PURELY NATIONAL DUTIES, THE WRONGFUL ACT CANNOT BE IMPUTED TO THE HIGH AUTHORITY AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A PERSONAL WRONG FOR WHICH THE LATTER IS LIABLE .

( B ) IF, INSTEAD OF MAKING ITSELF RESPONSIBLE FOR DRAWING UP THE CERTIFICATES, THE HIGH AUTHORITY LEAVES THIS TASK TO THE NATIONAL AUTHORITY, THERE IS NO DEFECTIVE ORGANIZATION AND, CONSEQUENTLY, NO WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION IN THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS FUNCTIONS WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 40 OF THE ECSC TREATY WHEN THE TASK IS ENTRUSTED TO A HIGHER AUTHORITY, SUCH AS A MINISTRY, WHICH APPEARS TO BE THE MOST APPROPRIATE AND THE MOST LIKELY TO AFFORD THE BEST GUARANTEE AGAINST ANY ABUSE AND WHEN THE NATIONAL REGULATIONS PROVIDE FOR AN EXTREMELY DETAILED PROCEDURE BEFORE THE SAID CERTIFICATES ARE DRAWN UP .

( C ) NOR, IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, DOES THE FACT THAT THE HIGH AUTHORITY REFRAINS FROM CHECKING THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE CERTIFICATES CONSTITUTE A WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION SO LONG AS THERE WAS NO INDICATION TO SUGGEST THE EXISTENCE OF AN ABUSE . ( ECSC TREATY, ARTICLE 40 .)

*/ EN.659J0023 /*.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

COSTS - COSTS INCURRED UNREASONABLY

( RULES OF PROCEDURE, ART 69 ( 3 ))

Summary

IF, AFTER A FACT HAS ARISEN, ONE OF THE PARTIES TO LEGAL PROCEEDINGS NO LONGER HAS AN INTEREST IN THEM AND DECIDES TO CONTINUE THE ACTION, THE SUBSEQUENT COSTS OF THE ACTION ARE TO BE CONSIDERED AS COSTS UNREASONABLY INCURRED AND SHALL BE BORNE BY THAT PARTY .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . CUSTOMS DUTIES - ABOLITION - DUTIES APPLIED WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLES 12 AND 14 OF THE EEC TREATY - CONCEPT

( EEC TREATY, ARTICLES 12, 14 AND 19 )

2 . EXTERNAL RELATIONS OF MEMBER STATES OF THE EEC - AGREEMENTS MADE PRIOR TO THE EEC TREATY - RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF MEMBER STATES

( EEC TREATY, ARTICLE 234 )

Summary

1 . IT FOLLOWS FROM A LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLES 12 AND 14 OF THE EEC TREATY THAT THE TERM 'DUTIES APPLIED', AS USED IN THESE TWO ARTICLES, MEANS THE DUTIES ACTUALLY APPLIED RATHER THAN THOSE LEGALLY APPLICABLE . THIS INTERPRETATION IS CONFIRMED BY THE THIRD SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 19 ( 2 ) OF THE EEC TREATY WHICH, WHILE IT REFERS ONLY TO THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF, IS NOT LIMITED IN SCOPE TO THIS AREA BUT ALLOWS THE CONCLUSION TO BE DRAWN THAT THE AUTHORS OF THE TREATY WERE AWARE OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE DUTIES LEGALLY APPLICABLE AND THOSE ACTUALLY APPLIED AND THAT BY USING THE WORDS 'DUTIES APPLIED' THEY INTENDED TO REFER TO THOSE DUTIES WHICH WERE ACTUALLY APPLIED .

2 . ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, A MEMBER STATE WHICH BY VIRTUE OF THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE EEC TREATY, ASSUMES NEW OBLIGATIONS WHICH CONFLICT WITH RIGHTS HELD UNDER AN EARLIER AGREEMENT, REFRAINS FROM EXERCISING SUCH RIGHTS TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS NEW OBLIGATIONS; ARTICLE 234 OF THE EEC TREATY ONLY GUARANTEES THE RIGHTS HELD BY THIRD COUNTRIES UNDER EARLIER AGREEMENTS .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF - DEROGATORY PROVISIONS - OBJECT OF ARTICLE 25 OF THE EEC TREATY

2 . COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF - DEROGATORY PROVISIONS - DISCRETIONARY POWER OF THE COMMISSION

( EEC TREATY, ARTICLE 25 )

3 . MEASURES ADOPTED BY INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY - STATEMENT OF REASONS - OBJECT

( EEC TREATY, ARTICLE 190 )

4 . MEASURES ADOPTED BY INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY - STATEMENT OF REASONS - CONTENT AND FORM

( EEC TREATY, ARTICLE 190 )

Summary

1 . ARTICLE 25 OF THE EEC TREATY PROVIDES POSSIBILITIES OF OBTAINING EXEMPTIONS FROM THE FUNDAMENTAL PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 2, 3 AND 9 WITH A VIEW TO REMEDYING DIFFICULTIES WHICH MAY RESULT, IN CONNECTION WITH SUPPLYING THE DEMANDS OF A MEMBER STATE, FROM THE ALIGNMENT OF NATIONAL DUTIES WITH THOSE OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF .

2 . THE DISCRETIONARY POWER CONFERRED UPON THE COMMISSION BY ARTICLE 25 MUST BE EXERCISED WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RULES OF ARTICLES 2 AND 3 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CRITERIA OF ARTICLE 29 OF THE TREATY . IT FOLLOWS FROM THE WORDING AND THE GENERAL SCHEME OF ARTICLE 25 THAT THIS POWER IS IN NO WAY FETTERED .

3 . BY IMPOSING UPON THE COMMISSION THE OBLIGATION TO STATE REASONS FOR ITS MEASURES, ARTICLE 190 IS NOT TAKING MERE FORMAL CONSIDERATIONS INTO ACCOUNT BUT SEEKS TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE PARTIES OF DEFENDING THEIR RIGHTS, TO THE COURT OF EXERCISING ITS SUPERVISORY FUNCTIONS, AND TO MEMBER STATES AND TO ALL INTERESTED NATIONALS OF ASCERTAINING THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE COMMISSION HAS APPLIED THE TREATY .

4 . FOR THE PURPOSE OF STATING THE REASONS FOR A MEASURE IT IS SUFFICIENT TO SET FORTH IN A CONCISE, BUT CLEAR AND RELEVANT MANNER, THE PRINCIPAL ISSUES OF LAW AND OF FACT UPON WHICH IT IS BASED AND WHICH ARE NECESSARY IN ORDER THAT THE REASONING WHICH HAS LED THE COMMISSION TO ITS DECISION MAY BE UNDERSTOOD .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . MEASURES ADOPTED BY INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY - DECISIONS OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY - CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS

( ECSC TREATY, ARTICLE 14 )

2 . COSTS - NO FORMAL APPLICATION - CONSEQUENCES

( RULES OF PROCEDURE, ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ))

Summary

1 . ( A ) A MEASURE WHICH SATISFIES THE FUNDAMENTAL CONDITIONS UNDERLYING THE CONCEPT OF A DECISION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE TREATY RETAINS THE CHARACTER OF A DECISION EVEN THOUGH IT FAILS TO COMPLY WITH SOME IN-ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENT OF FORM LAID DOWN BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF ITS DECISIONS .

( B ) THE DECISION MUST APPEAR AS A MEASURE ADOPTED BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY, ACTING AS A BODY, INTENDED TO PRODUCE LEGAL EFFECTS, CONSTITUTING THE CULMINATION OF PROCEDURE WITHIN THE HIGH AUTHORITY, WHEREBY THE LATTER GIVES ITS FINAL RULING IN A FORM WHICH ENABLES THE MEASURE IN QUESTION TO BE IDENTIFIED AS A DECISION .

ANY MEASURE, THEREFORE, WHICH, IN PARTICULAR, DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN DEBATED AND ADOPTED BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY AND WHICH IS NOT AUTHENTICATED BY THE SIGNATURE OF ONE OF ITS MEMBERS, CANNOT BE REGARDED AS A DECISION .

2 . IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FORMAL APPLICATION FOR THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY TO BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS, THE LATTER CANNOT BE MADE TO PAY THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE SUCCESSFUL PARTY .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . OFFICIALS - PROMOTION - POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE ADMINISTRATION

( EEC STAFF REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 45 )

2 . OFFICIALS - PROMOTION - CRITERIA FOR ASSESSMENT - ABSENCE OF PERIODICAL REPORTS DURING PERIOD OF ADAPTATION OF STAFF REGULATIONS - NO OBLIGATION ON THE ADMINISTRATION TO DRAW UP AD-HOC REPORTS

( EEC STAFF REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 45 )

3 . OFFICIALS - PROMOTION - ADMINISTRATION'S CRITERIA FOR ASSESSMENT - NO OBLIGATION TO STATE REASONS AS REGARDS UNSUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES

( EEC STAFF REGULATIONS, ARTICLES 25 AND 45 )

Summary

1 . THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY HAS WIDE DISCRETIONARY POWERS IN RELATION TO THE PROMOTION OF OFFICIALS . SUCH POWERS DO, HOWEVER, PRESUPPOSE THE EXISTENCE OF THE NECESSARY GUARANTEE AFFORDED BY THE SCRUPULOUS CONSIDERATION OF PERSONAL FILES EACH CONTAINING COMPARABLE INFORMATION . THIS EXAMINATION SHOULD COMPRISE AN EVALUATION OF MERITS ON A BASIS OF EQUALITY AND THE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT OF INFORMATION THE SOURCE AND CONTENT OF WHICH IS COMPARABLE IN EACH INSTANCE .

2 . IT WOULD BE TOO MUCH, HOWEVER, TO REQUIRE THE ADMINISTRATION TO DRAW UP AD-HOC REPORTS TO TAKE THE PLACE OF THE REPORTS PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 43 DURING THE ADAPTATION PERIOD WHENEVER A VACANT POST MAKES IT NECESSARY TO COMPARE THE MERITS OF POSSIBLE CANDIDATES .

3 . IN THE CASE OF PROMOTION, THE ADMINISTRATION IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION, UNDER ARTICLE 25 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS, TO STATE THE FACTORS ON WHICH ITS ASSESSMENT WAS BASED IN RESPECT OF UNSUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . PROCEDURE - INTERPRETATION OF A JUDGMENT - ALLEGATION OF THE EXISTENCE OF AMBIGUITY OR OBSCURITY - ADMISSIBILITY OF AN APPLICATION FOR INTERPRETATION

( STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EAEC, ARTICLE 41 )

2 . PROCEDURE - INTERPRETATION OF A JUDGMENT - DETAILED RULES

( STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EAEC, ARTICLE 41 )

Summary

1 . THE QUESTION WHETHER THE JUDGMENT TO BE INTERPRETED IS OR IS NOT AMBIGUOUS OR OBSCURE APPERTAINS TO THE EXAMINATION OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE APPLICATION . SO FAR AS ADMISSIBILITY IS CONCERNED, IT IS ENOUGH THAT THE APPLICANT ALLEGES THE EXISTENCE OF AN AMBIGUITY OR OF OBSCURITY .

2 . IN ORDER TO DECIDE WHETHER THE OPERATIVE PART OF A JUDGMENT IS OR IS NOT AMBIGUOUS OR OBSCURE, IT SHOULD BE READ TOGETHER WITH THE APPLICANT'S CONCLUSIONS AND THE STATEMENT OF THE GROUNDS OF THE SAID JUDGMENT .