ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Commission decision rejecting a subsidiary's application for inclusion of a pharmacologically active substance in the list of substances not subject to maximum residue limits - Action brought by the parent company - Whether admissible

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

2 Procedure - Grounds of judgments - Judgment annulling a measure - Grounds identical to those of a previous judgment - Reference to be made to the grounds of the earlier judgment

Summary

1 Persons other than the addressees of a decision are to be regarded as individually concerned by that measure only if it affects them by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to them, or by reason of factual circumstances which differentiate them from all other persons and thereby distinguish them individually in the same way as the person addressed.

That is the position, in relation to a Commission decision rejecting an application - for the inclusion of Sometribove in the list of substances not subject to a maximum residue limit, set out in Annex II to Regulation No 2377/90 - made by a parent company which holds all the shares in its subsidiary (regarded as the addressee of the decision) and is therefore its sole owner, and which is thus differentiated from all other persons and, in particular, from all other operators in the market in question.

2 Where it is common ground between the parties that the contested decision must be annulled for the same reasons that led the Court of First Instance to annul a decision in an earlier judgment, and there is nothing in fact or law which would permit a different conclusion, reference must be made to the grounds of the earlier judgment and the contested decision must be annulled.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for damages - Limitation period - Point from which time starts to run - Liability incurred on account of Regulation No 857/84 providing that reference quantities were not to be allocated to milk producers who had entered into non-marketing undertakings - Date to be taken into consideration - Temporary waiver of the right to plead limitation - Not an event which interrupted the limitation period

(EC Treaty, Arts 178 and 215; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 43; Council Regulations Nos 1078/77, 857/84 and 2187/93; Communication 92/C 198/04 of the Council and the Commission)

Summary

The limitation period laid down in Article 43 of the Statute of the Court of Justice in respect of actions brought against the Community in matters concerning non-contractual liability cannot begin to run before all the requirements governing the obligation to make good the damage are satisfied and, in particular, in cases in which liability stems from a legislative measure, before the injurious effects of the measure have been produced.

As regards the injury suffered by producers of milk and milk products who, following their entry into non-marketing or conversion undertakings under Regulation No 1078/77, were unable by operation of Regulation No 857/84 to obtain a reference quantity or, consequently, to market any quantity of milk exempt from the additional levy, the limitation period started to run on the date on which, following the expiry of their non-marketing undertaking, the producers concerned could have resumed deliveries of milk if they had not been refused a reference quantity; that is to say, in cases where the undertaking expired before the date on which Regulation No 857/84 entered into force, time started to run on that date.

Moreover, since the damage was not caused instantaneously but continued to be sustained from day to day for a certain period as a result of the maintenance in force of an illegal measure, the time-bar under Article 43 of the Statute applies, with respect to the date of the event which interrupted the limitation period, to the period more than five years prior to that date and does not affect rights which arose during subsequent periods.

So far as regards, specifically, the notion of an event which interrupts a limitation period, the waiver of the right to plead limitation - provided for by the Communication of the Council and the Commission concerning the subsequent adoption of Regulation No 2187/93 which provided for an offer of compensation to the producers concerned - does not constitute such an event. The Communication merely provided for a self-imposed restriction of the right to plead limitation. The producers were able to rely on that waiver in the circumstances referred to in Regulation No 2187/93, since it ceased to have effect at the end of the period allowed for accepting the compensation offer, from which time, in the absence of acceptance of the offer or commencement of proceedings, the institutions once again became entitled to plead limitation.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Common commercial policy - Protection against dumping - Anti-dumping proceeding - Final disclosure document to be addressed to the exporter under investigation - Where sent to the exporter's registered office - Constitutes valid notification - Where the exporter has requested notification at another address - Irrelevant - Whether obligatory to inform the exporter's legal representative - No such obligation

(Council Regulation No 384/96. Art. 20)

2 Common commercial policy - Protection against dumping - Injury - Volume of imports - Imports made within a single group of undertakings to be taken into account

(Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 3)

3 Common commercial policy - Protection against dumping - Injury - Factors to be taken into consideration - Volume of imports dumped - Impact of imports to be assessed as a whole, not on the basis of each individual exporter - Whether in breach of the principles of equal treatment and proportionality - No such breach

(Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 3)

Summary

1 The final disclosure document referred to in Article 20 of the basic anti-dumping regulation, Regulation No 384/96, is duly notified to the exporter of the product under investigation where the Commission addresses it to the exporter's registered office, even if the undertaking has expressly asked to be notified at another address. None of the provisions of Article 20 requires the Commission to ensure that the final disclosure document has been communicated to the legal representative of the exporter concerned.

2 The mere fact that an import is made within a single group of undertakings is not a reason to exclude it from the scope of Article 3 of the basic anti-dumping regulation, Regulation No 384/96.

3 There is no provision in the basic anti-dumping regulation, Regulation No 384/96 - nor indeed in the 1994 Anti-Dumping Code - which obliges the Community institutions to consider, in anti-dumping proceedings, whether and, if so, to what extent each exporter responsible for dumping individually contributes to the injury caused to the Community industry. That injury must be assessed as a whole and there is good reason to consider the effect of all such imports on the Community industry and to take appropriate action against all the exporters, even if the volume of each individual exporter's exports is relatively small.

Accordingly, such a trader cannot successfully rely on the principle of equal treatment because the anti-dumping system precludes a trader who has exported a limited quantity from being considered, for the purposes of determining injury, as being in a situation different to that of a trader who has exported substantial quantities. Nor may that trader rely on the principle of proportionality, since, in order to safeguard the Community industry, it may be necessary to take even limited exports into consideration when determining the existence of injury.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 ECSC - State aid to the coal industry - May be authorised by the Commission - Authorisation ex post facto of aid already paid - Whether permissible

(ECSC Treaty, Art. 4(c); General Decision No 3632/93, Arts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9)

2 ECSC - State aid to the coal industry - Prohibited - May be authorised by the Commission - Conditions - Significant reduction in production costs making a degression of aid possible

(ECSC Treaty, Art. 4(c); General Decision No 3632/93, Art. 3)

Summary

1 The Commission is authorised, by Decision No 3632/93 establishing Community rules for State aid to the coal industry, to give ex post facto approval in respect of aid already paid without its prior approval.

2 Authorisation by the Commission of operating aid, pursuant to Article 3 of Decision No 3632/93 establishing Community rules for State aid to the coal industry, is subject to the condition that the recipient undertakings have achieved a significant reduction in their production costs, making degression of that aid possible.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber)

22 February 2000

Case T-171/98

Maria Adelina Biasutto

v

Council of the European Union

‛Officials — Sick leave — Irregular absence — Article 59 of the Staff Regulations — Procedure to be followed in the event of absence on account of sickness’

Full text in French II-99

Application for:

annulment of the decision of the Council of 20 February 1998 refusing to register the applicant's sickness certificate and declaring her absence for the period 9 to 22 February 1998 inclusive irregular.

Held:

The decision of the Council of 20 February 1998 declaring the applicant's absence during the period 9 to 22 February 1998 inclusive irregular is annulled. The Council is ordered to pay the costs.

Summary

Officials — Sick leave — Justification of sickness — Discrepancy between the medical certificates issued by the official's own doctor and the examining doctor — Obligation to refer the matter to the Invalidity Committee — Conditions (Staff Regulations, Art. 59(3)) Officials — Sick leave — Medical examination — Initiation of an arbitration procedure not offering the procedural guarantees laid down in Article 59 of the Staff Regulations — Illegality (Staff Regulations, Art. 59(3))
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)

24 April 2001

Case T-159/98

Ivan Torre and Others

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Competition — Irregularity in the manner in which the tests were conducted, such as to distort the results — Legal interest in bringing proceedings’

Full text in French II-395

Application for:

annulment, first, of the decisions of the selection board in competition EUR/A/123 awarding the applicants a mark eliminating them from the initial pre-selection test and, second, of the subsequent steps taken in that competition, in so far as may be necessary in order to restore the applicants' rights.

Held:

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action in so far as it concerns Mr Torre and Mr Cavallaro. The action is dismissed in so far as it concerns Ms Ineichen. The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

Summary
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber)

13 December 2000

Joined Cases T-130/98 and T-131/98

Francis Panichelli

v

European Parliament

‛Temporary agents — Engaged on the basis of Article 2(c) of the Conditions of Employment of other Servants of the Communities — Reclassification of a post — Absence of promotion to Grade A 4 — Staff reports — Action for annulment and claim for damages — Admissibility of the action — Dismissal pursuant to Article 47(2)(a) of the Conditions of Employment of other Servants of the Communities — Whether internal procedure observed — Reason for dismissal — Misuse of powers’

Full text in French II-1311

Application for:

in Case T-130/98, annulment of the implied rejection of the applicant's request of 11 July 1997 and an order requiring the defendant to pay damages and, in Case T-131/98, annulment of the decision communicated on 2 July 1998 bringing to an end the applicant's temporary contract.

Held:

Cases T-130/98 and T-131/98 are joined for the purpose of the judgment. The applications in Cases T-130/98 and T-131/98 are dismissed. The defendant is to bear the costs in Case T-130/98. Each of the parties is to bear their own costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings, in Case T-131/98.

Summary

Officials — Posting — Correspondence between grade and post — Reclassification of apost — Right to reclassification — No right (Staff Regulations, Art. 7(1); Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities, Art. 10) Officials — Actions — Interest in bringing an action — Action for annulment of a decision — Submission of failure to provide reasons — Decision which is unlikely to be amended — Submission not valid (Staff Regulations, Art. 91)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

State aid - Prohibition - Derogations - Aid which may be regarded as compatible with the common market - Export aid in the book sector - Assessment of the effects of aid on competition and trade - Reference market - Delimitation - Criteria

(EC Treaty, Art. 92(3)(d) (now, after amendment, Art. 87(3)(d) EC))

Summary

$$In order to establish whether, in the course of assessing whether an export aid in the book sector may be regarded as compatible with the common market, competition is affected to an extent that is contrary to the common interest for the purposes of Article 92(3)(d) of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(3)(d) EC), it is necessary to define the market on which the aid takes effect. So far as concerns the material definition of the market, in order to be considered the subject of a sufficiently distinct market, it must be possible to distinguish the service or the good in question by virtue of particular characteristics that so differentiate it from other services or other goods that it is only to a small degree interchangeable with those alternatives and affected by competition from them. In that context, the degree of interchangeability between products or services must be assessed in terms of their objective characteristics, as well as the structure of supply and demand on the market, and competitive conditions.

The Commission must examine the effects of a State aid on competition and trade between the other operators carrying on the same activity as that for which the aid was granted, so as to carry out an assessment of the true impact of such an aid on competition. Unless it carries out such an assessment, the Commission commits a manifest error of assessment as regards the definition of the market.

( see paras 56-57, 71 )
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber)

26 October 2000

Case T-138/99

Luc Verheyden

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Prior administrative complaint — Time-limits — New fact — Promotion — Consideration of comparative merits’

Full text in French II-1001

Application for:

first, annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to Grade A4 with retroactive effect from 10 October 1989 and of the decision not to promote the applicant in the 1998 promotion exercise, and, second, compensation for the nonmaterial damage which he claims to have suffered.

Held:

The application is dismissed. Each party is to bear its own costs.

Summary

The time-limits prescribed in Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations for lodging complaints and bringing proceedings are a matter of public policy and are not subject to the discretion of the parties or the Court, since they were established in order to ensure that legal positions are clear and certain. Any exceptions to or derogations from those time-limits must be interpreted restrictively. Only the existence of new and material facts may justify the submission of a claim seeking reconsideration of a final decision. The amendment of a staff report constitutes a new and material fact causing time-limits for lodging a complaint against a decision not to promote to begin to run again only if, when comparative merits were considered in the promotions procedure concerned, the appointing authority took account of the first version of the staff report. In such circumstances, and in the light of the subsequent amendment of the staff report, the appointing authority is bound to reconsider its decision not to promote, as it was taken in the light of manifestly inaccurate facts and information. (see paras 33, 37) See: T-18/93 Marcato v Commission [1994] ECRSC I-A-215 and II-681, para. 28; T-16/97 Chauvin v Commission [1997] ECRSC I-A-237 and II-681, para. 37; T-40/98 Pagliarani v Commission [1998] ECRSC I-A-515 and II-1555, para. 25

Although any official is entitled to rely on the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, he may invoke that principle only if he has been given precise assurances taking account of the provisions of the Staff Regulations by the administration. In the context of a decision on promotion, the appointing authority must observe the criteria laid down in the Staff Regulations and consider comparative merits pursuant to Article 45. It follows that a promise regarding future promotion cannot give rise to a legitimate expectation on the part of an official given that it was made without regard to the provisions of the Staff Regulations. (see para. 71) See: T-22/92 Weißenfels v Parliament [1993] ECR II-1095, para. 92; T-159/96 Wenk v Commission [1998] ECRSC I-A-193 and II-593, paras 91 and 92
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)

20 September 2000

Case T-203/99

Patrizia de Palma and Others

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Leave for trade union purposes’

Full text in French II-839

Application for:

annulment of the decision of the Commission of 23 September 1998 refusing to grant the applicants leave for trade union purposes.

Held:

The Commission's decision of 23 September 1998 refusing to grant the applicants leave for trade union purposes is annulled. The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

Summary

Officials — Rights and obligations — Right to belong to a trade union — Framework agreement between the Commission and trade unions or staff associations — Leave for trade union purposes granted in order to allow mandated delegates to participate in union assemblies or conferences — Taking into account of travelling time — Discretion of the Commission — Judicial review — Balancing of the interest of the service and the interests of union representatives

(Staff Regulations, Art. 24a)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community law - Interpretation - Acts of the institutions - Discrepancy between the wording of a provision and its title - Rule that provisions are to be construed in such a way that all the terms employed serve a useful purpose

2. Economic and social cohesion - Structural assistance - Community funding - Discontinuance of EAGGF financial aid because of irregularities - Whether permissible

(Council Regulation No 4253/88, Art. 24(2))

3. Economic and social cohesion - Structural assistance - Community funding for national projects - Applicants for, and beneficiaries of, EAGGF financial aid required to provide information and to act in good faith

4. Agriculture - Common agricultural policy - Structural reform - Common measures - Adjustment of agricultural structures and development of rural areas - Discontinuance of EAGGF financial aid for breach of fundamental obligations

(Council Regulations No 2052/88, No 4253/88 and No 4256/88)

Summary

1. Where there is a discrepancy between the wording of a provision and the title thereof, both must be construed in such a manner that all the terms employed serve a useful purpose.

( see para. 40 )

2. Article 24(2) of Regulation No 4253/88 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments must be construed as meaning that the Commission may discontinue aid from the EAGGF in the event of an irregularity.

( see para. 40 )

3. Applicants for, and beneficiaries of, EAGGF financial aid are required to satisfy themselves that they are submitting to the Commission reliable information which is not liable to mislead it; otherwise the system of controls and evidence set up to determine whether the conditions for granting aid are fulfilled cannot function properly. In the absence of reliable information, projects which do not fulfil the conditions required could become the subject of aid. It follows that the obligation on applicants for, and beneficiaries of, aid to provide information and act in good faith is inherent in the EAGGF aid system and essential for its effective functioning.

( see para. 66 )

4. The infringement of obligations compliance with which is of fundamental importance to the proper functioning of a Community system may be penalised by forfeiture of a right conferred by Community legislation, such as entitlement to aid.

The production of invoices and the charging of costs to the project which are not genuine by the beneficiary and the beneficiary's failure to meet a condition concerning part-financing of the project constitute serious infringements of essential obligations justifying cancellation of EAGGf financial aid granted under Regulation No 4256/88 concerning the adjustment of agricultural structures and the development of rural areas.

( see paras 118-120 )
Although there is a difference in wording between Articles 5 and 6 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, in that the latter provision does not lay down any minimum period of residence, there is no difference in function between the installation allowance and the resettlement allowance. The two allowances have comparable aims: they are both intended to cover or offset the expenses incurred by an official in settling in new surroundings for an indeterminate but substantial period of time.

Although Article 6 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations makes granting of the resettlement allowance conditional only upon transfer of the residence of the official concerned to a place situated not less than 70 kilometres from the place where he or she was employed, the transfer of residence referred to by that provision implies an actual transfer of the official's habitual residence to the new place indicated as being that of resettlement. The concept of habitual residence must be interpreted as meaning the place where the person concerned has established, and intends to maintain, the permanent or habitual centre of his or her interests. In addition, the concept of residence, whilst not based on a purely quantitative factor, namely the length of time spent by the person in a particular country, does nevertheless involve, apart from the actual fact of living in a given place, the intention of thereby achieving the continuity which stems from a stable way of life and from the course of normal social relations.

(see paras 29-32)

See: Opinion of Advocate General Mancini in 92/82 Gutmann v Commission [1983] ECR 3127, 3136, in particular 3138 and 3139; Opinion of Advocate General Mancini in 284/87 Sclmflein v Commission [1988] ECR 4475, 4479, in particular 4481; T-63/91 Benzler v Commission [1992] ECR II-2095, para. 25; T-57/92 and T-75/92 Yorck von Wartenburg v Parliament [1993] ECR II-925, para. 65