ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Competition ° Agreements, decisions and concerted practices ° Participation in meetings held by undertakings for an anti-competitive purpose ° Sufficient basis for concluding that, if an undertaking has not distanced itself from the decisions taken, it participated in the subsequent arrangements

(EEC Treaty, Art. 85(1))

2. Competition ° Agreements, decisions and concerted practices ° Adverse effect on competition ° Criteria for assessment ° Anti-competitive object ° Finding to that effect sufficient

(EEC Treaty, Art. 85(1))

3. Competition ° Agreements, decisions and concerted practices ° Agreements between undertakings ° Participation allegedly under pressure ° Not a factor such as to justify failure by an undertaking to notify the competent authorities

(EEC Treaty, Art. 85(1); Council Regulation No 17, Art. 3)

Summary

1. Where an undertaking participates, even if not actively, in meetings held by undertakings with a view to fixing the prices of their products and does not publicly distance itself from what occurred at them, thus giving the impression to the other participants that it subscribes to the results of the meetings and will act in conformity with them, it may be concluded that it is participating in the restrictive arrangements resulting from that meeting.

2. For the purposes of applying Article 85(1) of the Treaty, there is no need to take account of the concrete effects of an agreement when it is apparent that it has as its object the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the common market. An undertaking which participates in an agreement sharing markets is not exculpated by the fact that it does not subsequently observe the agreed prices and quotas.

3. An undertaking which engages with others in anti-competitive activities with a view to fixing prices and quotas cannot rely on the fact that it did so under pressure from the other participants. It could have complained to the competent authorities about the pressure brought to bear on it and lodged a complaint with the Commission under Article 3 of Regulation No 17 rather than participating in such activities.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Officials - Social security - Sickness insurance - Medical expenses - Reimbursement ceilings - Permissibility - Conditions

(Staff Regulations, Art. 72; Rules on Sickness Insurance for Officials, Art. 8)

2. Officials - Action - Application for assessment of the legality of a provision, in the absence of an act adversely affecting the applicant - Inadmissibility

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

3. Officials - Social security - Sickness insurance - Medical expenses - Reimbursement - Duties of the institutions - Compliance with the principle of equal treatment

(Staff Regulations, Art. 72)

Summary

1. Article 72 of the Staff Regulations does not confer on persons entitled to benefit under the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme the right to obtain reimbursement of 80% or 85% of the expenses incurred, according to the type of services provided. Those rates fix the maximum reimbursable amount. They are not minimum rates and do not require the institutions to make reimbursements of the stated percentages to the persons concerned in all cases.

The fixing of upper limits of reimbursement by the implementing provisions, in order to safeguard the sickness insurance scheme' s financial balance, does not constitute an infringement of Article 72 of the Staff Regulations, since by setting those limits the Community institutions observe the principle of social insurance cover underlying that article.

The upper limits fixed by joint agreement of the institutions are not unlawful merely by reason of the fact that some reimbursements to which they apply are made at rates much lower than those laid down in Article 72 of the Staff Regulations. The Staff Regulations and the Insurance Rules, by laying down the option, for the person concerned, to request a special reimbursement where the portion of expenses not reimbursed represents a substantial financial burden, presuppose ipso facto that, in certain cases, medical expenses will not be reimbursed at a rate of 80% or 85%.

2. In the context of an action brought under Article 91 of the Staff Regulations, the Court has jurisdiction only to review the legality of an act adversely affecting the applicant, and cannot, in the absence of an individual measure, rule in the abstract on the legality of a provision of a general nature.

3. The principle of equal treatment requires the Community institutions to act in order to remedy situations involving inequality affecting the beneficiaries of the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme who, in some Member States, bear the costs of higher medical expenses.

However, the institutions cannot be required to increase the reimbursements allowed to the officials concerned forthwith, especially since the financial equilibrium of the Scheme must be safeguarded. They are under a duty, on the other hand, to act in concert, with all due diligence, in order to undertake an appropriate revision of the Rules on Sickness Insurance, which ensures compliance with the principle of equal treatment.
Keywords



Keywords

++++

1. Officials - Actions - Act adversely affecting an official - Definition - Act directly affecting the applicant' s legal position - Absence - Inadmissibility

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91(1) )

2. Officials - Actions - Action for damages brought in the absence of pre-litigation proceedings in accordance with the Staff Regulations - Inadmissibility

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Officials ° Actions ° Request for information regarding an official' s statutory rights ° Treated in the same way as a prior administrative complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations ° Not permissible

(Staff Regulations, Art. 90(2))

2. Officials ° Remuneration ° Expatriation allowance ° Official not a national of the Member State where he is employed ° Habitual residence during the reference period as a student away from the place of employment ° Prior residence at the place of employment ° Not relevant ° Conditions for grant satisfied

(Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art 4(1)(a))

Summary

1. A letter does not constitute a prior administrative complaint within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations where the official, while expressing his disagreement with the measures taken by the administration with regard to him, requests the administration to review its position and then to adopt a reasoned decision, when the formal appearance of that letter is not that of a complaint, the letter has not been sent through the immediate superior and in accordance with the relevant institution' s internal regulations with regard to complaints, and was also not treated by the administration as a complaint within the meaning of the Staff Regulations.

In those circumstances, such a letter constitutes a mere request for information regarding the statutory rights of the person concerned.

2. Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations is to be interpreted as giving entitlement to an expatriation allowance to an official who is not and never has been a national of the State in whose territory the place where he is employed is situated, and, during the reference period referred to in that provision, has resided permanently outside that State, even if he resided there prior to that period; it is not necessary to enquire in clear cases whether, in reintegrating himself into the environment of his place of employment, the person concerned is subject to precisely the same extra expense and inconvenience as an official who has never resided there.

The fact that the person concerned resided as a student outside the Member State where he is employed does not preclude him from receiving the expatriation allowance.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Officials ° Promotion ° Comparison of merits ° Procedure ° Consideration of staff reports ° Incomplete personal file ° Irregularity entailing annulment of the promotions made ° Conditions ° Annulment constituting excessive penalty ° Compensation for non-material damage caused by a service-related fault

(Staff Regulations, Arts 26, 43 and 45)

Summary

Irregularities in the keeping of the personal file of an official who was eligible for promotion but was not promoted justify a judgment annulling the promotions made only if those irregularities might have had a decisive influence on the promotion procedure. That is the case where, in the absence of a staff report, the merits of an official were assessed on the basis of a promotion proposal which was not in his personal file and contained a less favourable assessment than the staff report drawn up subsequently.

However, if it appears that annulment of the promotions made would represent an excessive penalty for the irregularity committed, the Court of First Instance may dismiss the claim for annulment and order the defendant institution to pay compensation for the non-material damage caused to the person concerned by the administration' s wrongful act or omission.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Officials ° Recruitment ° Competition ° Internal competition based on qualifications and tests ° Obligations of the selection board ° Compliance with the terms of the notice of competition ° Statement of reasons for decisions ° Improper conduct of the competition ° Annulment

(Staff Regulations, Annex III, Arts 1 and 5)

Summary

A selection board may not depart from the terms of the notice of competition with respect either to the purpose of the tests or to their nature and, as regards the order in which the candidates are short-listed, it may not award an overall mark instead of adding the marks awarded for the different tests since, by so doing, it fails to fulfil its obligations to comply with the method of marking the tests laid down by the notice of competition and to state the reasons for its decisions.

The absence of a statement of reasons for the selection board' s decision resulting from its failure to undertake the marking of the tests in accordance with the notice of competition also has the effect of preventing review by the Court of the influence on the results of the competition of the selection board' s application, contrary to the notice of competition, of an extraneous criterion to test the abilities of the candidates.

In the event of such irregularities, the Court must annul all steps taken by the selection board from the point at which those irregularities first occurred.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Officials ° Personal files ° Belated filing of staff reports ° Maladministration causing non-material damage

(Staff Regulations, Art. 26)

Summary

The belated filing of a staff report in an official' s personal file constitutes an administrative fault if the official did not significantly contribute to that delay. Where a staff report has been drawn up but not placed on the official' s personal file, in breach of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations, it is not possible for the persons responsible for expressing their views or taking decisions concerning the career progress of that official to take account of that important factor, in particular in a promotion procedure.

Such a delay gives the official concerned a right to compensation for the non-material damage suffered by virtue of the fact that his chances of promotion or transfer to different vacant posts were affected by the absence of his staff report from his personal file when his candidature was examined since it has not been shown that the existence of equivalent information on the official' s merits made up for the absence of his staff report or that there was any particular circumstance to justify that delay.

In assessing the non-material damage ex aequo et bono account must be taken of the fact that, because of the age of the person concerned, his chances of being promoted or transferred are limited.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Officials ° Actions ° Act adversely affecting an official ° Definition ° Implied rejection of an application for promotion ° No direct and immediate effects on the legal situation of the person concerned ° Precluded

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

2. Officials ° Actions ° Interest in bringing proceedings ° Action for annulment brought against the appointment of another official ° Applicant not eligible for appointment ° Inadmissibility

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

3. Officials ° Actions ° Action for damages ° Pleas in law ° Unlawfulness of a decision of the appointing authority not contested in time ° Inadmissibility

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

4. Officials ° Actions ° Action for damages brought in the absence of a pre-litigation procedure in accordance with the Staff Regulations ° Inadmissibility

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

Summary

1. The implied rejection of an application for promotion made in completely general terms cannot be categorized as an act adversely affecting the person concerned in the absence of direct and immediate effects on his legal situation.

2. An official has no legitimate interest in contesting the appointment of another official to a post to which he could make no valid claim in accordance with the rules applicable in the institution concerned for filling posts of the type in question.

3. An official who failed to bring an action within the time-limit laid down by Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations for the annulment of an act allegedly adversely affecting him cannot repair that omission and procure himself further time for bringing proceedings by means of a claim for compensation for the injury caused by that act.

4. Under Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, an action for damages in which compensation is sought for injury caused, not by a measure adversely affecting the applicant the annulment of which is sought, but by various wrongful acts and omissions allegedly committed by the administration, has to be preceded by a two-stage administrative procedure or it will be found inadmissible. It is imperative that that procedure should begin with the presentation of a request asking the appointing authority to make good the alleged injury and continue, if necessary, with the lodging of a complaint against the decision rejecting the request.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for annulment ° Actionable measures ° Definition ° Acts producing legal effects ° Refusal by the Commission to recognize a supply contract concluded in the context of implementation of a loan granted by the Community to a non-member State as being in conformity with the applicable Community provisions (EC Treaty, Art. 173, first para.) 2. Actions for annulment ° Natural or legal persons ° Measures of direct and individual concern to them ° Implementation of a loan granted by the Community to the Soviet Union and its constituent republics ° Commission decision addressed to the borrower, refusing to recognize amendments made to contracts concluded between the agent designated by the borrower and an undertaking to which the contract is awarded as being in conformity with the applicable Community provisions ° Action brought by the undertaking ° Inadmissibility (EC Treaty, Art. 173, fourth para.)

Summary

1. An action for annulment may be brought against all measures adopted by the institutions, whatever their nature or form, which are intended to have legal effects. That is so in the case of a measure by which the Commission refuses to recognize a contract for the supply of wheat as being in conformity with the Community financing conditions laid down in the context of implementation of a loan granted by the Community to the Soviet Union and its constituent republics in order to enable agricultural and food products and medical supplies to be imported. Such a measure produces legal effects in relation to the financial agent of the borrowing republic, since that agent is deprived of the right to request disbursement of the loan. 2. In the implementation of a loan granted by the Community to the Soviet Union and its constituent republics in order to enable agricultural and food products and medical supplies to be imported, an undertaking awarded a contract for the supply of wheat is not directly concerned, within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty, by a Commission decision addressed to the financial agent of the borrowing republic refusing to recognize amendments made to the contracts concluded between the contracting undertaking and the agent designated for that purpose by the borrowing republic as being in conformity with the applicable Community provisions, since that undertaking has a legal relationship only with the party with whom it contracts, namely the agent appointed to conclude purchase contracts, whilst the Commission has legal relations only with the party with whom it contracts, namely the financial agent of the borrowing republic, and the action of the Commission, whose role is merely to verify that the conditions laid down by the Community rules are fulfilled, does not therefore affect the legal validity of the aforementioned contracts. It follows that the undertaking to which the contract is awarded does not have the right to bring proceedings for annulment of the decision in question.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Officials ° Actions ° Defendant ° Institution to which the official is attached

(Staff Regulations, Art. 2)

2. Privileges and immunities of the European Communities ° Officials and servants of the Communities ° Private legal relationships subject to national law ° Attachment of an official' s remuneration ordered by a national court ° Obligations of the institution concerned

(Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, Art. 1; Staff Regulations, Art. 23, first para.)

3. Procedure ° Action brought by a natural or legal person for a declaration that a Member State has infringed Community law ° Lack of jurisdiction of the Community judicature ° Inadmissibility

(EC Treaty, Art. 164 et seq.)

Summary

1. The appointing authority acts in the name of the institution which designated it, so that acts which concern the legal position of officials and may adversely affect them must be attributed to the institution to which they are attached, and any appeal must be brought against the institution from which the act having an adverse effect emanated.

2. The privileges and immunities accorded to officials by the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, solely in the interests of the Communities, have a purely functional character inasmuch as they are intended to avoid any interference with the functioning and independence of the Communities. In private legal relationships with other private individuals, officials are, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 23 of the Staff Regulations, fully subject to the applicable national law, without prejudice to the provisions of that Protocol.

When, in the context of attachment proceedings before a national court, a third party seeks to attach an official' s remuneration in the hands of an institution in its capacity as employer, that institution must, first, determine whether the privileges and immunities provided for by the Protocol are applicable to the proceedings in question and, if so, then decide to what extent it considers it appropriate to avail itself of them.

If the institution considers that it would not be contrary to the interests of the Community not to avail itself of its privileges and immunities, it is bound, by virtue of its duty to cooperate in good faith with the national authorities, to give effect to the attachment order issued by the national court.

3. The Treaty does not make any provision for a legal remedy enabling natural or legal persons to bring proceedings before the Community judicature on an issue regarding the compatibility of the conduct of the authorities of a Member State with Community law. Claims seeking a declaration that a Member State has infringed Community law are accordingly inadmissible.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber)

11 June 1996

Case T-110/94

Beatriz Sánchez Mateo

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Transfers of part of pay in the currency of a Member State other than the country where the institution has its seat — Inadmissibility’

Full text in Spanish II-805

Application for:

annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant's complaint relating to the transfer of part of her pay to a building loan savings account in DKR, a declaration that she is entitled to such a transfer, and compensation.

Decision:

Application dismissed.

Abstract of the Judgment

See the abstract of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 1996 in Case T-l 11/94 Ouzpunoff Popqff v Commission [1996] ECRSC I-A-277.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Actions for annulment ° Judgment granting annulment ° Indication of measures to be taken as a result of the annulment ° Lack of jurisdiction of the Community judicature

(EEC Treaty, Art. 176)

2. Officials ° Pensions ° Weighting ° Applicability, under the Staff Regulations, of the weighting for the pensioner' s country of residence ° Regulation, not in the form of an amendment to the Staff Regulations, fixing the weighting applicable to pensioners residing in a non-member country as 100 ° Breach of the principle of hierarchy of norms ° Unlawful

(Staff Regulations, Art. 82(1); Council Regulation No 2175/88, Art. 3)

3. Officials ° Pensions ° Weighting ° Recipient of a pension not benefiting, as a result of an unlawful regulation, from the weighting fixed for his country of residence °Entitlement to default interest

Summary

1. The Community judicature may not, when upholding an application for annulment, dictate to the institution from which the contested measure emanated what action is to be taken in consequence of the judgment; it must confine itself to referring the matter back to the institution concerned in view of the fact that it is the institution which adopted the contested act that must take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment. That is why even a supervisory function to ensure compliance with the judgment, which, in order to be effective, would call for it to be empowered to direct the defendant as to what measures should be adopted, does not fall within the powers conferred on the Community judicature by the Treaty.

2. It follows from the very wording of Article 82 of the Staff Regulations that pensioners are entitled to have applied to their pensions the weighting laid down for the country in which they reside, even if they are established outside the Community. It is only where no weighting has been fixed for their country of residence that a figure of 100 must be applied to their pensions, so that the pensioners concerned do not benefit from any weighting.

Therefore, by virtue of the principle of the hierarchy of norms, Article 3 of Regulation No 2175/88, which was adopted without the procedure laid down for the amendment of the Staff Regulations by the second subparagraph of Article 24(1) of the Merger Treaty and Article 10 of the Staff Regulations having been followed is illegal, in so far as, contrary to the requirements of Article 82, it fixes the weighting applicable to the pension of a person who demonstrates that he is resident in a non-member country as 100.

3. An obligation to pay default interest can arise only where the amount of the principal sum is certain or can at least be ascertained on the basis of established objective factors. That is the case where a weighting in excess of 100 has been determined for a country but, pursuant to a regulation subsequently declared illegal, has not been applied to the pension of a person residing in that country.