ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā rajona tiesa — Latvia) — ‘ĒDIENS & KM.LV’ PS v Ieslodzījuma vietu pārvalde, Iepirkumu uzraudzības birojs

(Case C-592/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Public procurement - Directive 2014/24/EU - Conduct of the procedure - Choice of participants - Selection criteria - Technical and professional capacities - Article 58(4) - Forms of evidence - European Single Procurement Document - Article 59 - Reliance on the capacities of other entities - Article 63(1) - Group of economic operators - Condition relating to professional experience to be satisfied by the member of the group responsible, in the event of the award of the contract, for performing the activities requiring that experience - Condition not provided for in the procurement documents - Status of general partnership unaffected by the system of joint and several liability)

(2022/C 441/02)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Administratīvā rajona tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘ĒDIENS & KM.LV’ PS

Defendant: Ieslodzījuma vietu pārvalde, Iepirkumu uzraudzības birojs

Operative part of the order

Article 63(1) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, read in conjunction with Article 59 thereof

must be interpreted as meaning that where it is established that, in the event of the award of a public service contract to a group of economic operators, the performance of the activities for which experience is required will be entrusted to a single member of the group, the tendering group may rely, in order to demonstrate that it satisfies a condition relating to experience imposed by the contracting authority in accordance with Article 58(4) of that directive, solely on the experience of that member of the group, even if the procurement documents do not expressly provide that the members of a group of economic operators must individually satisfy that condition.

(1) Date lodged: 22.9.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 July 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht — Austria) — CM v Finanzamt Österreich

(Case C-25/22) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Requirement to provide reasons justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred - Lack of sufficient information - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2022/C 340/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CM

Defendant: Finanzamt Österreich

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Bundesfinanzgericht (Federal Finance Court, Austria), by decision of 31 December 2021, is manifestly inadmissible.

(1) Date of filing: 10.1.2022.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the President of the Court of 8 August 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — TR, UQ v FTI Touristik GmbH

(Case C-193/22) (1)

(2023/C 15/42)

Language of the case: German

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

(1) OJ C 237, 20.6.2022.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the President of the Court of 12 July 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — flightright GmbH v Eurowings GmbH

(Case C-228/22) (1)

(2022/C 368/41)

Language of the case: German

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

(1) OJ C 237, 20.6.2022.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 363/18

Request for an opinion submitted by the European Commission pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU

(Opinion 2/15)

(2015/C 363/22)

Language of procedure: all the official languages

Applicant

European Commission (represented by: U. Wölker, B. De Meester, M. Kocjan, R. Vidal Puig, Agents)

Question submitted to the Court

Does the Union have the requisite competence to sign and conclude alone the Free Trade Agreement with Singapore? More specifically:

— Which provisions of the agreement fall within the Union’s exclusive competence?

— Which provisions of the agreement fall within the Union’s shared competence? and
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 398/22

Opinion of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 September 2015 — Republic of Malta

(Opinion 1/14) (1)

(2015/C 398/27)

Language of the case: all the official languages

Applicant

Republic of Malta (represented by: A. Buhagiar and P. Grech, acting as Agents)

The Opinion 1/14 is removed from the register of the Court.

(1) OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . Officials - Remuneration - Family allowances - Education allowance - Conditions for granting

( Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art . 3 )

2 . Officials - Recovery of undue payment - Conditions - Patent absence of due reason for the payment - Meaning

( Staff Regulations, Art . 85 )

3 . Officials - Recovery of undue payment - Protection of legitimate expectations - Conditions

( Staff Regulations, Art . 85 )

Summary

1 . Article 3 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, which requires a child in respect of whom the education allowance is requested to be "in regular full-time attendance at an educational establishment", must be interpreted as meaning that the student concerned must actually follow the programme of instruction laid down by the rules of the educational establishment attended .

A training period completed by the student concerned cannot be treated as equivalent to regular attendance at the courses and the conditions for entitlement to the education allowance are therefore not fulfilled unless the training period is regarded by the university as constituting an integral part of the programme for the purpose of obtaining the final diploma . The mere consent of the educational establishment or any support on its part, on the other hand, is not sufficient to justify the grant of the allowance .

2 . The words "patently such" which characterize the fact of overpayment giving rise to recovery under Article 85 of the Staff Regulations do not mean that the official need make no effort to reflect or check .

The condition concerning the patent nature of the fact of overpayment of an education allowance, the award of which is liable to be modified on the basis of information which only the official is in a position to notify, is fulfilled where, instead of checking with the competent authorities, he merely relies on a questionable personal interpretation of the Staff Regulations and, in breach of his express undertaking to notify the administration of any change liable to affect his entitlement to the allowance, on the understanding that any sum wrongly received will be deducted from his salary, omits to inform the competent department forthwith of the undeniably important change in his family circumstances .

3 . An official' s submissions based on infringement both of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations and of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, a principle of which Article 85 is itself a reflection, cannot be upheld as against a decision ordering, within a reasonable time, the recovery of an improperly granted education allowance, where it is by reason of the official' s failure to fulfil his obligation to give immediate and proper notice of the change in his family circumstances that the administration had decided to award the education allowance giving rise to recovery .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . Officials - Recruitment - Competition - Competition based on qualifications and tests - Written test - Maximum number of words imposed - Increased at the marking stage - Substantial irregularity - Annulment of the marking of the tests and of the subsequent acts in the procedure - Condition - Outcome of the competition distorted - Burden of proof

2 . Officials - Actions - Interest in bringing proceedings - Submission based on a substantial change in the conditions under which a test in a competition is held - Candidates eliminated - Admissibility

( Staff Regulations of Officials, Art . 91 )

Summary

1 . The purpose of a limit on the number of words to be used imposed by a selection board on persons taking a written test in an open competition for recruitment based on qualifications and tests, failing which their papers will not be marked, is to ensure that candidates deal with the subject of the written test on the same terms and to enable markers to apply objective criteria uniformly to comparable tasks .

In those circumstances, the instruction given to the markers by the selection board, after the tests have been held, to increase by 50% the limit on the number of words constitutes a substantial irregularity of such a kind as to vitiate both the decision of the selection board regarding the marking of the test and the subsequent acts in the procedure; however, their annulment is justified only if that irregularity distorts the outcome of the competition .

It is for the defendant institution to prove that the outcome was not distorted . If it does not, the Court of First Instance, which is unable to determine whether the principle that candidates must be treated equally was observed in the marking of the written test or whether that irregularity may have distorted the final outcome of the competition, must annul both the selection board' s decision with regard to the marking of the tests and the subsequent acts in the procedure .

2 . Applicants who failed a written test in a competition have a legitimate interest in claiming that the conditions under which the test was held were substantially modified by the instructions given to the markers by the selection board, after the tests had been held, to increase the limit on the number of words, a limit which had been imposed to ensure that only comparable papers would be marked .
Keywords

Operative part



Keywords

++++

1 . Officials - Social Security - Insurance against risk of accident and occupational disease - Expert medical opinion - Non-adversarial proceedings - Failure to communicate the medical report to the person concerned before notification of the administration' s decision - Formal defect - None - Taking account of previous medical reports - Medical Committee' s discretion

( Staff Regulations of Officials, Art . 73; Rules on Insurance Against the Risk of Accident and of Occupational Disease, Art . 23 )

2 . Officials - Social Security - Insurance against risk of accident and occupational disease - Expert medical opinion - Refusal by a member of the Medical Committee to sign the report - Formal defect - None - Conditions

( Staff Regulations of Officials, Art . 73 )

3 . Officials - Social Security - Insurance against risk of accident and occupational disease - Expert medical opinion - Composition of the Medical Committee - Appointment by the Community institution of a doctor approved by the Institution' s insurer - Lawfulness - Conditions

( Staff Regulations of Officials, Art . 73 )

4 . Officials - Social Security - Insurance against risk of accident and occupational disease - Expert medical opinion - Review by the Court - Limits

( Staff Regulations of Officials, Art . 73; Rules on Insurance against the Risk of Accident and of Occupational Disease, Art . 28 )

Operative part

( 1 ) Dismisses the application;

( 2 ) Orders the parties to bear their own costs .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . Officials - Actions - Time-limits - Absolute bar - Examination of Court' s own motion

( Staff Regulations, Art . 91 )

2 . Officials - Action - Periodic report - Prior administrative complaint - Optional

( Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91 )

3 . Officials - Assessment - Periodic report - Drawing up of report - Lateness - Delay partly attributable to the official

( Staff Regulations, Art . 43 )

Summary

1 . Since time-limits for bringing actions are mandatory and form an absolute bar, it is for the Court to examine, even of its own motion, whether they have been complied with .

2 . The making of a formal complaint, within the meaning of Article 90 of the Staff Regulations, is not a necessary pre-condition for the bringing of an action if the action concerns a periodic report . In the absence of a complaint, the period of three months for bringing an action laid down in Article 91(3 ) of the Staff Regulations begins to run from the day on which the periodic report that may be considered final was notified to the official concerned .

3 . An official cannot complain of delay in the drawing up of his periodic report and claim non-material damage in that regard if the delay was attributable to him, at least in part, or if he contributed considerably to the delay .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Officials - Non-contractual liability of the institutions - Failure by the medical service to fulfil its obligation to inform officials about their state of health - Service-related fault

Summary

The medical services of the Community institutions, whose duties include in particular the provision of medical assistance to the institutions' staff in order to ensure, to an extent consistent with scientific knowledge, not only the early detection of any illness but also the identification of risk factors which may cause an illness to appear, are obliged to warn the persons concerned of any illness revealed by the medical file and to alert them to behaviour posing a threat to their health, which presupposes that all pertinent data and information in that regard are communicated to them.

The failure to inform an official in good time of his state of health constitutes a breach of the duties imposed upon the medical services and a service-related fault such as to render the defendant institution liable.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Officials - Remuneration - Family allowances - Deduction of allowances paid under a national system - Determination of the amount to be deducted - Account taken of the weighting for the country paying the national allowance - That weighting applied when it is less than the weighting for the place of employment - Breach of the principle of equal treatment

(Staff Regulations, Art. 67(2); Annex VII, Art. 17(3) )

Summary

Article 67 of the Staff Regulations, relating to family allowances, provides that allowances of like nature paid from other sources, such as national study grants, are to be deducted from those paid by the institution.

When that deduction is made and in order to take account of the actual purchasing power of the national allowance, the superior principle of equal treatment does not allow the amount of the national allowance to be subject to a weighting derived from the ratio of the weighting for the official' s place of employment to the weighting for the place where the national allowance is paid and deemed to be spent, if that ratio is higher than one. If the said weighting came to be applied in that situation, the result would be that an official receiving a national allowance falling to be deducted from an allowance provided for in Article 67 would be treated unequally compared with an official not receiving a national allowance, since an unfavourable weighting would automatically be applied to the amount of the former official' s national allowance falling to be deducted from the Community allowances, whereas the latter official could keep all his Community allowances, regardless of where they were spent and, therefore, of their actual purchasing power.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 22 February 1990. - Mariette Turner v Commission of the European Communities. - Officials - Staff report. - Case T-40/89.



European Court reports 1990 Page II-00055

Pub.RJ Page Pub somm



Summary

Parties

Operative part



Summary

++++

Where an institution seeks to make finer distinctions in the analytical assessment of officials when reports are made on them by substituting in place of a method of assessment based on three assessments of a general nature, "above average", "average" and "below average", a method of assessment based on six headings and subheadings for "ability" and four headings for "efficiency" and "conduct in the service" respectively, such a change in method necessarily implies that there can be no fixed correlation between the old and the new method of making the report .

Parties

In Case T-40/89

Mariette Turner, Principal Administrator at the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Georges Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Schmitt, of the Luxembourg Bar, 62 avenue Guillaume,

applicant,

v

Commission of the European Communities, represented by Sean Van Raepenbusch, a member of its Legal Department, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Georgios Kremlis, a member of its Legal Department, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,

defendant,

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of the Commission' s Director-General for Personnel and Administration contained in a memorandum of 1 July 1987, leaving unchanged the applicant' s staff report for the period from 1 July 1983 to 30 June 1985, and an order that the Commission carry out its undertakings in respect of the applicant,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ( Fourth Chamber )

composed of : D . A . O . Edward, President of Chamber, R . Schintgen and R . García-Valdecasas, Judges

( the grounds of the judgment are not reproduced )

hereby :

Operative part

( 1 ) Dismisses the application;

( 2 ) Orders the parties to bear their own costs .
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 10 July 1990. - Filtrona Espanola SA v Commission of the European Communities. - Competition - Admissibility - Period allowed for commencing proceedings. - Case T-125/89.



European Court reports 1990 Page II-00393

Pub.RJ Page Pub somm



Summary

Parties

Operative part



Keywords

++++

Procedure - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Calculation

( Rules of Procedure, Arts 80(1 ) and 81(1 ) )

Summary

The provisions governing the way in which periods of time prescribed for the taking of a procedural step are calculated are generally applicable and do not depend on the type of proceedings commenced or on the length of the period of time allowed for commencing the proceedings .

Where the period of time allowed for commencing proceedings is expressed in calendar months, that period expires at the end of the day which, in the month indicated by the time-limit, bears the same number as the day from which time was set running, that is to say, in the case of a decision which has been notified, the day of notification ( see the judgment in Case 152/85 Misset v Council [1987] ECR 223 ).

Parties

In Case T-125/89,

Filtrona Española SA, whose registered office is in Guadalajara, Spain, represented by José Pérez Santos, assisted by Juan Manuel Rozas Valdés, of the Madrid Bar, of Uría & Menéndez, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 4 avenue Marie-Thérèse,

applicant,

v

Commission of the European Communities, represented by Norbert Koch, Legal Adviser, and Rafael Pellicer, a member of its Legal Department, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Georgios Kremlis, also a member of its Legal Department, Centre Wagner, Kirchberg,

defendant,

supported by

Tabacalera SA, whose registered office is in Madrid, represented by Alexander Boehlke, Rechtsanwalt, and by Antonia Gámez Moreno, abogado, of Kemmler, Rapp, Boehlke & Crosby, Brussels, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Victor Elvinger, 4 rue Tony Neuman,

intervener,

Concerning, at the present stage of the proceedings, the admissibility of an application under Article 173 of the EEC Treaty for the annulment of Commission Decision C(89)630 of 26 April 1989 ( not published ) concerning a proceeding under Article 86 of the EEC Treaty ( IV/32.426 ),

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ( Second Chamber )

composed of D . Barrington, President of Chamber, A . Saggio, C . Yeraris, B . Vesterdorf and J . Biancarelli, Judges,

( The grounds of the judgment are not reproduced .)

hereby :

Operative part

( 1 ) Dismisses the application as inadmissible;

( 2 ) Orders the applicant to pay the costs, including those of the intervener .
Preparatory acts, such as an opinion of an advisory committee on appointments which acts merely in an advisory capacity, cannot, even if they are the only acts of which the applicant claims to have notice, be the subject of an action. Only in an action brought against the decision adopted on conclusion of the procedure may the applicant contest the regularity of previous acts which are closely linked with that decision.

The procedures for notification of decisions are not, in principle, of such a kind as to affect the legality of the decisions in question.

Where an official brings an action for the annulment of an act of an institution and for compensation for damage caused otherwise than by the contested act, the claims are not closely linked with each other, so that the inadmissibility of the claim for annulment does not render the claim for compensation inadmissible.

A delay of some 17 months in drawing up a staff report is contrary to the principle of sound administration. Such a delay, if not justified by the existence of special circumstances, constitutes maladministration giving rise to non-material damage by reason of the uncertainty and anxiety arising from the fact that the official's personal file is incomplete and irregular.

For an official to be deprived of any entitlement to compensation for the alleged non-material damage, he himself must have contributed significantly to the delay complained of.