ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Although Article 24 of the Staff Regulations is devised primarily to protect Community officials against attacks by third parties, the duty to provide assistance laid down in that provision also exists in a case in which the person responsible for the acts referred to by that provision is another official of the Communities. The administration, when faced with an incident which is incompatible with the good order and tranquillity of the service, must intervene with all the necessary vigour and respond with the rapidity and solicitude required by the circumstances of the case with a view to ascertaining the facts and taking the appropriate action in full knowledge of the facts.

To that end, it is sufficient that the official who is seeking the protection of his institution provide at least some evidence of the reality of attacks of which he claims he was the victim. When such evidence is provided, the institution concerned is under an obligation to take the necessary measures, in particular to undertake an inquiry, with the cooperation of the complainant, to determine the facts which gave rise to the complaint.

By virtue of the declaration of principle, which confirmed the essential content of Council Resolution 90/C 157/02 concerning the protection of the dignity of women and men at work and of Commission Recommendation 92/131 on the protection of the dignity of women and men at work, the obligation to provide assistance includes, in particular, the duty of the administration to examine seriously, expeditiously and in total confidentiality, a complaint of sexual harassment and to inform the complainant of the action taken in respect of the complaint.

Faced with a request for assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, the conduct of an administration cannot be described as diligent - in particular having regard to the duty, assumed by the Commission in its declaration of principle of 29 February 1996, to examine speedily complaints of sexual harassment and to inform the complainant of the action taken in respect of the complaint - where, without any valid justification to support it, an official is required to submit a complaint under Article 90(2) in order to learn what action was taken on his request for assistance and, subsequently, to bring an appeal in order to learn the outcome of the inquiry opened on the basis of that complaint.

In matters of sexual harassment, uncertainty regarding the action which the administration intends to take in respect of a complaint is always to the detriment of the dignity of both the complainant and the person complained of, and is always to be avoided, even where the conduct complained of has ceased long before and there is no longer any question of protecting the victim from its being repeated.

(see paras 41-43, 54, 55)

See: 18/78 V v Commission [1979] ECR 2093, para. 15; 224/87 Koutchoumoff v Commission [1989] ECR 99, paras 15 and 16; T-5/92 Tallarico v Parliament [1993] ECR II-477, paras 30 and 31
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Actionable measures - Definition - Measures producing binding legal effects - Position taken by the Commission in the verification process leading to determination by the national authorities of the quantity of bananas to be allocated to traders - No binding legal effects - Excluded - Account thereof taken by the national authority to which the measure was addressed - Immaterial

(Art. 230 EC; Commission Regulation No 1442/93, Art. 6, second para.)

Summary

$$Measures which produce binding legal effects capable of affecting an applicant's interests by bringing about a significant change in his legal position are acts or decisions against which an action for annulment may be brought under Article 230 EC. To ascertain whether an act or decision has effects of that kind, it is necessary to examine its substance.

It follows from the provisions of Title I of Regulation No 1442/93 laying down detailed rules for the application of the arrangements for importing bananas into the Community and from the very nature of the verification process that they provide that a measure producing binding legal effects capable of affecting the interests of the operator concerned can come into being only once that process has been concluded and a definitive reference quantity adopted. The establishment of figures at earlier stages of the verification process amounts to no more than an intermediary measure forming part of the preparatory work leading to determination, by the national authorities, of the quantity referred to in the second paragraph of Article 6 of Regulation No 1442/93. The Commission's reduction set out in a worksheet cannot therefore be treated as a measure against which an action may be brought.

In this regard, a view expressed by the Commission to a Member State in a situation in which the Commission has no power to take a decision is merely an opinion bereft of legal effects. Further, the non-binding nature of a position taken by the Commission cannot be challenged on the ground that the national authority to which the act was addressed complied with it, as that is no more than the consequence of the cooperation between the Commission and the national bodies responsible for the application of Community law.

( see paras 61, 64-65 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark - Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark - Signs capable of constituting a trade mark - Condition - Distinctive character - Assessment in relation to the products and services in respect of which registration is sought

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 4)

2. Community trade mark - Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark - Absolute grounds for refusal - Signs devoid of any distinctive character - Companyline

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b))

Summary

1. It follows from Article 4 of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, according to which the decisive factor for a sign capable of being represented graphically to be eligible for registration as a Community trade mark is its capacity to distinguish the goods of one undertaking from those of another, that the distinctive character of a sign whose registration is sought can be assessed only in relation to the goods or services in respect of which application for registration of the sign is made.

( see paras 23-24 )

2. Under Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, trade marks which are devoid of any distinctive character are not to be registered. As regards the application for registration of the word Companyline in respect of services relating to insurance and financial affairs, that sign cannot constitute a Community trade mark, since it is devoid of any distinctive character. Company and line are two generic words which simply denote a line of goods or services for undertakings. Coupling them together without any graphic or semantic modification does not imbue them with any additional characteristic such as to render the sign, taken as a whole, capable of distinguishing the applicant's services from those of other undertakings.

( see paras 26-27, 29 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Community trade mark - Definition of a Community trade mark and obtaining a Community trade mark - Absolute grounds for refusal - Marks devoid of any distinctive character - Investorworld

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b))

Summary

$$Under Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, trade marks which are devoid of any distinctive character are not to be registered. In that regard, the word Investorworld, registration of which has been applied for in respect of the services insurance; financial affairs; monetary affairs; real estate affairs, is not capable of being registered as a Community trade mark since it is devoid of any distinctive character. Investor implies that the services designated are aimed at investors. The addition to that word of world does not add any further feature such as to render the sign as a whole capable of distinguishing the services of the applicant from those of other undertakings. Constituted as it is, the sign merely refers to the world of the investor, meaning that the services in question relate to anything which might be of some interest to an investor.

( see paras 21-22, 24-25 )
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber)

11 July 2000

Case T-134/99

Anna Skrzypek

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Family allowances — Orphan's pension — Conditions for granting — Actual maintenance of the child’

Full text in French II-633

Application for:

principally, annulment of the Commission's decision of 9 March 1999 refusing to grant the applicant family allowances for herself and an orphan's pension for her daughter, a minor.

Held:

There is no need to rule on the applicant's claim for recognition of her entitlement to receive family allowances from July 1998 onwards. The claims for recognition of the entitlement of the applicant and of her child Mira Posnantek to receive the family allowances which should have been paid to Roger Posnantek, together with default interest, pursuant to Article 67 of the Staff Regulations, are dismissed as inadmissible. The Commission's decision of 9 March 1999 is annulled inasmuch as it refuses to recognise, first, the applicant's entitlement to receive household allowance and dependent child allowance for the period from the death of Roger Posnantek until the end of the third month following the month in which that death occurred and, second, the entitlement of the child Mira Posnantek to an orphan's pension from July 1998 onwards. The Commission is ordered to pay the applicant the amount of the allowances and pension referred to in point 3 of the operative part of this judgment, together with default interest at the annual rate of 6.25%, subject to the deduction therefrom of any benefits of the same kind which may have been received by the applicant from other sources. The remainder of the application is dismissed. The Commission is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay two thirds of the applicant's costs. The applicant is ordered to bear one third of her own costs.

Summary
Purely internal measures of organisation, in particular those concerning administration and work supervision, such as instructions concerned exclusively with matters internal to a service, as internal guidelines intended to ensure the proper performance of work, cannot be the subject of an application to the Court as they do not affect the legal or material position of the official affected by such a measure.

The first paragraph of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations requires, first, that where there are serious accusations as to the integrity of an official in carrying out his duties, the administration is to take all necessary steps to establish whether the accusations are justified, and where they are not, must refute them and do everything possible to restore the good name of the official concerned. That duty to provide assistance also exists where the perpetrator of the acts referred to by Article 24 of the Staff Regulations is another Community official.

Comments contained in a memorandum addressed to an official by his head of unit, which merely point out to him either that he has failed to carry out tasks allocated to him or that he has carried them out contrary to the applicable procedure, cannot be classified as serious accusations such as to harm the professional integrity of the person concerned, and even less as defamatory or as a personal attack. Accordingly, as the rights of the person concerned are in no way prejudiced by such comments, the refusal by the administration to take action on a request for assistance under the first paragraph of Article 24 of the Staff regulations cannot be considered to be an act adversely affecting an official.

(see paras 25-28)

See: 128/75 N. v Commission [1976] ECR 1567. para. 10; 18/78 V. v Commission [1979] ECR 2093, para. 15; T-5/92 Tallarico v Parliament [1993] ECR II-477, para. 30; T-39/93 and T-553/93 Baltsavias v Commission [1995] ECRSC l-A-233 and II-695, para. 58; Lopes v Court of Justice, cited above, paras 40 to 42
For the purpose of verifying whether the appointing authority has made a manifest error of assessment in appraising the merits of the candidates for a vacant post in the light of the requirements arising from the vacancy notice, it is not for the Court to substitute its own assessment for that of the appointing authority, but to establish whether, regard being had to the considerations which may have influenced the administration in making its assessment, the latter remained within reasonable bounds and did not use its power in a manifestly incorrect manner.

The appointing authority is not obliged to issue statements of grounds for promotion decisions, either to the addressees of those decisions, who cannot be adversely affected by them, or to the unsuccessful candidates, who might be harmed by such a statements of grounds.

However, although the appointing authority is not obliged to provide a statement of grounds for promotion decisions, it is obliged to provide a statement of grounds for its decision rejecting a complaint lodged under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations by a candidate who is not promoted, the grounds for that adverse decision being deemed to be the same as those for the decision against which the complaint was directed.

That obligation to state, at least at the stage of rejecting the complaint, the grounds on which a contested promotion decision is based is intended, on the one hand, to provide the official concerned with sufficient information to determine whether the act adversely affecting him is well founded and whether it is appropriate to bring legal proceedings before the Court and, on the other, to enable the Court to review the legality of that decision. Since promotion is by selection, the statement of grounds for the rejection of the complaint must deal only with the satisfaction of the legal conditions which under the Staff Regulations govern the regularity of the procedure. In particular, the appointing authority is not obliged to give the candidate who is not selected details of the comparison of his merits and those of the candidate who is promoted or to set out in detail in what way it considered that the appointed candidate fulfilled the conditions in the vacancy notice. It is sufficient that, in its decision rejecting the complaint, the appointing authority inform the official concerned of the relevant individual ground for the rejection of his candidature.

(see paras 50-52)

See: 188/73 Grassi v Council [1974] ECR 1099, paras 11 and 12; T-25/92 Vela Palacios v ESC [1993] ECR II-201, para. 25; C-115/92 P Parliament v Volger [1993] ECR I-6549, para. 22; T-6/96 Contargyris v Council [1991] ECRSC I-A-1 19 and II-357, para. 148; T-142/95 Delvaux v Commission [1997] ECRSC I-A-477 and II-1247, para. 84; T-3/97 Campogrande v Commission [1998] ECRSC I-A-89 and II-215, para. 112; T-157/98 Oliveira v Parliament [1999] ECRSC I-A-163 and II-851, para. 52
Case T-219/99





British Airways plc

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Competition – Abuse of a dominant position – Competence of the Commission – Discrimination between airlines – Relevant product and geographic market – Nexus between the product markets allegedly affected – Legal basis of the contested decision – Existence of a dominant position – Abuse of the dominant position – Proportionality of the amount of the fine)»

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), 17 December 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Commission – Simultaneous voluntary individual resignation of all Commissioners – Inapplicability of Article 201 EC – Application of Article 215 EC – Resigned Commissioners remaining in office, with full powers, until their replacement

(Arts 201 EC and 215 EC)

2.. Competition – Administrative procedure – Examination of complaints – Determination of priorities by the Commission – Power to give differing degrees of priority to complaints – Principle of non-discrimination – Infringement – None



3.. Competition – Dominant position – Market in question – Determination – Criteria – Services provided by travel agents to airlines – Market distinct from that of air transport

(Art. 82 EC)

4.. Competition – Dominant position – Definition – Position held by the undertaking in its capacity as a buyer – Included

(Art. 82 EC)

5.. Competition – Dominant position – Market in question – Geographical definition – Criteria

(Art. 82 EC)

6.. Competition – Dominant position – Conduct on the dominated market having effects on a neighbouring market – Application of Article 82 EC – Condition – Nexus between the two markets

(Art. 82 EC)

7.. Competition – Transport – Rules on competition – Air transport – Regulation No 3975/87 – Scope – Activities directly relating to the provision of air transport services – Service provided by travel agents to airlines – Excluded

(Council Regulations Nos 17, 141 and 3975/87)

8.. Competition – Dominant position – Abuse – Meaning – Objective concept referring to conduct likely to influence the structure of the market and with the effect of hindering the maintenance or development of competition – Obligations on dominant undertakings

(Art. 82 EC)

9.. Competition – Dominant position – Abuse – Quantity rebates – Whether permissible – Conditions – System of result bonuses applied by an airline to commissions paid to travel agents – Abusive nature of the system – Criteria for assessment

(Art. 82 EC)

10.. Competition – Dominant position – Abuse – Meaning – Conduct having either the effect or the object of hindering the maintenance or development of competition

(Art. 82 EC)

11.. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Damage caused to consumers – Not relevant in relation to abuse of a dominant position

(Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2))

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber)

6 March 2001

Case T-100/00

Franco Campoli

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Transfer/Reassignment — Statement of reasons — Misuse of powers — Interests of the service’

Full text in French II-347

Application for:

first, annulment of the decision of the Commission transferring the applicant from the ‘Foodstuffs — Legislation and scientific and technical aspects’ unit 1 to the ‘Food production and biotechnology’ unit 2 of Industry Directorate E of DG III as well as the decision to appoint another official to the ‘Foodstuffs — Legislation and scientific and technical aspects’ unit as deputy-head and, secondly, for damages.

Held:

The application is dismissed. Each of the parties is ordered to bear its own costs.

Summary

There is a transfer in the strict sense of the term only where an official is transferred to a vacant post so that any such transfer is subject to the formalities prescribed by Articles 4 and 29 of the Staff Regulations. In contrast, those formalities do not apply when an official is reassigned because that transfer does not give rise to a vacant post. (see para. 29) See: C-398/93 P Rasmussen v Commission [1994] ECR I-4043, para. 11; T-23/96 De Persio v Commission [1998] ECRSC I-A-483 and II-413, para. 79

The institutions enjoy a broad discretion to organise their departments to suit the tasks entrusted to them and to assign staff available to them in the light of such tasks, on condition, however, that the staff are assigned in the interests of the service and in conformity with the principle that assignment must be to an equivalent post. Having regard to the extent of the institutions' discretion in evaluating the interests of the service, the review undertaken by this Court must be confined to the question whether the appointing authority remained within the bounds of that discretion and did not use it in a manifestly wrong way. Where they cause tensions prejudicial to the proper functioning of the service, internal relationship difficulties may justify the transfer of an official in the interests of the service. In such a situation, it is, moreover, irrelevant who was responsible for the incidents at issue or even whether the complaints made are well founded. (see paras 41, 45) See: T-80/92 Turners v Commission [1993] ECR II-1465, para. 53; C-294/95 P Ojha v Commission [1996] ECR I-5863, paras 41 and 43; T-98/96 Costacurta v Commission [1998] ECRSC I-A-21 and II-49, para. 36

The reasons given for a decision adversely affecting an official are sufficient if the measure was adopted in circumstances known to the official concerned which enable him to understand its scope. (see para. 53) See: T-78/96 and T-170/96 W. v Commission [1998] ECRSC I-A-239 and II-745, para. 141
Case T-26/00

Lecureur SA

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Commission Regulation No 2519/97 — Food aid — Arbitration clause — Contractual nature of the dispute — Nonconformity of the goods delivered — Thefts from warehouses — Transfer of the burden of risk — Deductions from payments’

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), 19 September 2001 II-2625

Summary of the Judgment

Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Food aid — Implementation — Delivery of products — Legal effect — Transfer of the burden of risk from supplier to beneficiary — Means of proof — Final certificate of conformity — Other means of proof — Whether permissible — Nature of reservation — Not relevant

(Commission Regulation No 2519/97, Arts IS and 16(4))

Article 15 of Regulation No 2519/97 laying down general rules for the mobilisation of products to be supplied under Regulation No 1292/96 as Community food aid cannot be interpreted as meaning that the legal effect of delivery, namely the transfer of the burden of risk from supplier to beneficiary, is necessarily dependent on the time at which the final certificate of conformity — the sole means of proving delivery expressly provided for in the Regulation — is drawn up. Such an interpretation would risk jeopardising the performance in good faith of the contractual obligations in question, by making the time at which the burden of risk is transferred dependent on the good will of the monitor appointed by the Commission and by making the supplier continue to bear the risks to which the goods may be subject even when it no longer has control over them.

In those circumstances, although the agreement protocol concluded between the Commission and the beneficiary before

the taking-over certificate is issued by the beneficiary cannot on its own fix the moment at which the burden of risk was transferred from the supplier to the beneficiary, the factual information formally stated and approved by the Commission in that document may nevertheless serve to establish the relevant facts in respect of the relations between the supplier and the institution.

On the other hand, the interpretation to be placed on Article 16(4) of the Regulation concerning notices of reservation is not such as to influence the determination of the time at which the burden of risk passed from the supplier to the beneficiary. That provision is concerned solely with the matter of the nonconformity of the goods with the applicable contractual conditions.

(see paras 63-65, 71)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber)

7 February 2002

Case T-193/00

Bernard Felix

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Open competition — Oral test — Non-inclusion in the reserve list — Stability of the composition of the selection board — Knowledge of languages’

Full text in French II-101

Application for:

annulment of the decision of the selection board in competition COM/A/12/98 awarding the applicant a lower mark than the minimum required for the oral test and excluding him from the reserve list.

Held:

The decision of the selection board in competition COM/A/12/98 is annulled in so far as it concerns the mark awarded to the applicant for the oral test. The Commission is order to pay the costs.

Summary