ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Actions for annulment of measures ° Actionable measures ° Concept ° Measures capable of affecting a given legal position ° Action brought solely against the statement of reasons on which a measure is based ° Inadmissibility

(EEC Treaty, Art. 173)

2. Actions for annulment of measures ° Actionable measures ° Decision to grant negative clearance under the competition rules ° Action by the beneficiary ° Inadmissibility ° Application by a third party showing a legal interest in bringing proceedings ° Admissibility

(EEC Treaty, Arts 85, 86 and 173; Regulation No 17 of the Council, Art. 2)

3. Actions for annulment of measures ° Legal interest in bringing proceedings ° Need to show a vested and present interest

(EEC Treaty, Art. 173)

Summary

1. The proceedings provided for in Article 173 of the Treaty may be instituted only against an act adversely affecting a person' s interests, in other words against an act capable of affecting a given legal position.

Only the operative part of such an act is capable of producing legal effects and, as a consequence, of adversely affecting such interests. On the other hand the assessments made in the recitals thereto are not in themselves capable of forming the subject of an application for annulment and their legality might be open to review by the Community judicature only to the extent to which they constituted the necessary support for the operative part.

2. A decision to grant negative clearance pursuant to Article 2 of Regulation No 17 at the request of the undertakings and associations of undertakings concerned in which the Commission states that, on the basis of the facts known to it there are no grounds for it to take action under Article 85 or 86 of the Treaty satisfies the applicant and, by its very nature, can neither change his legal position nor adversely affect his interests. By contrast, the granting of negative clearance may prejudice the economic interests of a third party who, if he demonstrates sufficient legal interest, is entitled to institute proceedings for annulment before the Court of First Instance in accordance with the conditions set out in Article 173 of the Treaty.

3. An applicant who claims an interest concerning a future legal situation but without being able to demonstrate that the prejudice to that situation is already certain or who relies on a possible change in circumstances which, if it materialized, would not deprive him of the possibility of asserting his rights does not show a vested and present interest, which is a necessary condition for the admissibility of his action for annulment.
Keywords

Operative part



Keywords

++++

1 . Officials - Actions - Prior complaint through official channels - Time-limits - Public policy

( Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91 )

2 . Officials - Actions - Prior complaint through official channels - Time-limits - Bar - Reopening - Conditions - New fact

( Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91 )

Operative part

hereby :

( 1 ) Dismisses the application as inadmissible;

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

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Officials - Equal treatment - Equal treatment of male and female officials - Fundamental right - Observance ensured by the Community judicature - Dismissal of a pregnant woman - Not permissible - Conditions

2. Officials - Temporary staff - Subject to different conditions - Termination of the contract of indefinite duration of an employee of a parliamentary group - Obligation to state reasons - None

(Staff Regulations, Art. 25; Conditions of Employment of other Servants, Arts 2(c) and 11)

3. Officials - Temporary staff - Termination of the contract of indefinite duration of an employee of a parliamentary group - Discretion of the administration - Review by the Court - Limits

(Conditions of Employment of other Servants, Art. 47(2) )

Summary

1. The principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of employment and the corresponding prohibition of any direct or indirect discrimination on grounds of sex form part of the fundamental rights the observance of which the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance must ensure pursuant to Article 164 of the EEC Treaty.

Under the Staff Regulations, the requirements imposed by the principle of equal treatment for male and female workers are in no way limited to those resulting from Article 119 of the EEC Treaty or from the Community directives adopted in that field.

Therefore, a pregnant employee cannot be dismissed on account of her pregnancy, such a dismissal being in breach of the said principle of equal treatment. That does not mean, however, that she cannot be dismissed for reasons unconnected with her pregnancy.

2. By contrast with officials, whose security of tenure is guaranteed by the Staff Regulations, members of the temporary staff are subject to specific conditions based on the contract of employment entered into with the institution concerned.

Where the contract of employment expressly provides that it may be terminated unilaterally but does not, by means of a reference to the relevant provisions of the Conditions of Employment of other Servants, impose the obligation to state the reasons for termination, the application by analogy of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations provided for in general terms in Article 11 of the Conditions of Employment is excluded.

That exemption from the obligation to state reasons is bound up with the fact that mutual trust is an essential feature of the contracts of employment of the temporary staff referred to in Article 2(c) of the Conditions of Employment of other Servants. That applies with greater force to people who are engaged by the Parliamentary groups which, as a general rule, exist by virtue of a clearly defined political choice.

3. It is clear from Article 47(2) of the Conditions of employment of other servants that the termination of a contract of indefinite duration is, provided that notice is given as laid down in the contract and in conformity with that provision, a matter within the discretion of the competent authority.

The Court cannot review the exercise of that discretion unless a manifest error or misuse of powers can be established.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Measures adopted by the Community institutions - Individual decision - Notification - Concept

(EEC Treaty, Art. 191, second para.)

2. Procedure - Time-limit for initiating proceedings - Time bar - Excusable error - Concept

3. Procedure - Time-limit for initiating proceedings - Time bar - Unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure - Concept

(Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC, Art. 42, para. 2)

Summary

1. A decision is duly notified once it has been communicated to the person to whom it is addressed and that person is in a position to take cognizance of it. Where notification is effected by registered letter with postal acknowledgment of receipt, the date on which that acknowledgment is signed is to be regarded as the date of notification, without there being any need to have regard to the date on which the addressee returned an ordinary acknowledgment of receipt form inserted with the decision in order to minimize the effect of any omission on the part of the postal services.

2. Since the Community rules concerning time-limits for initiating proceedings are a matter of public policy, the concept of excusable error allowing a derogation form those rules pursuant to the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations must be strictly construed and can concern only exceptional circumstances in which, in particular, the conduct of the institution concerned has been, either alone or to a decisive extent, such as to give rise to a pardonable confusion in the mind of a party acting in good faith and exercising all the diligence required of a normally experienced trader.

3. For an applicant whose action is time-barred to avoid the effects of that bar, as provided for in the second paragraph of Article 42 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC, by reason of the existence of unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure, there must be abnormal difficulties, independent of the will of the person concerned and apparently inevitable, even if all due care is taken.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Officials - Actions - Act adversely affecting an official - Concept - Refusal to fix in advance certain methods of calculating pension rights, such as the weighting applicable thereto - Not included

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

Summary

The concept of an act adversely affecting an official covers both decisions and failures to adopt a measure required of the administration under the Staff Regulations. The absence of a decision may thus adversely affect the person concerned where the institution in which he is serving does not take either a decision for which express provision is made by a specific rule of the Staff Regulations or a decision which is implicitly required by the Staff Regulations in order to safeguard the rights of officials.

The implied rejection of an official' s request for the institution in which he is serving to fix in advance, that is to say, prior to his retirement, certain detailed arrangements for calculating his pension rights does not constitute an act adversely affecting him. There is no provision in the Staff Regulations expressly obliging the administration so to do. On the contrary, the effect of Articles 10 and 40 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations is that the institution may not proceed to calculate an official' s pension rights until his active employment ends, since until then the basis of calculation of those rights is in principle indeterminate and subject to variation.

Only exceptionally, where a factor in that calculation can be definitively determined immediately and directly, will the administration be bound to adopt a decision which is to be implemented subsequently but which immediately and directly affects the legal situation of the person concerned, thus constituting an act adversely affecting him. In those circumstances, the official concerned has a legitimate, present and vested interest in having an uncertain factor in his status determined in advance.

On the other hand, an official who is still in active employment cannot establish a present, vested interest in obtaining a decision on the weighting to be applied to his future retirement pension. That weighting, which is conditional on the official' s choice of country of residence following the cessation of his employment and also on the rules in force when the pension rights are calculated, cannot be fixed by a decision taken in advance which immediately and directly affects the legal situation of the person concerned.
Keywords



Keywords

++++

1. Officials ° Actions ° Act adversely affecting an official ° Definition ° Salary statement revealing the existence of a decision not to grant the expatriation allowance

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

2. Officials ° Actions ° Prior administrative complaint ° Time-limits ° Out of time ° Setting time running afresh ° Conditions ° New fact ° Absence ° Confirmatory decision after re-examining the dossier ° Not material

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Officials ° Recruitment ° Competitions ° Competition based on qualifications and tests ° Refusal of admission to tests ° Decision adversely affecting candidate ° Obligation to state reasons ° Extent

(Staff Regulations, Art. 25(2); Annex III, Art. 5)

2. Officials ° Recruitment ° Competitions ° Competition based on qualifications and tests ° Conditions of admission ° Definition in notice of competition ° Supporting documents ° Selection Board taking into account only documents submitted before the closing date for applications

(Staff Regulations, Annex III, Art. 2)

Summary

1. The obligation to state the reasons for any individual decision taken under the Staff Regulations is intended both to provide the person concerned with sufficient details to allow him to ascertain whether or not the decision is well founded and to enable the Court to review the decision. With respect to the decision of a Selection Board not to admit a candidate to the tests, the Selection Board is required to indicate precisely which conditions in the notice of competition are considered not to have been satisfied by the candidate. While in the case of a competition with a large number of applicants, the Selection Board may initially give only summary reasons for the refusal and notify candidates merely of the criteria and of the outcome of the selection process, it is nevertheless obliged to give individual explanations at a later stage to those candidates who expressly request them.

That requirement to state reasons is complied with if in the letter sent to a candidate not admitted to the tests the Selection Board, after reconsidering the application at the candidate' s request, states that the practical experience required by the notice of competition has not been demonstrated in full by the closing date for applications laid down in that notice.

2. Although the Selection Board for a competition based on qualifications and tests has a discretion in evaluating the qualifications and practical experience of the candidates, it is nevertheless bound by the wording of the notice of competition. The basic function of that notice is to give those interested the most accurate information possible about the conditions of eligibility for the post to be filled, in order to enable them to judge whether they should apply for it and what supporting documents are important for the proceedings of the Selection Board and must therefore be enclosed with the application.

The Selection Board is obliged to take into account only the supporting documents which the candidates must submit before the closing date for applications laid down in the notice of competition. It is under no obligation whatever to check through all the applications to ascertain whether all the documents required have been forwarded and to ask candidates, if necessary, to produce additional documents; nor is it obliged to take into consideration documents produced after the closing date.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Officials ° Promotion ° Discretion of the administration ° Review by the Court ° Limits

(Staff Regulations, Art. 45)

2. Officials ° Promotion ° Consideration of comparative merits ° Consideration of staff reports ° Incomplete personal file ° Rectification ° Fresh consideration of comparative merits after granting of some promotions ° Permissible

(Staff Regulations, Art. 45)

3. Officials ° Promotion ° Consideration of comparative merits ° Consideration of staff reports ° Other factors which may be taken into consideration

(Staff Regulations, Art. 45)

Summary

1. In assessing the merits of candidates to be taken into consideration in a decision on promotion under Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, the appointing authority has a wide discretion and in this area the review of the Community judicature must be confined to determining whether, having regard to the various considerations which have influenced the administration in making its assessment, it has remained within reasonable bounds and has not used its power in a manifestly incorrect way. The Court cannot therefore substitute its assessment of the qualifications and merits of the candidates for that of the appointing authority.

2. Where there is an irregularity in the consideration of the comparative merits of the officials eligible for promotion by a promotion committee, whose task it is to prepare the ground for the decisions of the appointing authority, in that the latest staff report on one of those officials is missing from his or her personal file, then if that report has in the meantime been placed on the file, and even if some decisions on promotion have already been taken, the conditions set out in Article 45 of the Staff Regulations are met if that committee undertakes a fresh consideration of the comparative merits of all the officials eligible for promotion, on the basis of the same information on all those concerned as was available to it on the previous occasion.

3. In order to comply with the first paragraph of Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations, the criteria to be taken into account in considering applications for promotion are the comparative merits of the officials eligible for promotion and the reports on them. Accordingly, in making the choice which is to serve as a basis for the decision to be taken by the appointing authority under that article, a promotion committee is not bound to rely solely on the staff reports on those concerned but may also base its assessment on other aspects of the merits of the candidates such as information relating to their administrative and personal position, which is such as to qualify an assessment made solely on the basis of their staff reports.
Both Article 72 of the Staff Regulations and Article 3 of the Rules on sickness insurance for officials of the European Communities take as their starting point the idea that, as far as possible, an official's spouse who is in gainful employment must seek reimbursement of his or her medical expenses under the sickness insurance scheme which covers him or her, by virtue of his or her own employment, against the risks of sickness, since only supplementary cover is provided under the Community scheme.

Neither Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations nor Article 3(1) of the Insurance Rules makes the spouse's supplementary-cover under the joint scheme, where he or she is gainfully employed, subject to the condition that, by the very fact of the occupation in question, compulsory insurance against the same risks is also provided by virtue of other legal provisions or regulations. On the contrary, Article 3(1) of the Insurance Rules must be interpreted as referring to both the case where the spouse's occupation gives rise in itself, by virtue of legal provisions or regulations, to an obligation to insure against sickness and also the case where the occupation only makes it possible for him or her to benefit, by virtue of legal provisions or regulations, from voluntary insurance against the same risks.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Actions for annulment of measures ° Actionable measures ° Definition ° Measures producing binding legal effects ° Administrative procedure implementing the competition rules ° Refusal to notify the full statement of objections to an undertaking concerned and to give it access to the entire file ° Preparatory measure ° Excluded ° Rights of the defence ° Possible breach which might be relied upon in support of an action brought against the final decision of the Commission

(EEC Treaty, Art. 173; Council Regulation No 17; Commission Regulation No 99/63)

Summary

The measures by which the Commission refused, in an administrative procedure implementing the competition rules, first to notify part of the statement of objections to the undertakings concerned and, secondly, to give them access to all the documents making up their files are not capable of producing legal effects of such a nature as to affect the interests of those undertakings before the adoption of any decision finding that the rules of the Treaty have been infringed. They are accordingly merely procedural measures preparatory to the decision that will constitute the final stage of the administrative procedure established by Regulations Nos 17 and 99/63 and cannot, as such, form the subject matter of an action for annulment under Article 173 of the Treaty.

Although compliance with the rights of the defence in any procedure which might result in the imposition of a penalty constitutes a fundamental principle of Community law that must be complied with in every circumstance, the possible infringement of those rights by way of refusal to grant access to the file remains within the bounds of the prior administrative procedure in which it takes place.

Were the Community judicature, in proceedings directed against a decision bringing the procedure to a close, to recognize that a full right of access to the file existed and had been infringed and therefore to annul the said decision for infringement of the rights of the defence, the entire procedure would be vitiated by illegality. In such a case the Commission should either abandon the proceedings or resume the procedure, ensuring that the rights previously disregarded were observed.
Keywords



Keywords

++++

1. Officials ° Actions ° Act adversely affecting an official ° Meaning ° Preparatory act ° Excluded

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91)

2. Officials ° Remuneration ° Resettlement allowance ° Conditions for granting ° Actual transfer of habitual residence ° Burden of proving that resettlement actually took place falling on official

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex VII, Art. 6)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Officials ° Pensions ° Survivor' s pension ° Condition as to prior duration of marriage ° Account taken of cohabitation ° None

(Staff Regulations, Annex VIII, Arts 17a and 20; Council Regulation No 3518/85, Art. 4(8))

2. Officials ° Duty of the administration to have regard to the interests of officials ° Limits ° Interpretation of a provision of the Staff Regulations contrary to its wording ° Not permissible

Summary

1. The condition as to the prior duration of marriage provided for by Articles 17a and 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations and by Article 4(8) of Regulation No 3518/85 introducing special measures to terminate the service of officials of the European Communities as a result of the accession of Spain and Portugal refers, for the purpose of conferring on the surviving spouse a right to a survivor' s pension, to the situation of persons who have formally contracted a civil marriage recognized by law, with all the rights and obligations which that entails. It is not for the Court to widen the judicial interpretation of the specific terms used in the provisions in question in order to bring cohabitation within the definition of marriage. Any extension of that concept would alter the legal basis of the provisions in question, with serious legal and financial consequences for the Communities and for third parties. A change on that scale can only be made by the Community legislature if it considers such a change to be necessary.

2. The duty to have regard to the interests of officials cannot lead the administration to interpret a Community provision in a manner contrary to the specific wording of that provision.