ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Commission decision, addressed to a Member State, finding that a particular grant of aid is incompatible with the common market - Action brought by the regional authority which had granted the aid - Whether admissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 173, fourth para. (now, after amendment, Art. 230, fourth para., EC)

Summary

$$The purpose of the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 230 EC) is to provide appropriate judicial protection for all persons, natural or legal, who are directly and individually concerned by acts of the Community institutions. Standing to bring an action must accordingly be recognised in the light of that purpose alone and the action for annulment must therefore be available to all those who fulfil the objective conditions prescribed, that is to say, those who possess the requisite legal personality and are directly and individually concerned by the contested act. This must also be the approach where the applicant is a public entity which satisfies those criteria.

A regional authority is individually concerned by a Commission decision, addressed to the Member State, finding that an aid programme set up by that authority is incompatible with the common market. This is because such a decision not only affects measures adopted by the authority in question, but also prevents the authority from exercising its own powers as it sees fit. It prevents the authority from continuing to apply the associated legislation, nullifies the effects of that legislation and requires the authority to initiate the administrative procedure for recovery of the aid. The regional authority is directly concerned by such a decision where the national authorities to whom it was addressed did not act in the exercise of a discretion when communicating it to the regional authority.

Furthermore, a regional authority has a separate interest in challenging the decision, distinct from that of the Member State addressed, where it possesses rights and interests of its own and the aid in question constitutes a set of measures taken in the exercise of legislative and financial autonomy vested in the authority directly under the constitution of the Member State concerned.
The provisions relating to the Medical Committee and the Invalidity Committee are designed to confer upon medical experts the task of definitively appraising all medical questions. Judicial review may not extend to medical appraisals properly so-called, which must be considered definitive, provided that the conditions in which they are made are not irregular. On the other hand, judicial review may extend to questions concerning the proper constitution and functioning of those committees, and also the regularity of the opinions which they issue. From that point of view, the Court has jurisdiction to examine whether the opinion contains a statement of reasons enabling the reader to assess the considerations on which the conclusions which it contains were based and whether it establishes a comprehensible link between its medical findings and the conclusions reached by the Committee.

It is clear from the provisions of Article 59 of the Staff Regulations that the appointing authority may refer a case to the Invalidity Committee only where an official's cumulated sick leave totals 12 months or more in any period of three years, where the official concerned challenges his being required to take leave on the institution's initiative after examination by the institution's medical officer or where the administration challenges the medical certificates produced by the official concerned.

Having regard to the serious consequences which referral to the Invalidity Committee may have for an official's professional career, it is essential that this power of the appointing authority should be strictly limited and expressly circumscribed. Consequently, to allow the appointing authority a discretion enabling it to refer a case to the Invalidity Committee at any time for reasons other than those expressly provided for in Article 59 of the Staff Regulations would run counter to the principle of legal certainty underlying the spirit of that article and would render nugatory the procedural guarantees which that article confers on the official concerned.

That conclusion cannot be invalidated by the fact that the fourth paragraph of Article 59(1) of the Staff Regulations provides that the appointing authority ‘may’ refer a case to the Invalidity Committee. In the circumstances, the use of the verb ‘may’ must be understood to mean that, where an official's sick leave exceeds the period of 12 months, the administration is not automatically obliged to refer that official's case to the Invalidity Committee.

(see paras 66 to 68)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber)

23 February 2000

Case T-164/98

Giuseppe Carraro

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Periodic reports — Action for annulment — Action for compensation’

Full text in Italian II-157

Application for:

first, annulment of the decision definitively adopting the applicant's periodic report for the period 1 July 1993 to 30 June 1995 and, second, compensation for nonmaterial harm.

Held:

The application is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.

Summary

Officials — Assessment — Periodic report — Judicial review — Limits (Staff Regulations, Art. 43) Officials — Appeals — Pleas in law — Misuse of powers — Concept
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber),

8 November 2000

Case T-210/98

E

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Dependent child allowance — Double allowance for child affected by mental or physical handicap — Suspension — Recovery of undue payment’

Full text in French II-1113

Application for:

annulment, first, of a Commission decision of 14 July 1998 suspending payment of a double dependent child allowance and retrospectively withdrawing the benefit of the latter for the period from 1 January 1997 until 14 July 1998, and, second, of a Commission decision of 22 July 1998 recovering from the applicant's retirement pension sums totalling LUF 181446 allegedly paid unduly by way of that allowance, and for an order that the Commission repay to the applicant the amounts withheld from her pension.

Held:

the Commission decision of 14 July 1998 is annulled in so far as it withdraws the grant of the double allowance for a dependent child provided for in Article 67(3) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities for the period from 1 January 1997 until 14 July 1998. The Commission decision of 23 July 1998, recovering the sum of LUF 181446 is annulled. The Commission is ordered to repay to the applicant the sums recovered from her pension, amounting to LUF 181446. The remainder of the action is dismissed. The Commission is to pay the costs.

Summary

Officials — Remuneration — Family allowances — Dependent child allowance — Double allowance — Suspension — Obligation to state reasons — Scope (Staff Regulations, Arts 25, second para., and 67(3)) Officials — Remuneration — Family allowances — Dependent child allowance — Double allowance — Conditions for granting — Reconsideration in the light of new facts (Staff Regulations, Art. 67(3)) Acts of the institutions — Withdrawal — Conditions — Decision to grant a double dependent child allowance (Staff Regulations, Art. 67(3)) Officials — Actions — Subject-matter — Unlimited jurisdiction — Claim for payment — Admissible (Staff Regulations, Art. 91(1))
Keywords



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Definition – Measures producing binding legal effects – Failure to adopt a proposal for a regulation imposing an anti-dumping duty – Effect of the regulatory nature of the anti-dumping procedure – None (Art. 230 EC; Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 6(9)) (see paras 30-32)

2. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Failure to adopt a proposal for a regulation imposing a definitive anti‑dumping duty (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 384/96) (see para. 35)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber)

15 June 2000

Case T-51/99

Sophia Fantechi

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Expatriation allowance — Services performed for an international organisation established outside the place of employment — Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations’

Full text in French II-485

Application for:

first, annulment of the decision of the Commission of 7 July 1998 refusing to pay the applicant the expatriation allowance provided for in Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and, second, a claim for payment of that allowance plus default interest.

Held:

The decision of the Commission of 7 July 1998 is annulled. There is no need to adjudicate on the claim for payment of the expatriation allowance. The Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the applicant.

Summary

Officials — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Conditions of payment — Residence outside the place of employment throughout the reference period — Services performed for an international organisation in the territory of a Member State other than that of the place of employment — Previous residence at the place of employment — No effect

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

Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations cannot be taken to preclude payment of an expatriation allowance to an official who during the reference period performed services for an international organisation in the territory of a Member State other than that of his place of employment.

That provision gives a right to payment of the expatriation allowance to an official who, during the reference period, has resided permanently outside the State in whose territory the place where he is employed is situated, even if that official has resided in that State prior to that period, and it is not necessary to inquire, 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 within the territory of that State.

(see paras 30 and 32)

See: T-18/91 Costacurta Gelabert v Commission [1992] ECR II-1655, para. 44
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)

14 July 2000

Case T-146/99

Rui Teixeira Neves

v

Court of Justice of the European Communities

‛Officials — Internal competition — Competition notice — Appointment to the post of legal adviser — Mandatory requirement — Preferential criterion — Statement of reasons — Misuse of powers’

Full text in Portuguese II-731

Application for:

annulment, first, of the decision of the selection board in Competition No CJ 41/98 of 15 March 1999 not to include the applicant's name in the list of suitable candidates and, second, of all subsequent measures adopted in the context of that competition, and also of the appointment of the successful candidate to the post of legal adviser on administrative matters.

Held:

Application dismissed. The parties to bear their own costs.

Summary

In view of the purpose of competition notices, which is to inform those interested, as accurately as possible, of the conditions which must be fulfilled in order to occupy the post concerned, it is necessary to interpret the conditions for admission in the light of the aims of the competition in issue, as they result from the description of the duties relating to the post to be filled. Consequently, the part concerning the nature of the duties and that concerning the conditions for admission must be considered together. The fact that a competition notice provides that certain knowledge is merely desirable means that it is neither a mandatory requirement nor an optional condition but a preferential criterion. (see paras 34 and 36) See: T-21/96 Giannini v Commission [1997] ECRSC I-A-69 and II-211, para. 21, and the case-law cited

The selection board has considerable discretion as regards the arrangements for and the detailed content of the tests provided for within the framework of a competition. The Court may not review the arrangements for the conduct of a test except to the extent necessary to ensure that the candidates were treated equally and that the choice made from among them by the selection board was objective. Nor may the Court review the detailed content of a test unless it is not confined within the limits laid down in the competition notice or is not consonant with the purposes of the test or competition. It is likewise not for the Court to substitute its own judgment for that of the selection board as regards the degree of difficulty of the tests. (see paras 37 and 56) See: 268/80 Guglielmi v Parliament [1981] ECR 2295, para. 8; Case T-132/89 Gallone v Council [1990] ECR II-549, para. 27, and the case-law cited
In the case of an action brought by an undertaking engaged in production and export for annulment of a regulation which establishes a definitive countervailing duty on imports and collects definitively a provisional duty, whilst the undertaking must be regarded as being directly and individually concerned by any provisions which establish a definitive countervailing duty or collect definitively a provisional duty on imports of products which it has produced, it does not, on the other hand, have locus standi to apply for annulment of provisions of the regulation that concern other companies.

Under the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC), a natural or legal person may institute proceedings against an act of the Commission or of the Council only if it is a decision addressed to it, or a decision which, although in the form of a regulation or a decision addressed to another person, is of direct and individual concern to it.

As regards the implementation by the Community institutions of Article 15(1) of the basic Regulation No 2026/97 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community and Articles 15 and 19 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures concluded within the World Trade Organisation in the context of the Uruguay Round of Negotiations, the question whether a Community industry has suffered injury and, if so, whether that injury is attributable to dumped or subsidised imports involves the assessment of complex economic matters in respect of which the institutions enjoy a wide discretion. Consequently, judicial review of any such assessment must be confined to ascertaining whether the procedural rules have been complied with, whether the facts on which the contested decision is based have been accurately stated and whether there has been any manifest error of assessment of the facts or any misuse of powers.

The institutions make a manifest error of assessment of the injury where they disregarded a known factor, other than the subsidised imports — such as a uniform, consistent industrial practice on the part of Community producers in pricing matters the objective effect of which is to mirror, in the product market in question, artificial price increases — which might have been a concurrent cause of the injury sustained by the Community industry.

(see paras 38, 45, 48)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. State aid - Prohibition - Derogations - Commission's discretion - Possibility of adopting guidelines - Judicial review - Limits

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

2. State aid - Adverse effect on competition - Aid for restructuring an undertaking in difficulty - Restructuring plan which does not ensure restoration of the undertaking's viability

(EC Treaty, Art. 92(1) (now, after amendment, Art. 87(1) EC))

3. State aid - Recovery of illegally granted aid - Date from which interest is payable - Fixed by the Commission as the date of payment of the aid

(EC Treaty, Art. 93(2) (now Art. 88(2) EC))

Summary

1. Article 92(3) of the Treaty (now, after amendement, Article 87(3) EC) confers on the Commission a wide margin of discretion to allow aid by way of derogation from the general prohibition laid down in paragraph (1) of that article, inasmuch as the determination in such cases of whether State aid is compatible with the common market raises problems which make it necessary to examine and appraise complex economic facts and conditions. The judicial review carried out by the Community judicature must therefore be limited to checking that the rules on procedure and the statement of reasons have been complied with, that the facts are materially accurate, and that there has been no manifest error of assessment and no misuse of powers. It is not for the Community judicature, therefore, to substitute its economic assessment for that of the Commission.

The Commission may provide itself with guidance for the exercise of its powers of assessment by adopting acts such as the guidelines on State aid for the rescue or restructuring of undertakings in difficulty inasmuch as those acts contain indications as to the direction to be followed by that institution and do not depart from the Treaty rules. In that context it is for the Community judicature to verify whether the requirements which the Commission has itself laid down have been observed.

( see para. 77 )

2. The Commission is not required to demonstrate the real effect of illegal aid on competition and trade between Member States. Article 92(1) of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(1) EC) declares not only aid which distorts competition to be incompatible with the common market but also aid which threatens to do so.

The finding that the recovery plan for an undertaking in difficulty which has received State aid does not ensure to the requisite legal standard that the undertaking concerned will be returned to viability is sufficient in itself to substantiate the existence of at the very least potential distortions of competition brought about by the aid at issue.

( see paras 85-86 )

3. In the event of recovery of State aid, the interest on the sums to be reimbursed can run only from the date as from which recipients of the aid were actually able to avail themselves of the capital amounts in question. That rule must be interpreted as meaning that interest begins to run with effect not from the date of actual utilisation of the aid but from the date of the grant of that aid.

( see paras 107-108 )
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber)

19 September 2001 ( *1 )

In Case T-336/99,

Henkel KGaA, established in Düsseldorf (Germany), represented by H.-F. Wissel and C. Osterrieth, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

applicant,

v

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), represented by A. von Mühlendahl, D. Schennen and S. Laitinen, acting as Agents,

defendant,

ACTION brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 September 1999 (Case R-71/1999-3), which was notified to the applicant on 28 September 1999,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (Second Chamber),

composed of: A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges,

Registrar: D. Christensen, Administrator,

having regard to the application lodged at the Registry of the Court on 26 November 1999,

having regard to the response lodged at the Registry of the Court on 17 February 2000,

further to the hearing on 5 April 2001,

gives the following

Judgment ( 1 )

...

On those grounds, THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber), hereby:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

Meij Potocki Pirrung Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 19 September 2001. H.Jung Registrar A.W.H. Meij President

( *1 ) Language of the case: German.

( 1 ) The facts, arguments of the parties and grounds of this judgment are identical or similar to those in the judgment in Case T-337/99 Henkel v OHIM (red and white round tablet) [2001] ECR II-2597, ECR II-2601. The only differences between the judgments are accounted for by the appearance of the three-dimensional trade marks for which registration was sought, namely, in this case, the shape of a rectangular tablet with two layers, one white and the other green.
Case T-158/99





Thermenhotel Stoiser Franz Gesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and Others

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(State aid – Aid for regional purposes – Validity of lawyer's signature on the application – Standing – Statement of reasons – Compatibility with the common market – Prohibition of discrimination – Right of establishment of the national competitors of the aid recipient – Protection of the environment – Misuse of powers)»

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition), 13 January 2004

Summary of the Judgment

1.. State aid – Planned aid – Review by the Commission – Preliminary stage and inter partes stage – Compatibility of aid with the common market – Difficulties of assessment – Commission's obligation to initiate the inter partes procedure

(EC Treaty, Art. 93(2) and (3) (now Art. 88(2) and (3) EC))

2.. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision addressed to a Member State and finding a State aid to be compatible with the common market without initiating the formal investigation procedure – Action brought by parties concerned within the meaning of Article 93(2) of the Treaty (now Article 88(2) EC) – Whether admissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 93(2) and (3) (now Art. 88(2) and (3) EC) and Art. 173, fourth para. (now, after amendment, Art. 230, fourth para., EC))

3.. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Taking into account of the context and all the legal rules

(EC Treaty, Art. 190 (now Art. 253 EC))

4.. State aid – Definition – Legal nature – Interpretation on the basis of objective factors – Reservation agreement – Evaluation according to the criterion of the private investor

(EC Treaty, Art. 92(1) (now, after amendment, Art. 87(1) EC))

5.. Actions for annulment – Pleas – Misuse of powers – Definition

(EC Treaty, Art. 173 (now, after amendment, Art. 230 EC))

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber)

22 February 2001

Case T-144/00

Daniela Tirelli

v

European Parliament

‛Officials — Upgrading — Secretarial allowances — Article 46 of the Staff Regulations — Transfer between institutions — Inadmissibility’

Full text in French II-171

Application for:

first, annulment of the decision of the Parliament refusing to grant the secretarial allowance to the applicant and, second, compensation for alleged nonmaterial damage

Held:

The claims for annulment relating to the promotion of the applicant to Grade B 4 are dismissed as inadmissible. The claim for compensation for the nonmaterial damage allegedly caused by the discriminatory conduct of the Parliament with regard to the promotion of the applicant to Grade B 4 is dismissed. The remainder of the application is dismissed as unfounded. Each of the parties is ordered to bear its own costs.

Summary

Officials — Actions — Prior administrative complaint — Subject-matter — Application to the Court in conformity with the complaint — Head of claim not included in the complaint — Inadmissibility (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) Officials — Actions — Action for damages directly linked to an action for annulment — Admissibility notwithstanding the absence of pre-litigation procedure in accordance with the Staff Regulations (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) Officials — Salary — Amendment on promotion — Not possible to reduce basic salary — Scope (Staff Regulations, Arts 46, second para., and 91)