ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the President of the General Court of 20 October 2022 — PB v Commission

(Case T-407/21 R)

(Interim relief - Public service contracts - Irregularities in the contract award procedure - Recovery of amounts unduly paid - Enforceable decision - Application for interim measures - Urgency - Prima facie case - Balance of interests)

(2023/C 15/53)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: PB (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Araujo Arce, J. Estrada de Solà and J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, suspension of application of Commission Decision C(2021) 3338 final of 5 May 2021 concerning the recovery of the amount of EUR 5 038 737,86 plus interest payable by the director of the company [confidential information redacted] and, second, an order preventing the European Commission from recovering the amount indicated in that decision in any manner whatsoever, in particular by implementing the debit note, until the Court has ruled on the main action.

Operative part of the order

1. Application of Commission Decision C(2021) 3338 final of 5 May 2021 concerning the recovery of the amount of EUR 5 038 737,86 plus interest payable by the director of the company [confidential information redacted] is suspended.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 26 July 2022 — WG v EUIPO

(Case T-567/21) (1)

(2022/C 418/70)

Language of the case: German

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

(1) OJ C 502, 13.12.2021.
Order of the President of the General Court of 30 May 2022 — OT v Council

(Case T-193/22 R)

(Interim relief - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine - Freezing of funds - Application for interim measures - No prima facie case - No urgency)

(2022/C 284/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: OT (represented by: J.-P. Hordies and C. Sand, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux, A. Boggio-Tomasaz and M.-C. Cadilhac, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicant requests that the Court, inter alia, suspend the operation of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/427 of 15 March 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 87I, p. 1), and Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/429 of 15 March 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 87I, p. 44), in so far as those acts affect him.

Operative part of the order

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 26 September 2022 — OO v EIB

(Case T-134/22) (1)

(Civil service - EIB staff - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance reduced by half - Salary statement - Time limit for bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 463/76)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: OO (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: G. Faedo and J. Pawlowicz, acting as Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

By her action under Article 270 TFEU and under Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the applicant seeks annulment of the notice of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of 27 February 2012, in so far as that notice grants her an expatriation allowance reduced by half.

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. OO shall bear the costs.

(1) OJ C 191, 10.5.2022.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the President of the General Court of 4 August 2022 — Biogen Netherlands v Commission

(Case T-278/22 R)

(Interim relief - Medicinal products for human use - Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 - Marketing authorisation for Dimethyl fumarate Neuraxpharm - dimethyl fumarate - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)

(2022/C 398/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Biogen Netherlands BV (Badhoevedorp, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Schoonderbeek, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Haasbeek and A. Sipos, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicant seeks suspension of the operation of Commission Implementing Decision C(2022) 3254 final of 13 May 2022 granting marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council for ‘Dimethyl fumarate Neuraxpharm — dimethyl fumarate’ as a medicinal product for human use.

Operative part of the order

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 28 November 2022 — Lilly Drogerie v EUIPO — Lillydoo (LILLYDOO kids)

(Case T-150/22) (1)

(2023/C 35/104)

Language of the case: English

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

(1) OJ C 198, 16.5.2022.
Order of the President of the General Court of 18 October 2022 — Fresenius Kabi Austria and Others v Commission

(Case T-416/22 R)

(Interim relief - Medicinal products for human use - Directive 2001/83/EC - Marketing authorisations for medicinal products containing the active substance ‘hydroxyethyl starch (HES), solutions for infusion’ - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)

(2022/C 463/79)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Fresenius Kabi Austria GmbH (Graz, Austria), and the 14 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the order (represented by: W. Rehmann and A. Knierim, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Escobar Gómez and K. Mifsud-Bonnici, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicants seek the suspension of operation of European Commission Implementing Decision C(2022) 3591 final of 24 May 2022 concerning, in the framework of Article 107p of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the marketing authorisations of medicinal products for human use which contain the active substance ‘hydroxyethyl starch (HES), solutions for infusion’ following an assessment of a post authorisation safety study.

Operative part of the order

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

1. Officials – Recruitment – Physical fitness – Observance of the right to a fair hearing

(Staff Regulations, Art. 33, second para.; Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 13)

2. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c))

1. In a recruitment procedure, a procedure for drawing up the medical opinion which does not guarantee that the opinion of a doctor chosen by the candidate in question will be taken into account when the final medical opinion is drawn up is at variance with the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 33 of the Staff Regulations, which, given its aim of guaranteeing observance of the right to a fair hearing and in the absence of provisions laying down a separate procedure or of other relevant grounds, is applicable to temporary staff posted to a third country.

(see paras 70, 76)

2. Under the terms of Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance an application must, inter alia, state the subject-matter of the proceedings and give a summary of the pleas in law on which it is based. In order to satisfy those requirements, an application for compensation for damage caused by a Community institution must contain information identifying the conduct which the applicant alleges against the institution, the reasons why he considers there to be a causal link between the conduct and the harm he claims to have suffered, and the nature and extent of that harm. A claim for any unspecified form of damages, on the other hand, is not sufficiently concrete and must therefore be regarded as inadmissible.

That applies where the applicant confines himself to claiming damages in compensation for harm allegedly suffered, and does not specify the amount of compensation or state the evidence enabling the extent of the harm to be determined, but without establishing or even claiming the existence of special circumstances which might have relieved the applicant of the need to provide that information.

As regards the non-material damage, regardless of whether the compensation is claimed as a symbolic reparation or in order to obtain true compensation, it is for the applicant to specify the nature of the alleged non-material damage in relation to the conduct complained of against the institution, and then to quantify, even approximately, the total of that damage.

(see paras 86-88, 90-91)

See :

5/71 Zuckerfabrik Schöppenstedt v Council [1971] ECR 975, para. 9; C-150/03 P Hectors v Parliament [2004] ECR I‑8691, para. 62

T-505/93 Osório v Commission [1994] ECR-SC I‑A‑179 and II‑581, paras 33 and 35; T-112/94 Moat v Commission [1995] ECR‑SC I‑A‑37 and II‑135, paras 32, 35, 37 and 38; T-175/04 Gordon v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-2-0000 and II-A-2-0000, paras 42 and 45
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

Officials – Promotion – Consideration of comparative merits

Where the appointing authority considers the comparative merits of candidates for promotion pursuant to Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, it must examine all the relevant factors in each application carefully and impartially.

The fact that an official has been put forward for promotion, unsuccessfully, in previous promotion procedures constitutes a factor which must be taken into account. That fact is a relevant aspect of merit, provided that the official concerned has not lost merit in the interim.

The fact that such factors must be taken into account is confirmed by the general implementing provisions adopted by the Commission for Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, which provide that promotion must be awarded after comparison of individual merits assessed over a period of time.

Failure to take into consideration previous proposals for promotion could also lead to different situations being treated in the same way.

If it proved that the criteria adopted by the Promotion Committee for awarding promotion points prevented that particular aspect of the merits from being taken into account, it would be the duty of the appointing authority, which is required to comply with the rules on entitlement to advance to a higher level, to refrain from applying those criteria.

(see paras 67-68, 71-76, 103)

See:

C-269/90 Technische Universität München [1991] ECR I‑5469, para. 14

T-169/89 Frederiksen v Parliament [1991] ECR II‑1403, para. 69; T-30/04 Sena v EASA [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑113 and II‑519, para. 80; T-132/03 Casini v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑253 and II‑1169, para. 69; T-432/04 Parlante v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-2-0000 and II-A-2-0000, para. 97
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

Officials – Actions – Prior administrative complaint – Promotion system established by the Commission – Complaint against the list of officials promoted and against the determination of the points allocated to officials – Decision to reject – Statement of reasons

(Staff Regulations, Arts 25, second para., 45 and 90(2))

Under the promotion system established by an internal regulation of the Commission, in which the promotion exercise culminates in an act comprising two separate decisions by the appointing authority, the one adopting the list of promoted officials and the other fixing the total number of points of officials, neither of those two decisions is supposed to include a statement of reasons. The obligation to state reasons is satisfied where the appointing authority states reasons for its decision rejecting a complaint against those decisions lodged under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.

In that respect, since promotion is by selection, the appointing authority is not required to disclose to the unsuccessful candidate details of its comparison of his merits and those of the candidate who is promoted. Consequently, it is enough to satisfy the obligation to state reasons that the reply to the complaint mentions how the conditions governing promotion laid down by law and the Staff Regulations have been applied in the official’s individual situation.

(see paras 89, 91)

See:

C-343/87 Culin v Commission [1990] ECR I‑225, para. 13

T-11/91 Schloh v Council [1992] ECR II‑203, paras 73, 85 and 86; T-6/96 Contargyris v Council [1997] ECR-SC I‑A‑119 and II‑357, paras 147 and 148; T-230/99 McAuley v Council [2001] ECR-SC I‑A‑127 and II‑583, paras 50 to 52; T-218/02 Napoli Buzzanca v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑267 and II‑1221, para. 59; T‑311/04 Buendía Sierra v Commission [2006] ECR II‑4137, para. 147
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

1. Officials – Vacancy – Appointing authority’s decision not to fill a post declared vacant but to reassign an official with his post

(Staff Regulations, Arts 4 and 29)

2. Officials – Organisation of departments – Determination of the level of a post to be filled

(Staff Regulations, Art. 7(1); Annex I, Section A)

3. Officials – Actions – Action for damages – Annulment of the illegal act in dispute – Whether appropriate reparation for non-material damage

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

1. Even if the appointing authority enjoys a wide discretion in that regard, it may decide not to fill a post declared vacant and to take a measure, not subject to the provisions of Articles 4 and 29 of the Staff Regulations, to reassign an official with his post only for objective reasons relating to the interest of the service, which it must explain.

(see paras 49-50)

See:

316/82 and 40/83 Kohler v Court of Auditors [1984] ECR 641, para. 22

T-32/92 Rasmussen v Commission [1993] ECR II‑765, para. 37; T‑331/00 and T‑115/01 Bories and Others v Commission [2003] ECR-SC I‑A‑309 and II‑1479, paras 150 to 153

2. Apart from the function of head of unit, for which Section A of Annex I to the Staff Regulations lays down specific rules for determining the level of the post to be filled, it follows from the general principles of law governing the organisation of the Community civil service that the level of a post to be filled must be decided according to the importance of the duties conferred on the function in question and in the light of the interest of the service alone. Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations expressly sets out the latter requirement.

(see para. 83)

See:

T-10/94 Kratz v Commission [1995] ECR II‑1455, paras 56 to 60; T‑36/94 Capitanio v Commission [1996] ECR-SC I‑A‑449 and II‑1279, para. 57; T-37/94 Benecos v Commission [1996] ECR-SC I‑A‑461 and II‑1301, para. 56; T-3/97 Campogrande v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I‑A‑89 and II‑215, para. 30

F-122/05 Economidis v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑179 and II‑A‑1‑725

3. Save in special circumstances, the annulment of the decision contested by an official is in itself appropriate and, in principle, adequate compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant.

(see para. 114)

See:

T-165/89 Plug v Commission [1992] ECR II‑367, para. 118; T‑140/97 Hautem v EIB [1999] ECR-SC I‑A‑171 and II‑897, para. 82; T-89/01 Willeme v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I‑A‑153 and II‑803, para. 97
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

1. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Contested act not produced

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(3) to (6))

2. Officials – Promotion – Conditions – Demonstration of ability to work in a third language

(Staff Regulations, Art. 45(2); Annexes III, Art. 7, and XIII, Art. 11)

1. Where an applicant has failed to attach the contested decision to his application and the Registrar, contrary to Article 44(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, has not invited him to rectify that omission, the Community judicature cannot deny him the opportunity to do so by declaring his action inadmissible for failure to comply with the conditions of Article 44(4) of those Rules of Procedure.

(see para. 18)

See:

F-48/06 Avanzata and Others v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I‑A‑0000 and II‑A‑0000, paras 49 and 50

2. Article 45(2) of the Staff Regulations, in the version resulting from Regulation No 723/2004 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of employment of other servants, which requires officials to demonstrate, before their first promotion, their ability to work in a third language, applies only from the entry into force of the joint implementing provisions adopted by the institutions by mutual agreement.

Since the legislature has, in any event, under Article 11 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, precluded its application to promotions that take effect prior to 1 May 2006, Article 45(2) cannot be applied prior to the entry into force of those joint implementing provisions under the terms required by the legislature, that is to say, with a guarantee that it will be uniformly applied in the different institutions, and with a connection between this new requirement under the Staff Regulations and the opportunity for officials to have training in a third language. Thus an institution cannot apply that article of the Staff Regulations according to rules which it alone has laid down.

(see paras 33-36)
JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

15 April 2010

José Carlos Matos Martins

v

European Commission

‛Civil service — Members of the contract staff — Call for expressions of interest — Selection procedure — Pre-selection tests — Access to documents’

Application:

brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Matos Martins essentially seeks annulment of the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) of 27 February 2006 laying down the results of the verbal and numerical reasoning tests undertaken in connection with the call for expressions of interest launched by EPSO on behalf of the European institutions, particularly the Commission of the European Communities and the Council of the European Union, in order to constitute a database of candidates to be recruited as contract staff to perform various tasks within those institutions.

Held:

The action is dismissed. The applicant is to bear his own costs, except the costs of accommodation and travel incurred as a result of the consultation of documents by his lawyer on 30 March, 1 April and 21 July 2009 in the premises of the Registry of the Tribunal. The Commission is to bear its own costs and to pay the costs referred to above incurred by the applicant.

Summary

Officials — Competitions — Competition based on qualifications and tests — Content of the tests (Staff Regulations, Annex III) Officials — Competitions — Competition based on qualifications and tests — Organisation and content of tests — Multiple-choice questions (Staff Regulations, Annex III)

JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

15 April 2010

José Carlos Matos Martins

v

European Commission

‛Civil service — Members of the contract staff — Call for expressions of interest — Selection procedure — Pre-selection tests — Access to documents’

Application:

brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Matos Martins essentially seeks annulment of the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) of 27 February 2006 laying down the results of the verbal and numerical reasoning tests undertaken in connection with the call for expressions of interest launched by EPSO on behalf of the European institutions, particularly the Commission of the European Communities and the Council of the European Union, in order to constitute a database of candidates to be recruited as contract staff to perform various tasks within those institutions.

Held:

The action is dismissed. The applicant is to bear his own costs, except the costs of accommodation and travel incurred as a result of the consultation of documents by his lawyer on 30 March, 1 April and 21 July 2009 in the premises of the Registry of the Tribunal. The Commission is to bear its own costs and to pay the costs referred to above incurred by the applicant.

Summary
JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

28 April 2009

Case F-115/07

Marie-Thérèse Balieu-Steinmetz and Lidia Noworyta

v

European Parliament

(Civil service – Officials – Remuneration – Fixed allowance for overtime – Article 3 of Annex VI to the Staff Regulations – Article 56 of the Staff Regulations – Internal rules on the fixed allowance for overtime – Internal rules on compensation for overtime – Equal treatment)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Ms Balieu-Steinmetz and Ms Noworyta seek, first, a declaration that the first article of the internal rules concerning the fixed allowance for overtime adopted by the Parliament’s Secretary-General pursuant to Article 3 of Annex VI to the Staff Regulations is illegal, and second, annulment of the Parliament’s implied decision of 13 November 2006 rejecting Ms Balieu-Steinmetz’s request of 13 July 2006, and the Parliament’s decision of 18 December 2006 rejecting Ms Noworyta’s request of 5 July 2006, both requests seeking payment of the abovementioned fixed allowance.

Held: The Parliament’s implied decision of 13 November 2006 rejecting Ms Balieu-Steinmetz’s request of 13 July 2006, and the Parliament’s decision of 18 December 2006 rejecting Ms Noworyta’s request of 5 July 2006 are annulled. The Parliament is to bear all the costs.

Summary

1. Officials – Actions – Action against a measure of general application

(Art. 236 EC; Staff Regulations, Art. 90)

2. Officials – Equal treatment – Limits – Advantage unlawfully granted – Refusal to grant a fixed allowance to an official despite that allowance being paid to other officials in a comparable situation

1. The Civil Service Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate on claims directly seeking a declaration that a measure of general application, such as a provision of the Staff Regulations, is illegal.

(see para. 20)

2. An institution’s decision refusing to grant a fixed allowance to an official even though other officials in a comparable situation receive it, a decision which is based on the unlawful nature of the payment of that allowance to the latter officials, infringes the principle of equal treatment where the institution cannot satisfactorily prove that the payment of the allowance to those officials has no legal basis, since measures adopted by the Community institutions are presumed to be lawful.

(see paras 28-30, 32, 36, 42)

See:

188/83 Witte v Parliament [1984] ECR 3465, paras 13 to 15

T-30/90 Zoder v Parliament [1991] ECR II‑207, para. 26; T-272/94 Brulant v Parliament [1996] ECR-SC I‑A‑513 and II‑1397, para. 35; T-22/99 Rose v Commission [2000] ECR-SC I‑A‑27 and II‑115, para. 39; T-157/99 Griesel v Council [2000] ECR-SC I‑A‑151 and II‑699, para. 25; judgment of 8 July 2003 in T-65/02 Chetaud v Parliament, not published in the ECR, para. 44; T-120/04 Peróxidos Orgánicos v Commission [2006] ECR II‑4441, para. 77; T-379/04 J v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑2‑313 and II‑A‑2‑1575, para. 79

F-4/07 Skoulidi v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000, para. 81