ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Competition - Fines - Joint and several liability for payment - Conditions

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

Summary

Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 does not expressly state whether an undertaking which has not been specifically and formally held liable for an infringement found by the Commission may be declared jointly and severally liable with another undertaking for payment of a fine imposed on that other undertaking, which has committed and been penalised for the infringement.

However, that provision must be interpreted as meaning that an undertaking may be declared jointly and severally liable with another undertaking for payment of a fine imposed on the latter undertaking, which has committed an infringement intentionally or negligently, provided that the Commission demonstrates, in the same decision, that the infringement could also have been found to have been committed by the undertaking held jointly and severally liable. That may be the case, first, where the economic and legal links between the undertakings concerned are such that the undertaking held specifically and formally liable for the infringement, in marketing the relevant product for the benefit of the undertakings held jointly and severally liable for payment of the fine, merely acted as an auxiliary organ of each of them and, second, where the undertaking held liable for the infringement was bound to follow the instructions issued by the undertakings held jointly and severally liable and could not adopt conduct on the market independently of any of them.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 ECSC - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Fines - Amount - Determination thereof - Criteria - Financial difficulties of the undertaking concerned - May be taken into consideration - Whether obligatory - No such obligation

(ECSC Treaty, Art. 65(5))

2 ECSC - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Fines - Amount - Determination thereof - Criteria - Tax legislation of a Member State - Not included

(ECSC Treaty, Art. 65(5))

3 ECSC - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Fines - Amount - Determination thereof - Cases in which the fine is fixed by the Community judicature - Unlimited jurisdiction

(ECSC Treaty, Art. 36, second para.)

Summary

1 In determining the amount of the fines to impose on steel undertakings for infringement of the competition rules, the Commission is in principle entitled to take account of the undertakings' financial difficulties while maintaining fines at a level which appears appropriate. However, recognition of an obligation requiring the Commission to take account of an undertaking's loss-making financial situation would be tantamount to conferring an unjustified competitive advantage on the undertakings least well adapted to the conditions of the market.

2 The tax legislation of a Member State - in particular, legislation under which an undertaking is not permitted to deduct a fine for infringement of Community competition law from its taxable income - cannot be a relevant criterion in the fixing of such fines.

3 By its nature, the fixing of a fine by the Court of First Instance in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction is not an arithmetically precise operation. Moreover, the Court is not bound by the Commission's calculations, but must carry out its own assessment, taking all the circumstances of the case into account.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawful conduct of the institutions

(EC Treaty, Art. 215, second para. (now Art. 288, second para., EC); Council Regulations Nos 1078/77, 857/84 and 764/89)

Summary

The Community’s non-contractual liability in connection with the introduction in 1984 by Regulation No 857/84 of the additional levy scheme in the milk and milk products sector is incurred only in respect of those milk producers who had temporarily ceased milk production pursuant to a non-marketing undertaking under Regulation No 1078/77 and resumption of which was prevented precisely because of the entry into force of the additional levy scheme. That liability is therefore not incurred in relation to producers who had not resumed marketing of milk upon the expiry of the non-marketing undertaking for reasons other than those connected with the entry into force of that scheme.

It is for producers who ceased marketing milk under Regulation No 1078/77 and applied for a special reference quantity following adoption of Regulation No 764/89, which was allocated to them and then withdrawn, to prove that they intended to resume milk production on expiry of their non-marketing undertaking. Proof of such an intention is deemed to be established where those producers demonstrate that they fulfil the conditions laid down by the applicable legislation permitting them to resume milk production by applying for and retaining a special reference quantity for the purposes of resumption of the activity of milk producer.

The Community may therefore presume, with regard to milk producers whose non-marketing undertakings expired after the entry into force of the additional levy scheme and who applied for a special reference quantity under Regulation No 764/89 but who did not obtain one since they did not satisfy the conditions set out in that regulation, that, failing proof to the contrary by them, they would not have been able to obtain a reference quantity if Regulation No 857/84 had provided for it, and thus they are in the same position as producers who gave an undertaking under Regulation No 1078/77 who never applied for a reference quantity.

Such a presumption must also apply to producers who obtained a special reference quantity under Regulation No 764/89 which was withdrawn from them on the ground that they did not meet the conditions set out therein. Therefore, the non-marketing of milk on expiry of the undertaking which such a producer gave cannot, in the absence of any proof of his intention to resume milk production, be attributed to the entry into force of the additional levy scheme.

(see paras 84-88, 91)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber, Extended Composition)

22 October 1996

((State aid – Refusal of the Commission to propose appropriate measures pursuant to Article 93(1) of the Treaty – Action for annulment – Inadmissible)) In Case T-330/94, Salt Union Ltd, a company established under English law in Cheshire (United Kingdom), represented by Jonathan Scott and Craig Pouncey, Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Georges Baden, 8 Boulevard Royal, applicant, supported by Verein Deutsche Salzindustrie eV, an association governed by German law, established in Bonn (Germany), represented by Thomas Jestaedt, Rechtsanwalt, Düsseldorf, and Walter Klosterfelde and Karsten Metzlaff, Rechtsanwälte, Hamburg, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Philippe Dupont, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, intervener, v Commission of the European Communities, represented initially by Nicholas Khan and Jean-Paul Keppenne, then by Nicholas Khan and Paul Nemitz, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, defendant, supported by Frima BV, a company governed by Netherlands law, established in The Hague (Netherlands), represented initially by Tom Ottervanger, of the Rotterdam Bar, and Harold Nyssens, of the Brussels Bar, and then by Tom Ottervanger only, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Carlos Zeyen, 67 Rue Ermesinde, intervener, APPLICATION for annulment of the decision contained in a letter of 5 August 1994 in which the Commission stated that it had found no reason to propose appropriate measures pursuant to Article 93(1) of the EC Treaty with regard to the Netherlands regional aid scheme Subsidieregeling regionale investeringsprojecten 1991,



THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (Third Chamber, Extended Composition),



composed of: C.P. Briët, President, B. Vesterdorf, P. Lindh, A. Potocki and J.D. Cooke, Judges, Registrar: J. Palacio González, Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 2 July 1996,

gives the following

Judgment

Facts

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

─ annul the decision of the Commission, contained in its letter of 5 August 1994, in which it stated that it had found no reason to propose appropriate measures pursuant to Article 93(1) of the EC Treaty regarding the Netherlands scheme;

─ declare the Commission liable for any damage suffered by the applicant;

─ order the Commission to pay the costs.

13

14

─ dismiss the application;

─ order the applicant to pay the costs.

15

─ dismiss the application as inadmissible;

─ order the applicant to pay the costs, including those incurred by Frima.

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

On those grounds,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber, Extended Composition)

1.

2.

3.

Briët Vesterdorf Lindh Potocki Cooke

H. Jung C.P. Briët
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Exclusivity agreements - Exemption - Exclusive distribution contract without an export ban - Existence of a concerted practice seeking to restrict parallel imports - Exclusion from the exemption

2 Acts of the institutions - Statement of reasons - Obligation - Scope

(EC Treaty, Art. 190)

3 Competition - Fines - Amount - Commission's margin of discretion

(Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15)

4 Competition - Fines - Assessment in relation to the undertaking's own conduct - No penalty imposed on another trader - Irrelevant

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

Summary

5 The provisions of Article 85(1) of the Treaty may in no circumstances be declared inapplicable to an exclusive distribution contract which does not in itself include a prohibition of re-exports of the products which are the subject of the contract, where the contracting parties are engaged in a concerted practice aimed at restricting parallel imports intended for an unauthorized dealer.

6 The purpose of the obligation to give reasons for an individual decision is to enable the Community judicature to review the legality of the decision and to provide the party concerned with an adequate indication as to whether the decision is well founded or whether it may be vitiated by some defect enabling its validity to be challenged; the scope of that obligation depends on the nature of the act in question and on the context in which it was adopted. Each part of the decision must be read in the light of the others.

Although under Article 190 of the Treaty the Commission is obliged to state the reasons on which its decisions are based and to mention the factual and legal elements which provide the legal basis for the measure and the considerations which have led to its adoption, it is not required to discuss all the issues of fact and law raised by every party during the administrative procedure.

7 The fines which the Commission imposes in cases of breach of Article 85 et seq. of the Treaty constitute an instrument of its competition policy. The Commission must therefore be allowed a margin of discretion when fixing the amount of fines, in order that it may direct the conduct of undertakings towards compliance with the competition rules.

8 Where an undertaking has by its conduct infringed Article 85(1) of the Treaty, it may not escape a penalty on the ground that another undertaking has not been fined, when the latter's circumstances are not even the subject of proceedings before the Community judicature.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Non-contractual liability - Conditions - Unlawfulness - Damage - Causal link - Burden of proof

(EC Treaty, Art. 215, second para.)

2 Non-contractual liability - Conditions - Actual and certain damage - Burden of proof

Summary

1 By virtue of the second paragraph of Article 215 of the Treaty and the general principles to which that provision refers, in order for the Community to incur non-contractual liability a number of conditions must be met as regards the unlawfulness of the conduct alleged against the institutions, the actual existence of damage and the existence of a causal link between that conduct and the alleged damage.

The burden of proving a causal link between the alleged fault on the part of the institution and the injury pleaded falls on the applicant.

The required link is not established in the case of an applicant who seeks compensation for damage allegedly caused by the Commission's delay in notifying it of a decision on State aid, in so far as that delay, even assuming that it can be characterised as wrongful, cannot have caused the applicant independent material damage distinct from any damage which could arise from the decision itself.

2 In order to obtain reparation for the non-material damage alleged, the applicant must show that it has sustained actual and certain damage. Accordingly, it cannot, in principle, confine itself to pleading the allegedly wrongful nature of the Commission's conduct with respect to it. It falls to the applicant, at the very least, to prove that the institution's conduct of which it complains was, by reason of its gravity, such as to cause it damage of that kind.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Actions for annulment - Time-limits - Point from which time starts to run - Date on which the measure came to the applicant's knowledge - Subsidiary criterion - Decision terminating a procedure for the review of State aid - Date of publication

(EC Treaty, Arts 93(2) and 173, fifth para.)

2 State aid - Meaning - Agreement to purchase travel vouchers - Covered - Cultural and social aims - Irrelevant

(EC Treaty, Art. 92)

Summary

1 It is clear from the actual wording of the fifth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty, concerning the time-limits for bringing actions for annulment, that the criterion of the day on which a measure came to the knowledge of an applicant - to mark the starting point of the period prescribed for initiating proceedings - is subsidiary to the criteria of publication or notification of the measure.

Where an undertaking could legitimately expect the decision terminating a procedure for the review of aid under Article 93(2) of the Treaty to be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities, given the Commission's constant practice in this connection, and where that decision was not notified to the undertaking at an earlier date, time for the purposes of initiating proceedings will start to run on the date of publication.

2 A State measure whereby a public authority enters into an undertaking, in the form of an agreement to buy travel vouchers, to purchase travel from a particular undertaking for a period of several years cannot, merely because the parties undertake reciprocal commitments, be excluded in principle from classification as State aid in the sense contemplated in Article 92 of the Treaty.

Where the agreement affects competition and trade between Member States in so far as the travel vouchers can be used only in the low season and, accordingly, the improved service supplied by the undertaking does not in principle entail significant additional costs for it, and where the total number of travel vouchers purchased does not appear to have been fixed by reference to the actual needs of the public authority concerned, such an agreement falls within the scope of Article 92(1).

In such cases, any cultural and social aims pursued by the public authorities play no part in the characterisation of the agreement in the light of Article 92(1). Article 92(1) makes no distinction according to the causes or aims of the aid in question, but defines it in relation to its effects. Nevertheless, such aims may be taken into account by the Commission when, in exercising its power of constant review under Article 93 of the Treaty, it rules on the compatibility with the common market of a measure already categorised as State aid and verifies whether that measure falls within the derogations provided for by Article 92(2) and (3).
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Interest in bringing an action - Action against a decision establishing the list of project proposals eligible for a Community contribution under a specific programme of research, space technological development and demonstration in the field of marine science and technology (MAST III Programme) - Exclusion of the applicants' proposal - Absence or disappearance of an interest in bringing an action - No need to adjudicate

(EC Treaty, Art. 173 (now, after amendment, Art. 230 EC); Council Decision 94/804)

Summary

$$There is no need to adjudicate on an action for annulment brought against a Commission decision establishing the list of project proposals eligible for a Community contribution under a specific programme of research, space technological development and demonstration in the field of marine science and technology (MAST III Programme), established by Decision 94/804, in so far as it entails the exclusion of the applicants' proposal from the reserve list.

The applicants do not have an interest in bringing an action concerning the defence of their scientific prestige, given that, in the context of the procedure for choosing the projects eligible for financing, their own scientific ability was not taken into consideration either directly or indirectly when their proposal was excluded from the reserve list.

As regards the applicants' interest in the implementation of their proposal, given that there are no more funds available to finance the reserve list concerned, and that that lack of funds is not the result of an infringement of the rules applicable, they have no further interest in the annulment of the contested decision in so far as it entails the exclusion of that proposal from the reserve list.

( see paras 40, 53-54 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Actionable measures - Refusal by the Council to adopt a proposal for a regulation imposing anti-dumping duties - Not included

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

Summary

$$It follows both from the scheme of the Treaty and from that of the basic anti-dumping regulation No 384/96 that the Council is under no obligation to adopt a proposal for a regulation imposing definitive anti-dumping duties submitted to it by the Commission.

Where the Council does not adopt a regulation imposing definitive anti-dumping duties because the vote taken in the Council does not result in a simple majority in favour of the proposal submitted to it, its failure to do so cannot be the subject of an action for annulment. First, the Council has not adopted any measure which might be actionable. Second, the mere statement that a vote did not result in the majority required for the adoption of a proposal for an anti-dumping regulation is not in itself a reviewable act within the meaning of Article 173 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 230 EC).

( see paras 52-53, 56-58 )
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber)

19 September 2000

Joined Cases T-101/98 and T-200/98

Gisela Stodtmeister

v

Council of the European Union

‛Officials — Refusal of promotion — Action for annulment — Absence of staff report — Action for damages’

Full text in French II-807

Application for:

first, annulment of the decision of the Council not to promote the applicant to Grade A 3 during the 1997 promotion procedure and, second, damages for the harm alleged to have been sustained by the applicant owing to the absence of a staff report for the period 1993-1995 during the 1996 promotion procedure.

Held:

The claim for compensation for material damage in Case T-200/98 is dismissed as inadmissible. In Case T-200/98 the Council is ordered to pay the applicant damages of BEF 70000 for the nonmaterial damage sustained by her. The action for annulment in Case T-101/98 is dismissed. The Council is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay one half of the costs incurred by the applicant in Case T-200/98. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs in Case T-101/98.

Summary
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber)

3 July 2001

Joined Cases T-24/98 and T-241/99

E

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Member of the temporary staff — Disciplinary measures — Suspension — Disciplinary action — Termination without notice of the contract — Period prescribed by the third paragraph of Article 7 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations — Disregarded — Consequences — Action for annulment and damages — No need to adjudicate’

Full text in French II-681

Application for:

in Case T-24/98, first, annulment of the Commission's decision of 12 November 1997 to continue the applicant's suspension from duties and, second, for the Community to be ordered to pay compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of that decision and, in Case T-241/99, first, for annulment of the Commission's decision of 22 December 1998 imposing on the applicant the disciplinary action of termination without notice of the temporary staff contract and, second, for the Community to be ordered to pay compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of that decision and of the disciplinary proceedings.

Held:

Cases T-24/98 and T-241/98 are joined for the purposes of the judgment. In Case T-24/98: there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the claims for annulment; the remainder of the application is dismissed; the parties are to bear their own costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings. In Case T-241/98: the Commission is ordered to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 1000 by way of compensation for the nonmaterial damage suffered by him; the remainder of the application is dismissed; the Commission, in addition to bearing its own costs, is to pay one quarter of the applicant's costs.

Summary

Officials — Disciplinary measures — Disciplinary proceedings — Period prescribed by the third paragraph of Article 7 of Annex IX for the adoption of a decision by the appointing authority — Administration's obligation to act within a reasonable time — Breach — Consequences (Staff Regulations, Annex IX, Art. 7, third para.) Officials — Rights and obligations — Obligations provided for in Articles 11, 12 and 14 of the Staff Regulations — Finding of a breach — Criteria for assessment (Staff Regulations, Arts 11, 12 and 14) Officials — Disciplinary measures — Disciplinary action — Obligation to state grounds (Staff Regulations, Arts 86 to 89) Officials — Disciplinary measures — Disciplinary action — Discretion of the appointing authority — Judicial review — Scope — Limits Staff Regulations, Arts 86 to 89) Officials — Disciplinary measures — Disciplinary proceedings — Rights of the defence must be observed — Where the official has had no opportunity to comment on certain documents — Undisclosed documents inadmissible as evidence — Limits (Staff Regulations, Annex LX, Art. 2)