ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Whether directly affected - Criteria - Commission decision pronouncing ex post facto on the compatibility with Community law of a national measure - Not directly affected

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

Summary

$$For an individual applicant to be directly concerned, for the purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC), by a Community measure, that measure must directly affect the legal situation of the person concerned and its implementation must be purely automatic and result from Community rules alone without the application of other intermediate rules.

That is not true of a Commission decision limited merely to pronouncing ex post facto on the compatibility with Community law of a national measure which was adopted, independently, by a Member State in the exercise of its discretionary power.

( see paras 24, 27 )
Although it may be desirable for an institution to inform its staff individually, on taking up a post, of the main rights and obligations, the fact remains that, so far as concerns transfer of pension rights, Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations requires, as a starting point, that the official concerned take the initiative. It is only on such an initiative that it becomes incumbent on the institution to inform that official of the procedure to be followed with regard to transfer of his pension rights, in particular by virtue of its duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and of the principle of sound administration.

It is nevertheless for the institution, pursuant to its duty to have regard for the welfare of officials, to inform its staff of the procedure to be followed with regard to the transfer of pension rights where, on establishment, such a transfer proves impossible in the absence of an agreement to that effect between the Community and the relevant State or body. In such a case, it is for the institution to take the initiative and inform its staff that such an agreement has been concluded and that it is possible to benefit from Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

On the other hand, the change of status of the official from member of the temporary staff to official does not constitute such an abrupt break as to enable him to consider irrelevant individual and general information provided to him during his time as a member of the temporary staff.

(see paras 67-68, 92)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. State aid - Planned aid - Implementation before the Commission's final decision - Prohibited - Expiry of the time-limit for reflection and investigation - Conditions for implementation - Prior notice

(Art. 88(2) and (3) EC)

2. State aid - Prohibited - Derogations - Commission's discretion - Assessment criteria - Effect of guidelines adopted by the Commission

(Art. 87(3) EC)

3. State aid - Prohibited - Derogations - Aid which may be regarded as compatible with the common market - Conditions

(Art. 87(3) EC)

Summary

1. Where the examination procedure provided for in Article 88(2) EC is initiated, the prohibition on putting the planned aid into effect laid down in Article 88(3) EC continues until the Commission adopts a decision on the compatibility of the planned aid with the common market. However, if the Commission has not responded within two months of full notification the Member State concerned may put the proposed aid into effect provided that it has given prior notice to the Commission, and that aid will then come under the scheme for existing aid.

The function of such notice is not merely to ensure that the planed aid is implemented in the manner described in the notification; it is designed to meet the requirements of legal certainty. Compliance with that obligation is designed to establish, in the interest of the parties concerned and of the national courts, the date from which the aid falls under the scheme for existing aid.

( see paras 37, 39 )

2. The Community guidelines on State aid do not affect the scope of primary or secondary legislation any more than any other guidelines. Such measures reflect the Commission's desire to publish directions on the approach it intends to follow, in the light of its individual decisions in the field concerned.

( see para. 56 )

3. In order for State aid to benefit from one of the derogations contained in Article 87(3) EC, it must not only comply with one of the objectives set out in Article 87(3)(a), (b), (c) or (d) EC, but it must also be necessary for the attainment of those objectives.

( see para. 74 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Participation in meetings held by undertakings for an anti-competitive purpose - Sufficient basis for concluding that, if an undertaking has not distanced itself from the decisions taken, it participated in the subsequent arrangements

(EC Treaty, Art. 85(1) (now Art. 81(1) EC))

2. Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Imputation to an undertaking - Responsibility for conduct of other undertakings in the context of the same infringement - Whether permissible - Criteria

(EC Treaty, Art. 85(1) (now Art. 81(1) EC))

Summary

1. Where an undertaking participates, even if not actively, in meetings between undertakings with an anti-competitive object and does not publicly distance itself from what occurred at them, thus giving the impression to the other participants that it subscribes to the results of the meetings and will act in conformity with them, it may be concluded that it is participating in the cartel resulting from those meetings.

( see para. 38 )

2. An undertaking which has participated in a single, complex infringement of the competition rules by its own conduct, which met the definition of an agreement or concerted practice having an anti-competitive object within the meaning of Article 85(1) of the Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) and was intended to help bring about the infringement as a whole, may also be responsible for the conduct of other undertakings followed in the context of the same infringement throughout the period of its participation in the infringement, where it is proved that the undertaking in question was aware of the unlawful conduct of the other participants, or could reasonably foresee such conduct, and was prepared to accept the risk.

( see para. 73 )
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber)

19 September 2001 ( *1 )

In Case T-335/99,

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-70/1993-3), 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 OHM (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 red.
Case T-326/99





Nancy Fern Olivieri

v

Commission of the European Communities

and European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicines (EMEA)







«(Medicinal product – Marketing authorisation – Opinion of the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products – Admissibility – Interest in bringing proceedings – Public health – Verification of reported data – Review of scientific evaluations – Professional reputation)»

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), 18 December 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Actions for annulment – Interest in bringing proceedings – None

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC)

2.. Approximation of laws – Uniform laws – Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products – Regulation No 2309/93 – Central marketing authorisations – Requirement for a high level of health protection – Whether observations of persons other than the applicant may be taken into account – Admissibility – Scope

(Art. 152 EC; Council Regulation No 2309/93, Art. 11)

3.. Approximation of laws – Uniform laws – Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products – Regulation No 2309/93 – Central marketing authorisations – Assessment of scientific data – Bilateral procedure between the applicant and the Community administration

(Council Regulation No 2309/93)

4.. Approximation of laws – Uniform laws – Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products – Regulation No 2309/93 – Central marketing authorisations – Whether the professional reputation of a third person may be taken into account – Not permitted

(Council Regulation No 2309/93, Art. 68)

1.

2.

3.

4.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber)

27 June 2001

Case T-214/00

X

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Official ordered to pay costs of earlier proceedings — Part of salary withheld by the creditor institution by way of setoff’

Full text in French II-663

Application for:

annulment of the Commission's decision to withhold part of the applicant's monthly salary amounting to LUF 120000.

Held:

The Commission's decision to withhold part of the applicant's monthly salary amounting to LUF 120000 is annulled. The Commission is ordered to repay to the applicant the sum corresponding to two deductions from salary of LUF 60000 together with interest at the rate of 6.5% per annum, with effect from the date on which those amounts were withheld and until actual repayment. The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

Summary

Officials — Actions — Act adversely affecting an official — Deduction by way of setoff from the salary of an official ordered to pay costs (Arts 44 CS and 92 CS; Arts 244 EC and 256 EC; Arts 159 EA and 164 EA; Staff Regulations, Arts 62 and 90(2)) Officials — Remuneration — Deduction by way of setoff from the salary of an official ordered to pay costs — No legal basis — Need for the institution to obtain the agreement of the person concerned (Staff Regulations, Art. 62)
Keywords



Keywords

Fisheries - Conservation of marine resources - Technical conservation measures - Infringement of Community legislation penalised by withdrawal of a licence and special fishing permit - Infringement by the Commission of the audi alteram partem principle, the procedural rules set out in the Community legislation and the principle of proportionality - No infringement

(Council Regulation No 50/1999, Arts 2(1) and 3(7) and (8); Commission Regulation No 2943/95, Arts 5 and 6)
A decision by which the Commission in essence makes a finding on whether a local representative may place its logo on the outer packaging of a medicinal product in light of Article 2(2) of Directive 92/27 on the labelling of medicinal products for human use does not involve complex assessments in the medico-pharmacological field, such as, for example, assessments of the efficacy, safety and quality of a medicinal product. The question whether it is possible, under that provision, to place the logo of a local representative on the outer packaging of a medicinal product authorised under the centralised procedure provided for in Regulation No 2309/93 depends in particular on whether or not such information is useful for health education. However, assessment of the usefulness of that logo for health education is not of such complexity as to justify a restriction on the scope of judicial review, since, in particular, it does not call for any particular expertise or technical knowledge.

A Commission decision rejecting a local representative's request to include his logo in the blue box of the outer packaging of a medicinal product registered under the centralised authorisation procedure provided for under Regulation No 2309/93 must be annulled for lack of legal basis.

First, given that consumers may contact the local representative more easily in the event of problems with the medicinal product and ask questions of him in their mother tongue and that, as regards questions of responsibility, the local representative can suggest to consumers that they contact the holder of the marketing authorisation, the inclusion of the logo of the local representative in the blue box is useful for health education within the meaning of Article 2(2) of Directive 92/27 on the labelling of medicinal products for human use. Second, a logo which constitutes a unit in combination with the name of the local representative cannot create a risk of additional confusion for the consumer, since the name and address of the local representative are already included in the blue box. Moreover, the decision cannot be justified by the fact that the Commission took the view that it had to follow the Pharmaceutical Committee's view regarding inclusion of the local representative's logo in the blue box. The Pharmaceutical Committee merely issues an opinion which is not binding on the Commission.

(see paras 49, 51-53, operative part 1)
The termination-of-service measures which were authorised by Regulation No 2688/95 do not have their legal origin in the Staff Regulations and therefore do not constitute a standard event in the careers of the persons concerned. Such measures to release staff must, on the contrary, be regarded as a practice to which the Community has resorted in specific cases in the interest of the proper functioning of its institutions. It follows that the institution concerned is not obliged either to grant the requests submitted to it or to make even partial use of the power conferred on it to decide to terminate the service of some of its officials.

Accordingly, the institution concerned has a wide discretion when applying the criteria set out in Article 3 of that regulation. Judicial review of such an assessment must therefore be limited to verifying whether the procedural rules have been complied with, whether the facts on which the contested choice is based have been accurately stated and whether there has been a manifest error in assessing those facts or a misuse of powers.

(see paras 36-37)

See: C-432/98 P and C-433/98 P Council v Chvatal and Others [2000] ECR I-8535, paras 28 and 29
Colours or colour combinations per se are capable of constituting Community trade marks for the purposes of Regulation No 40/94 in so far as they are capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of another. It does not, however, follow from the fact that signs of a particular category may in principle constitute a trade mark that all signs in that category necessarily possess distinctive character for the purposes of Article 7(l)(b) of that regulation with regard to a particular product or service.

Whilst Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, which provides that ‘trade marks which are devoid of any distinctive character’ are not to be registered, does not draw any distinction between different types of sign, the perception of the relevant section of the public is not necessarily the same in the case of a sign composed of a colour or colour combination per se as it is in the case of a word or figurative mark composed of a sign that bears no relation to the appearance of the goods that it identifies. While the public is accustomed to perceiving word or figurative marks as instantly identifying the commercial origin of the goods, the same is not necessarily true where the sign forms part of the look of the goods in respect of which registration of the sign is sought.

Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark provides that ‘trade marks which are devoid of any distinctive character’ are not to be registered. A sign sought to be registered for gardening products, comprising a juxtaposition of two colours, represented by a green rectangle above a grey rectangle, is not distinctive for the goods in question.

Simply juxtaposing colours is abstract and imprecise in relation to the goods in question, and the combination of colours is not arranged in any particular format. The consumer will therefore not see the juxtaposition of green and grey as a sign indicating that the goods come from the same undertaking but will rather see it merely as an aspect of the finish of the goods in question, so that the sign claimed will not enable him to recognise it as distinctive when he comes to make a choice on the occasion of a subsequent purchase of those goods.

(sec paras 33, 37-38, 40)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)

26 February 2003

Case T-184/00

Zissis Christou Drouvis

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Pensions — Weighting — Legality of Article 82(1), second paragraph, of the Staff Regulations — Principle of equal treatment — Principles of freedom of movement for workers and freedom of establishment within the Community’

Full text in Greek II-297

Application for:

the amendment of the Commission's decision, notified to the applicant on 30 November 1999, determining his pension and applying the weighting for Greece, so that the weighting applied is the same as that on pensions paid to pensioners residing in the United Kingdom or, in the alternative, the same as that on pensions paid to pensioners residing in Belgium.

Held:

The application is dismissed. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs. The Council is ordered to bear its own costs.

Summary
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

State aid – Commission decision finding aid incompatible with the common market and ordering repayment – Duty to state reasons with regard to the method of calculating the amount to be repaid

(Art. 253 EC)

Summary

A Commission decision on the repayment of State aid, granted in the form of the sale at a preferential price of a developed plot of land, which the decision declares to be unlawful, does not satisfy the requirement to state reasons laid down by Article 253 EC if it renders review by the addressee of the decision and by the court impossible by failing to include sufficient information as to the manner in which the Commission calculated the amount to be repaid, such failure consisting in: (1) not stating that the Commission used a compound rate of interest for which no provision was made in legislation and which did not correspond to the Commission’s previous practice, even though in the case in point the choice of compound interest had important consequences for the amout to be repaid; (2) not giving any explanation as to the choice of the rate applied; (3) not giving any explanation as to the link between the advantage retained by the beneficiary and the amount it was required to repay; and (4) an apparent inconsistency between the choice of compound interest in respect of the calculation as at the decision date of the amount to be repaid and simple interest in respect of the interest to be charged for the period between the decision and actual repayment.

(see paras 35-53)
Case T-306/00





Conserve Italia Soc. coop. rl

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Agriculture – EAGGF – Reduction of financial aid – Statement of reasons – Error of assessment as to the facts – Principle of proportionality)»

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), 11 December 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Commission decision entailing serious consequences for the beneficiary of Community aid

(Art. 253 EC)

2.. Community law – Principles – Rights of the defence – Fundamental principle – Scope



3.. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community funding – EAGGF financial assistance discontinued because of irregularities – Conditions – Compliance with the principle of proportionality

(Art. 5, third para., EC; Council Regulation No 4253/88, Art. 24)

4.. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community funding – Works forming the subject-matter of aid financed by the EAGGF – Impossibility of starting those works before the date on which the Commission receives the application – Fundamental character – Works begun some days before that date of receipt – Automatic discontinuance or reduction of the aid – None



1.

2.

3.

4.
Case T-102/00





Vlaams Fonds voor de Sociale Integratie

van Personen met een Handicap



v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Social policy – European Social Fund – Reduction in financial assistance – Rights of the defence – Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 – Statement of reasons)»

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), 9 July 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Social policy – European Social Fund – Financial assistance for vocational training – Decision reducing assistance originally granted – Rights of defence of the beneficiaries – Scope



2.. Social policy – European Social Fund – Financial assistance for vocational training programmes – Decision reducing assistance originally granted – Opportunity for the Member State concerned to comment prior to the adoption of the decision – Essential procedural requirement – Breach – Illegality



3.. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Commission decision reducing assistance from the European Social Fund for vocational training

(Art. 253 EC)

1.

2.

3.