Europa Officials – disciplinary measures – disciplinary proceedings – criteria for initiating such proceedings (staff regulations of officials of the European Communities, article 86) – disciplinary proceedings must be based not on general complaints capable of referring to an indeterminate and unverifiable number of reprehensible matters, but rather on facts which are sufficiently clearly defined to make it possible to distinguish them from other grounds of complaint.

Citations:

C-18/65

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131791

Europa 1. Policy of the EEC – rules on competition applicable to undertakings – regulations to be adopted by the council – discretionary powers of the latter – scope (EEC treaty, article 87) 2. Policy of the EEC – rules on competition applicable to undertakings – agreements – prohibition – exemption for categories of agreements – no pre-conceived judgment thereby passed on these agreements (EEC treaty, article 85) 3. Policy of the EEC – rules on competition applicable to undertakings – articles 85 and 86 of the EEC treaty – no distinction in these provisions based on the levels of the undertakings in the economy 4. Policy of the EEC – rules of competition applicable to undertakings – competition – concept (EEC treaty, article 85) 5. Policy of the EEC – rules of competition applicable to undertakings – exclusive dealing agreements – prohibition under article 85(1) of the EEC treaty possible 6. Regulations of the EEC – plea of inapplicability – may only be raised when the regulation in question is applicable to the issue with which the application is concerned (EEC treaty, article 184) 1. On questions of competition the council of the EEC may decide whether a particular regulation is appropriate and adopt it on the basis of a specific principle contained in articles 85 and 86 of the EEC treaty. There is no obligation on it to deal exhaustively with all the principles set out in these articles nor is it required to adopt rules simultaneously for applying the other provisions of the said articles. 2. To define a category of agreements is only to make a classification, and means only that the agreements which come within it may be prohibited by article 85(1). Therefore to grant exemptions under article 85(3) by categories of agreements cannot amount, even by implication, to passing any pre-conceived judgment on any agreement considered individually. 3. Neither the wording of article 85 nor that of article 86 justifies interpreting either of these articles with reference to the level in the economy at which undertakings carry on business. 4. The competition mentioned in article 85(1) means not only any possible competition between the parties to the agreement, but also any possible competition between one of them and third parties. 5. Even if it does not involve an abuse of a dominant position, an exclusive dealing agreement may affect trade between member states and at the same time have as its object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition, and thus fall under the prohibition in article 85(1). 6. The intention of article 184 of the EEC treaty is not to allow a party to contest at will the applicability of any regulations in support of any application. The regulation of which the legality is called in question must be applicable, directly or indirectly, to the issue with which the application is concerned.

Citations:

C-32/65

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131802

Europa Free movement of persons – migrant workers – insurance – languages – authorities of member states within the meaning of article 45(4) of regulation no 3 – national courts to be included therein – the courts of a member state having jurisdiction in social security matters are included amongst the authorities within the meaning of article 45(4) of regulation no 3, which may not reject claims, or other documents submitted to them, on the grounds that they are written in an official language of another member state.

Citations:

C-6/67

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131836

Europa 1. Procedure – preliminary ruling – jurisdiction of the court – limits (EEC treaty, article 177) 2. Procedure – preliminary ruling – jurisdiction of the court – interpretation (EEC treaty, article 177) 3. Policy of the EEC – rules on competition applicable to undertakings – cartels – prohibition based on economic assessment – category of agreements as determined by their legal nature – no advance judgment with regard to such category (EEC treaty, article 85) 4. Policy of the EEC – rules on competition applicable to undertakings – notification of agreements to the commission – failure to notify – effects (EEC treaty, article 85, regulation no 17/62, article 4, and regulation no 153/62) 5. Policy of the EEC – rules on competition applicable to undertakings – cartels – prohibition – conditions (EEC treaty, article 85) 6. Policy of the EEC – rules on competition applicable to undertakings – articles 85 and 86 of the EEC treaty – no distinction in these provisions based on the levels of the undertakings in the economy 7. Policy of the EEC – rules on competition applicable to undertakings – agreements which may affect trade between member states – concept (EEC treaty, article 85) 8. Policy of the EEC – rules on competition applicable to undertakings – agreements interfering with competition – criteria (EEC treaty, article 85) 9. Policy of the EEC – rules on competition applicable to undertakings – automatic nullity within the meaning of article 85(2) of the EEC treaty – void contractual provisions – consequence for the remainder of the agreement 10. Policy of the EEC – rules on competition applicable to undertakings – exclusive dealing agreements falling under the prohibition contained in article 85(1) 1. Cf. Para. 2, summary, case 6/64 (1964) ECR 585f. Article 177 is based upon a clear separation of functions between national courts and the court of justice and cannot empower the latter either to investigate the facts of the case or to criticize the grounds and purpose of the request for interpretation. */ 664j0006 /*. 2. Cf. Para. 1, summary, case 6/64 (1964) ECR 585f. In the context of requests for preliminary rulings, the court has no jurisdiction either to apply the treaty to a specific case or to decide upon the validity of a provision of domestic law in relation to the treaty, as it would be possible for it to do under article 169. Nevertheless, the court has power to extract from a question imperfectly formulated by the national court those questions which alone pertain to the interpretation of the treaty. */ 664j0006 /*. 3. Article 85(1) of the EEC treaty is based on an economic assessment of the effects of an agreement and cannot therefore be interpreted as introducing any kind of advance judgment with regard to a category of agreements determined by their legal nature. 4. The fact that an agreement is not notified to the commission pursuant to regulations nos 17/62 and 153/62 cannot make an agreement automatically void. It can only have an effect as regards exemption under article 83(3) if it is later established that this agreement is one which falls within the prohibition laid down in article 85(1). 5. The prohibition of an agreement depends on one question alone, namely whether, taking into account the circumstances of the case, the agreement, objectively considered, contains the elements constituting the said prohibition, set out in article 85(1). 6. Cf. Para. 3, summary, case 32/65 (1966) ECR 389. Neither the wording of article 85 nor that of article 86 justifies interpreting either of these articles with reference to the level in the economy at which undertakings carry on business. */ 665j0032 /*. 7. In order that an agreement may affect trade between member states it must be possible to foresee with a sufficient degree of probability on the basis of a set of objective factors of law or of fact that the agreement in question may have an influence, direct or indirect, actual or potential, on the pattern of trade between member states. The influence thus foreseeable must give rise to a fear that the realization of a single market between member states might be impeded. In this respect, it is necessary to consider in particular whether the agreement is capable of bringing about a partitioning of the market in certain products between member states. 8. In considering whether an agreement has as its object the interference with competition within the common market it is necessary first to consider the precise purpose of the agreement in the economic context in which it is to be applied. The interference with competition referred to in article 85(1) must result from all or some of the clauses of the agreement itself. Where an analysis of the said clauses does not reveal the effect on competition to be sufficiently deleterious, the consequences of the agreement should then be considered, and for it to be caught by the prohibition it is then necessary to find that those factors are present which show that competition has in fact been prevented or restricted or distorted to an appreciable extent. The competition must be understood within the actual context in which it would occur in the absence of the agreement in dispute. 9. The automatic nullity of an agreement within the meaning of article 85(2) of the EEC treaty only applies to those parts of the agreement affected by the prohibition, or to the agreement as a whole if it appears that those parts are not severable from the agreement itself. Any other contractual provisions which are not affected by the prohibition fall outside community law. 10. An exclusive dealing agreement may fall under the prohibition in article 85(1) by reason of a particular factual situation or of the severity of the clauses protecting the exclusive dealership. Cf. Para. 5, summary, case 32/65 (1966) ECR 389.

Citations:

C-56/65

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131815

Europa Measures adopted by an institution – definitive nature – criteria 2. Procedure – judgment granting annulment – legal effects – limited to the parties and to the persons directly concerned by the measure annulled – judgment constituting a new factor – concept 3. Measures adopted by an institution – annulment dependent on a new factor – criteria – principle of legal certainty to be taken into consideration 1. A measure containing a specific decision made without any reservations must be regarded as final in the absence of material factors clearly and consistently indicating the contrary. 2. Cf. Para. 4, summary, case 43/64, (1965) ECR 385. Apart from the actual parties in proceedings before the court, the only persons concerned by the legal effects of a judgment of the court annulling a measure are, the persons directly affected by the measure which is annulled. Such a judgment can only constitute a new factor as regards those persons. */ 664j0043 /*. 3. Protection of the certainty of legal positions and relationships implies that the existence of decisions of community authorities governing such positions and relationships cannot for ever be called in question.

Citations:

C-34/65

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131804

Europa Member states of the EEC – absolute obligation under the treaty – concept – rights of individuals – protection of such rights by national courts Policy of the EEC – common rules – tax provisions – internal taxation of one member state imposed on the products of other member states – prohibition of discrimination as compared with charges on the domestic products of that state – entry into force of this rule – its nature and consequences – rights of individuals – protection of such rights by national courts (EEC treaty, article 95) Customs duties and internal taxation – joint applicability to the same case of provisions relating thereto – impossibility of such joint application (EEC treaty, articles 12, 13, 95) Policy of the EEC – common rules – tax provisions – internal taxation – charges intended to offset its effect – nature of internal taxation (EEC treaty, article 95)

Citations:

C-57/65

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131816

Europa 1. Free movement of persons – migrant workers – old-age and death (pensions) insurance – calculation of benefits – application of the system provided for by articles 27 and 28 of regulation no 3 – the beneficiary’s objective situation to be considered 2. Free movement of persons – migrant workers – old-age and death (pensions) insurance – system based on insurance periods – amount of retirement pension varying solely according to insurance periods completed – right to a pension acquired by a claimant without aggregation of completed periods – articles 27 and 28 of regulation no 3 not applicable 3. Free movement of persons – migrant workers – old-age and death (pensions) insurance – right to a pension acquired by a claimant without aggregation of completed periods – accumulation of benefits as a result of overlapping of insurance periods actually completed in one state with notional periods in another state – possibility for that second state to deduct notional periods from periods actually completed – exclusive competence of the national authority 1. Cf. Paragraph 1, summary, case 11/67. (1967) ECR 379. The application to a migrant worker of the provisions of articles 27 and 28 of regulation n. 3 does not depend upon the free choice of the person concerned but upon his objective situation. */ 667j0011 /*. 2. Cf. Paragraph 2, summary, case 11/67. (1967) ECR 379. At least in those systems based on insurance periods under which the amount of the retirement pension varies in proportion solely to the insurance periods which have been completed articles 27 and 28 of regulation n. 3 do not apply to a migrant worker who, in order to acquire the right to benefit, does not have to resort to aggregation in any of the member states in which he has completed insurance periods. */ 667j0011 /*. 3. When a migrant worker acquires a right to a pension without aggregation of the periods completed and when benefits in respect of insurance periods actually completed in one state are payable in relation to one single period at the same time as benefits in respect of notional periods in another member state, it must be permissible for a state whose legislation provides for notional periods in favour of the insured person to deduct from such periods the periods actually completed in another member state, without its being possible to consider this procedure as contrary to article 51 of the treaty. However, it is for the national authority to which the social security institution is responsible and not the community authority to decide on this on the basis of its own legislation.

Citations:

C-12/67

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131841

Citations:

C-9/65

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131784

Citations:

C-29/63

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131690

Citations:

C-106/63

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131724

Citations:

C-12/64

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131739

Citations:

C-53/63

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131691

Citations:

C-106/63

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131725

Citations:

C-70/63

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131703

Europa Common financial arrangements – equalization of ferrous scrap – calculation of contributions – account taken by the high authority of re-use of arisings of ferrous scrap – average percentage of such arisings adopted for calculation – precise information essential (ECSC treaty, article 53) when it fixes the pecuniary obligations of an undertaking assessable under the scheme for the equalization of ferrous scrap, the high authority must show – and indeed give a statement of reasons for – the average percentage adopted in the case in question for the purpose of calculating the significance of the arisings of ferrous scrap; a mere mention that account has been taken of such arisings is insufficient. The lack of this information constitutes a serious hindrance to the adequate defence of the undertakings concerned and the necessary review by the court.

Citations:

C-2/65

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131776

Citations:

C-92/63

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131715

Europa 1. Procedure – interpretation of a judgment – allegation of the existence of ambiguity or obscurity – admissibility of an application for interpretation (statute of the court of justice of the EAEC, article 41) 2. Procedure – interpretation of a judgment – detailed rules (statute of the court of justice of the EAEC, article 41) 1. The question whether the judgment to be interpreted is or is not ambiguous or obscure appertains to the examination of the substance of the application. So far as admissibility is concerned, it is enough that the applicant alleges the existence of an ambiguity or of obscurity. 2. In order to decide whether the operative part of a judgment is or is not ambiguous or obscure, it should be read together with the applicant’s conclusions and the statement of the grounds of the said judgment.

Citations:

C-110/63

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131729

Citations:

C-111/63

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131730

Citations:

C-33/64

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131756

Citations:

C-67/63

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131697

Citations:

C-18/64

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131745

Citations:

C-100/63

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131720

Citations:

C-20/64

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131746

Citations:

C-101/63

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131721

Citations:

C-68/63

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131699

Citations:

C-50/64

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131770

Citations:

C-42/59

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131615

Citations:

C-15/63

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131678

Citations:

C-9/60

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131628

Citations:

C-42/59

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131617

Citations:

C-35/62

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131668

Europa Where the conditions of employment appliable to servants have not been expressly determined and defined by the competent authorities, the conditions applicable for the purposes of article 179 of the eec treaty are to be deemed to consist of the express or implied terms which necessarily governed the contracts of employment of those servants. Accordingly the court has jurisdiction under article 179 of the eec treaty, and this is confirmed by the general principle set out in article 173 of the said treaty.
For the purposes of article 179 of the eec treaty, any person employed in the services of the community prior to the promulgation of the staff regulations is a servant.
Contracts of employment of servants concluded by the commission acting under its powers to provide a public service come under public law and are subject to the general rules of administrative law.

The express or implied creation, prior to the promulgation of the staff regulations, of a relationship which envisages permanent employment and carries entitlement to the future benefits of the staff regulations is prohibited by virtue of article 246(3) of the eec treaty. The case-law of the ecsc court of justice, which has accepted that servants of the ecsc employed prior to the promulgation of the staff regulations have an entitlement to future employment thereunder, is of no avail on this point because the last paragraph of article 7 of the convention on the transitional provisions does not require that all contracts of employment shall be of limited duration.
Although the contracts at issue were nevertheless concluded for a period of unlimited duration, that is to be explained by the fact that at the time when they were concluded it was impossible to enter into contracts of limited duration provided for by article 246(3) of the treaty, because at that time the permanent needs of each service of the commission were not sufficiently foreseeable. The contracts at issue, which thus constituted a phase pending the conclusion of contracts provided for by article 246(3) of the treaty, can on no account imply that there was a common intention between the parties to enter into the legal relationship of a contract of permanent employment, for such an intention is manifestly contrary to the principle set out in the said article 246(3).

Observance of the principle of good faith requires that decisions of dismissal terminating a contract of employment must be justified on grounds relevant to the interests of the service and there must be nothing arbitrary about them. Failure to state such grounds constitutes a breach of contract for which the administration is liable. The fact that the officials wrongfully dismissed have returned to posts formerly held by them or found new posts is no bar to their being awarded compensation for non-material damage caused by the wrongful act on the part of the administration.
The reasons appertaining to the public interest in justification for an administrative measure must be stated with clarity and in such a way that they may be disputed for otherwise the official concerned would have no means of knowing whether his legal rights had been respected or infringed and furthermore any review of the legality of the decision would be hampered.

Citations:

C-43/59

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131618

Citations:

C-14/60

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131632

Citations:

C-31/59

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131608

Citations:

C-13/61

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131644

Citations:

C-33/59

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131610

Citations:

C-23/63

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131684

Citations:

C-44/59

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131621

Citations:

C-2/63

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131672

Citations:

C-25/62

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131659

Citations:

C-27/63

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131686

Citations:

C-22/60

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131637

Citations:

C-1/60

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131624

Citations:

C-31/62

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131664

Citations:

C-2/62

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131650

Citations:

C-5/60

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131626

Citations:

C-30/59

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131605

Citations:

C-4/59

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131593

Citations:

C-30/59

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131606

Citations:

C-8/56

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131560

Citations:

C-15/59

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131595

ECJ Procedure – abstention of the high authority – capacity to lodge an administrative complaint. The expression ‘as the case may be ‘ must be considered as giving the power to raise a matter with the high authority to the persons specified in article 35 who have an interest in the decision which the high authority is required to take or in the recommendation which it is required to make.The associations referred to in article 35 may only be associations of undertakings within the meaning given to the word ‘undertaking’ by article 80 of the treaty for the purposes of the whole treaty.

Citations:

C-8/54

Statutes:

ECSC Treaty 35

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131534

Citations:

C-18/57

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131573

ECJ In the event of several applications made against the same decision of the high authority and where as a result of one of these applications the decision is annulled, the other applicants have each the right to ask for the interpretation of the judgment in so far as the latter has ruled on the legal question which they have also raised. This is also so where one of the previous applications against the decision has been declared well founded. It is enough for it to be said to be ‘in doubt’ within the meaning of article 37 of the statute that the parties should interpret the judgment differently. Apart from the operative part, the grounds which determine it may be the subject of interpretation. This is not so of passages which are ancillary and complete or explain the basic grounds. The application for interpretation of a judgment is not well founded where the judgment of which interpretation is sought contains no obscurities. In a judgment of interpretation the court can only make clear the meaning and scope of a previous judgment; it cannot deal with problems which have not been settled by this judgment.

Citations:

C-5/55

Citing:

See Also – Associazione Industrie Siderurgiche Italiane (Assider) v High Authority Of The European Coal And Steel Community ECJ 11-Feb-1955
ECJ Application for annulment – general decision of the high authority – applicant undertakings and associations of undertakings – admissibility (Treaty, art. 33) For an application by an undertaking or by an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131552

Citations:

C-1/59

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131588

During the course of the present procedure it is not necessary to decide whether and in what circumstances an intervener may claim a stay of execution, and it is sufficient to note that in judging whether the requests in question are well-founded it is not necessary to take into account the request of the land of baden-wurttemberg to intervene in case 8/58. The requests for a stay of execution have been lodged less than six weeks before 10 may 1960, the date on which the judgment on the substance is to be published. The applicants rely on the fact that the federal government has now resolved to execute the decisions of the high authority of 9 february 1958, as it has long been required to do, as appears from the judgment of the court of justice of 8 march 1960 in case 3/59. From the time when the abovementioned decisions were adopted the applicants could have expected them to be executed and as from that time they could have lodged a request for a stay of execution which might have been justified. In principle, it is for an applicant to decide whether it is appropriate to lodge a request for a stay of execution, and to decide at what stage of the procedure to lodge it. However, there are obvious objections to granting such a request when it is lodged after the written procedure has come to an end and after the oral procedure on the substance, at a time when the court has already commenced its deliberations on the judgment on the substance. Moreover, as the defendant has also observed, it is to be noted that the execution of the decisions of 9 february 1958 will not immediately provoke disadvantageous consequences for some undertakings and will result in only partial increases in rates for most of the other undertakings. It is true that that constitutes a disadvantage for the undertakings affected by those measures, but there would not appear to be any grounds for the argument put forward by the applicants that these alterations in rates could not be withdrawn at a later stage. The foregoing considerations require that the request be rejected, and it is not necessary to order the measures of inquiry proposed by the applicants.

Citations:

C-3/58

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131577

Citations:

C-25/59

European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131602