Traducción de «Sentencia del Tribunal CE » (Español → Inglés) :

The review shall concern the questions whether – having regard to the case-law of the Court of Justice relating to the entitlement to paid annual leave as a principle of European Union social law, which is also expressly affirmed in Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and is covered in particular by Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9) – the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 8 November 2012 in Case T 268/11 P Commission v Strack affects the unity or consistency of Europ ...[+++]ean Union law inasmuch as the General Court, as an appeal court:

Having regard to the secrecy which must surround the proceedings of a selection board, communication of the marks obtained in the various tests constitutes an adequate statement of the reasons on which the board’s decisions are based, since the board is not required to identify the candidates’ answers which were considered unsatisfactory or to explain why they were considered unsatisfactory (Parliament v Innamorati, paragraphs 23 to 31.Martínez Páramo and Others v Commission, paragraphs 43 to 52; judgment of 30 April 2008 in Case F-16/07 Dragoman v Commission, paragraph 63).

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 December 2011 in Case T-421/07 Deutsche Post v Commission, in which the General Court dismissed as inadmissible the applicant’s action seeking the annulment of the Commission decision of 12 September 2007 to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC in respect of State aid granted by the Federal Republic of Germany to Deutsche Post AG (aid C 36/07 (ex NN 25/07)) — Infringement of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and the right to an effective legal remedy — Misinterpretation of the right to sound administration as well as the principles of le ...[+++]gitimate expectations and legal certainty — Inadequate statement of reasons in the General Court’s judgment

By its appeals, Freixenet SA (‘Freixenet’) seeks to have set aside the judgments of the General Court of the European Union of the 27 April 2010, in Case T-109/08 Freixenet v OHIM (Frosted white bottle) (‘the judgment in T-109/08’), and in Case T-110/08 Freixenet v OHIM (Frosted black matt bottle) (‘the judgment in T‑110/08’) (together, ‘the judgments under appeal’), by which the Court dismissed its actions against, respectively, the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 October 2007 (case R 97/2001-1) and of 20 November 2007 (case R 104/2001-1 ...[+++]), concerning applications for registration of signs representing a frosted white bottle and a frosted black matt bottle as Community trade marks (‘the contested decisions’).

In the view of the Civil Service Tribunal, although it is indeed precluded from substituting its assessment for that of the members of the selection board, it must be in a position to ascertain, having regard to the obligation to state reasons, that they marked the applicant’s performance on the basis of the assessment criteria set out in the notice of competition and that no errors occurred in the calculation of the mark awarded to him; similarly, it must be in a position to carry out a limited review of the relationship between the assessments made by the members of the selection board and the numbers of marks awarded by them (Case 40 ...[+++]/86 Kolivas v Commission [1987] ECR 2643, paragraph 11.Van Neyghem v Commission, paragraph 19 above, paragraph 86; and Case F‑127/07 Coto Moreno v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I‑A‑1-0000 and II‑A-1-0000, paragraphs 34 and 36).

It must admittedly be observed that neither the Statute of the Court of Justice nor the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, nor indeed the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice or those of the General Court, provide for the imposition of a sanction in the case of refusal to comply with such an order, the only possible response to a refusal being for the court to draw the appropriate inferences from that refusal in the decision closing the case (see, to that effect, Case 155/78 M. v Commission [1980] ECR 1797, paragr ...[+++]aphs 20 and 21), which is what the Civil Service Tribunal did in the judgment under appeal.