Press release: Commission sends Statement of Objection to Google on comparison shopping service; opens separate investigation on Android

Fact Sheet: Commission opens formal investigation against Google in relation to Android mobile operating system

As regards the first complaint, alleging that the evidence referred to in paragraph 10 above was not duly examined, it must, first, be pointed out that it is in no way apparent from the contested decision that the Board of Appeal refused to take into consideration any arguments or evidence submitted by the applicant.

At those meetings, an examination of the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council recasting Directive 1999/45/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 1999 concerning the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous preparations resulted in the Consultative Working Party’s establishing by common accord that, as regards the explanatory memorandum accompanying the proposal, in ...[+++]order to be drafted in full compliance with the relevant requirements laid down by the Inter-institutional Agreement such a document should have stated the reasons for each proposed substantive amendment, as is provided for under point 6(a)(ii) of that agreement, and should have specified which provisions of the earlier act remain unchanged in the proposal, as is provided for under point 6(a)(iii).

For the purposes of the present appeal, it must first be stated that the Civil Service Tribunal recalled that any decision relating to a specific individual which is taken under the Staff Regulations and adversely affects that person must state the reasons on which it is based, on the one hand, to enable the competent court to review the legality of the decision and, on the other, to provide the person concerned with the information necessary to allow him to ascertain whether or not the decision is well founded and to enable him to de ...[+++]cide whether to bring an action. It added, however, referring to Case C‑254/95 P Parliament v Innamorati [1996] ECR I‑3423, paragraphs 24 to 28, that, as far as concerns decisions taken by a selection board in a competition, the obligation to state reasons must be reconciled with observance of the secrecy surrounding the proceedings of selection boards by virtue of Article 6 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, secrecy which was instituted with a view to guaranteeing the independence of selection boards and the objectivity of their proceedings. Thus, observance of this secrecy precludes both disclosure of the attitudes adopted by individual members of selection boards and disclosure of any factors relating to individual or comparative assessments of candidates and that the obligation to state the reasons on which decisions of a selection board in a competition are based must take account of the nature of the proceedings concerned, which, at the stage of examination of the abilities of the candidates, are primarily comparative in character and accordingly covered by the secrecy inherent in those proceedings (paragraphs 30 and 31 of the judgment under appeal).

Another positive aspect of the Commission proposal is the creation of a Committee for Herbal Medicinal Products as part of the EMEA. I consider that this Committee should be distinct from the Committee on Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP) and should deal with every aspect of medicinal herbs (classification, list of traditional medicinal herbs, updating of lists, preparation of relevant monographs, assessment of dossiers in the event of disputes at national level, for the purposes of registering and authorising the placing on the market, indications in the monographs on how to administer the product, ...[+++]doses, information for the preparation of labelling and package leaflets and all other information needed to ensure safe use).