text:
Eu-trade-mark-regulation-2017
1. Without prejudice to the functions attributed to the Budget Committee in Section 6, the Management Board shall have the following functions:
(a) on the basis of a draft submitted by the Executive Director in accordance with Article 157(4)(c), adopting the annual work programme of the Office for the coming year, taking into account the opinion of the Commission, and forwarding the adopted annual work programme to the European Parliament, to the Council and to the Commission;
(b) on the basis of a draft submitted by the Executive Director in accordance with Article 157(4)(e) and taking into account the opinion of the Commission, adopting a multiannual strategic programme for the Office, including the Office's strategy for international cooperation, following an exchange of views between the Executive Director and the relevant committee in the European Parliament, and forwarding the adopted multiannual strategic programme to the European Parliament, to the Council and to the Commission;
(c) on the basis of a draft submitted by the Executive Director in accordance with Article 157(4)(g), adopting the annual report and forwarding the adopted annual report to the European Parliament, to the Council, to the Commission and to the Court of Auditors;
(d) on the basis of a draft submitted by the Executive Director in accordance with Article 157(4)(h), adopting the multiannual staff policy plan;
(e) exercising the powers conferred on it under Article 152(2);
(f) exercising the powers conferred on it under Article 172(5);
(g) adopting rules on the prevention and management of conflicts of interest in the Office;
(h) in accordance with paragraph 2, exercising, with respect to the staff of the Office, the powers conferred by the Staff Regulations on the Appointing Authority and by the Conditions of Employment on the Authority Empowered to Conclude Contracts of Employment ('the appointing authority powers');
(i) adopting appropriate implementing rules to give effect to the Staff Regulations and the Conditions of Employment in accordance with Article 110 of the Staff Regulations;
(j) drawing up the list of candidates provided for in Article 158(2);
(k) ensuring adequate follow-up to the findings and recommendations stemming from the internal or external audit reports and evaluations referred to in Article 210, as well as from investigations of the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF);
(l) being consulted before adoption of the guidelines for examination in the Office and in the other cases provided for in this Regulation;
(m) providing opinions and requests for information to the Executive Director and to the Commission where it considers it necessary.
2. The Management Board shall adopt, in accordance with Article 110 of the Staff Regulations and Article 142 of the Conditions of Employment, a decision based on Article 2(1) of the Staff Regulations and on Article 6 of the Conditions of Employment, delegating the relevant appointing authority powers to the Executive Director and defining the conditions under which that delegation of appointing authority powers can be suspended.
The Executive Director shall be authorised to sub-delegate those powers.
Where exceptional circumstances so require, the Management Board may, by way of a decision, temporarily suspend the delegation of the appointing authority powers to the Executive Director and those sub-delegated by the latter, and exercise them itself or delegate them to one of its members or to a staff member other than the Executive Director.
‹ Article 152 up Article 154 ›


On November 15th, 1964 Johan Cruijff made his official debut in the Dutch league. Ajax lost in Groningen 3-1 to GVAV; Cruijff scored the only goal for Ajax. Nineteen years and six months later he plays his last match as a Feyenoord-player against FC Zwolle. He scored in his last match. Johan Cruijff played 48 internationals for Holland (33 goals) and was 34 times captain of the Dutch national team.
With Johan Cruijff Ajax earned their place in football-history. In the early seventies they won three European Cups in a row: 1971, 1972 and 1973.
When he returned to Amsterdam in 1981, he amazed the audience again. On December 6th, 1981 he fooled Haarlem-goalie Edward Metgod with a brilliant lob. With Cruijff Ajax won two more national championships.
Cruijff started the 1973/74-campaign playing for Ajax but then moved to Barcelona. In Amsterdam, his teammates disappointed Cruijff by electing Piet Keizer to be captain. Besides, in Spain, he could sign a much better contract.
Barcelona welcomed him as 'El Salvador'. In his first year, Cruijff amazed the socios by leading Barcelona to their first national championship in 14 years. In Madrid, Barcelona humiliated Real by beating them 5-0.
After his official retirement in 1978, Cruijff couldn't resist playing again. Not only because of financial reasons but because he missed playing the game.
Johan Cruyff moved to Los Angeles to play for the Aztecs. In the North American Soccer League Cruijff and is fellow football stars Pelé and Franz Beckenbauer tried to bring soccer to the Americans.
After one year Johan Cruijff moved to the Washington Diplomats. At the end of the season, he was chosen American player of the year for the second time in a row.
Cruyff returned to Spain in March 1981 to play for Levante, the second club in the city of Valencia.
Levante, where Cruyff's role model Faas Wilkes played in the past, could not meet the financial agreements. Cruyff played exactly ten matches and then quit.
Driven by anger, Johan Cruijff did the unthinkable in 1983. He moved form Ajax to rivals Feyenoord. Supporters in Rotterdam were not too keen on Cruijff defending their colours, but their scepticism soon vanished.
Notwithstanding an 8-2 defeat in Amsterdam against Ajax, Feyenoord took the national title and the KNVB Cup. Thanks to an impressive Peter Houtman, a dynamic Ruud Gullit but above all an inspired Johan Cruyff.


On statins, experiencing muscle and joint pain? There's something you need to know. Although statin medication is warranted in many circumstances, this cholesterol lowering drug is commonly known to cause myalgia (muscle and joint pain). These side effects are caused by statins blocking an enzyme called HMG-CoA reductase (an enzyme which assists with cholesterol production). Not only does inhibiting this enzyme halt cholesterol production, it also blocks the production of coenzyme Q10. Coenzyme Q10 is crucial for energy production in the body and a depletion leads to muscle and joint pain. Simply supplementing with Coenzyme Q10 while on statins can reduce or relieve your muscle and joint pain.


text:
1 in 10 home owners could be at risk of ID crime by not redirecting mail
Royal Mail have conducted one of the largest studies of home movers in the UK which reveals people are putting themselves at risk of ID crime by not redirecting their mail when they move home.
Royal Mail commissioned Ipsos MORI to conduct the third report into home movers experiences and concerns when it comes to the property market.
The latest findings have been released as part of Citizen's Advice, Scam Awareness Month. The awareness campaign, now in its third year, aims to give people the knowledge they need to spot and combat fraud. Cifas revealed that there were 34,151 confirmed instances of identity fraud in the first quarter of 2015, a 27% increase from the same period of the previous year.
Royal Mail is encouraging people across the UK to redirect their mail when moving home in order to protect themselves against identity fraud. If people don't take out a Redirection Service when changing address, their mail is likely to land on their old doorstep, with no control over who opens it or uses the information or contents it contains. A Redirection Service is the best way to ensure that all personal details are taken with you when move home.
According to the research 68% say they are concerned about identity fraud with almost 1 in 3 (30%) going a step further and admitting they are extremely concerned.
No longer at this address
Reminders of previous owners linger longer than the new paint smell for home movers as a quarter (26%) of Redirection customers say they have received up to five items of mail for the former occupant during the first month in their new home. More than 1 in 10 (15%) found in excess of 20 items of mail sitting on their doorstep.
Of those that did get mail that wasn't addressed to them, worryingly more than half (52%) said they had received sensitive financial mail.
Not a priority
The arrival of mail for a former resident is not surprising as it seems that informing companies of a change of address is often left off the 'to do' list when moving homes. Pension providers (14%), DVLA (13%), mobile phone providers (11%), credit card companies (8%), banks and TV Licensing (both 7%) were most commonly forgotten.
Family and friends don't fare any better with one fifth (20%) forgetting to tell an old friend that they were moving, followed by the wider family including aunts, uncles and cousins (4%). Strikingly, 125 (1%) of people surveyed admitted that they had neglected to tell their parent, brother/sister or grandparent when changing address.
Top tips to fighting ID crime when moving home from Cifas
Don't throw out anything with your name, address or financial details without shredding it first.
Redirect your post for at least a year.
Once you've moved, check your statements carefully and report anything suspicious to the bank or financial service provider concerned.
If you're expecting a bank or credit card statement and it doesn't arrive, tell the issuing company straight away.
If you're concerned, check your personal credit file two to three months after you have moved house.
You can also find some additional tips to prevent ID crime from Action Fraud's recent "Not With My Name" campaign.
For further information please visit the Royal Mail website.
You can now also sign up for free to Action Fraud Alert to receive direct, verified, accurate information about scams and fraud in your area by email, recorded voice and text message.
Misleading missed delivery cards posted through letterboxes
Residents are being warned about 'something for you' cards arriving through letterboxes designed to look like they have come from Royal Mail.
Alert: Watch out for fraudsters harvesting signatures on your doorstep
The National Fraud Intelligence Bureau's (NFIB) Proactive Intelligence Team is warning people to beware of fraudsters that turn up on your doorstep and ask for your signature.
Alert: "Your package has been seized" Royal Mail scam emails
Fraudsters are sending out virus infected emails that claim a package has been seized by HM Revenue & Customs upon arrival into the United Kingdom.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


The cause is still under study but my guess is that the salt water caused the batteries to short-out. Lithium batteries have thermal overload protection to prevent runaway reactions. But it is doubtfull that protection systems are designed to protect if submerged in salt water. The lithium ion cells can breakdown to lithium in an uncontrolled reaction. When lithium is exposed to water, fire and explosion can occur.
While submerging in salt water is a rather rare occurrence for any auto, the possibility that these hybrid lithium ion batteries might encounter water under extreme conditions must be considered by the manufacturer. A safe system must be provided to prevent these fires and explosions.
The lithium battery were not envolved?
This entry was posted in Batteries, Electric Vehicles, Environment, fossil fuels, Green Jobs, Personal Automobiles. Bookmark the permalink.


Cost Effective Asbestos Garage Roof Removal in London?
If you are looking for asbestos garage roof removal and replacement then look no further Asbestos Garage Removal In London is something that most of us are already familiar with the hazardous nature of asbestos, while some of us still think that the danger of asbestos is limited to a specific thread or category of asbestos, but these assumptions are horribly wrong. We deliver asbestos garage roof removal and we will do it reliably unlike other cowboys out there.
So what is the replacement garage roof cost ?
It can vary anything from £500 to £2500 depending the size of the project.
What is the typical full asbestos garage removal cost in London?
A professional asbestos removal company in London depending on the size of their company and their experience can charge for removing a single London asbestos garage and a double garage from £795 or £1795, remember to add VAT which is 20%.
What is the cost of removing an asbestos garage roof in London ?
Will the asbestos garage once removed be disposed of correctly and will I get a receipt of proof?
On all our garage asbestos removal jobs .our company and team always take great responsibility to collect all asbestos professionally, bag the asbestos professionally and dispose of the asbestos according the City of London Asbestos Environmental and Waste Policy, We use only registered London waste disposal sites such as http://westlondonwaste.gov.uk/ You will also get a copy of the receipt of disposal of Asbestos.
Remember we asbestos removal london UK considers all types of asbestos are hazardous asbestos! Commonly usual to assume that blue asbestos is the dangerous stuff and white and darker aren't hazardous for you, they will all result in serious sickness and unpleasant and untimely death - no jokes!
Here in London, a lot of garages and garage roof were constructed using asbestos, these garages at a time, looked ecstatic, firm and fashionable, and that made it the desire of a lot of house owners who needed a stylish garage in their compound. This explains why asbestos garages are found in many houses here in London, but the discovery of the dangers of exposure to these materials prompted its urgent removal and replacement by garages built with other less harmful of health friendly materials.
how much to demolish a garage with asbestos?
whether it is the wall, floor tiles, ceiling, or roofing sheet, they are all equally dangerous. So that begs the question "what can I or should I do about my asbestos garage?". The common answer is to "get rid of it as soon as possible" but the appropriate answer should be "get rid of it properly and as soon as possible" because the disposal of asbestos is equally as important as its removal. Do not rush into tearing down your asbestos garage immediately, you can hire a fully licensed asbestos removal company here in London to help get rid of your asbestos garage. This is because they are all well-trained on how to and how not to handle asbestos for the safety of both the workers and the property owners.
1. You are wearing a protective google.
3. That you have ascertained the location on the closest approved asbestos dumping site here in London.
4. Ensure that you wet the garage structures which contain the asbestos before stripping.
5. Take extra caution not to break the asbestos while removing as breakage will result in emission of asbestos cement dust which as we all already know is highly dangerous and can lead to nasty heart and lung diseases when inhaled.
6. Get you polyethene bags and duct tape to seal them after filling with asbestos waste from your garage. And please do not overfill the bags to over them ripping off and emptying their hazardous content at the wrong place.
7. Cover adjacent surfaces from getting contaminated. Cover with 500-gauge polythene sheeting and fix with duct tape to non-asbestos surfaces.
The disposal once again is equally as important as the stripping off or removal of asbestos garages so take extra and extensive caution to promptly and properly dispose off your asbestos wastes in approved asbestos dumping fields closest to you here in London.


Home /Why do you claim that the Rambam makes teshuva a prerequisite for geulah?
You often write that the Rambam says moshiach will compel all Jews to do teshuva before the geulah can begin, and that therefore even if Zionism were to claim that a particular person is moshiach, they would not be permitted to establish their state and fight wars, since the teshuva stage is not yet accomplished.
the vodai Mashiach, that "he compels all of Israel to walk (either "walk"
suicide precisely because they represented the k'lal, and thus "God's power"
compelling literally ALL of the individual Jews among the Jewish people.
You spoke at length about moshiach's job being to force Israel including those who are religious to walk in G-d's attributes of vengeance and war against the wicked nations. Once the door is open to explain that Rambam as referring to teshuva on a matter of attitudes (rather than as teshuva in the simple sense of keeping the laws of the Torah) I could say the exact opposite explanation. Namely, that in this generation when the majority of Jews are Zionists, moshiach's job will be to force the frum Zionists to give up their attitude of warfare and vengeance and anger against the gentiles and to live in peace with the gentiles in exile. Once moshiach succeeds in that task, the stage will be set for him to proceed with the redemption, because the Jewish people will have left all initiatives of their own behind and will be looking only to Hashem for a solution to the exile. Moshiach (read: the geulah process initiated by moshiach) is one of the things that come only when we divert our minds from it (hesech hadaas).
Your view of moshiach, on the other hand, reminds me of the famous parable of the soup stone. A poor wayfarer came to a town where no one would give him a meal, so he played a clever trick: he announced in the town square that he was going to make soup out of a stone. Eager to witness this feat, the townspeople offered him a pot of water and a fire, and he boiled the water with a stone in it. Then he said it tasted good but needed some salt, and some carrots, and some parsley, and so on, until he had a delicious soup, and everyone thought he had performed a miracle. But in truth the stone played no role. Here too, you are saying that moshiach will encourage the Jews to practice vengeance and war and anger at the nations and to conquer Eretz Yisroel and build the Temple and so I ask you, what did moshiach do? What is this geulah of moshiach that we've been waiting for so long? To you, moshiach is just someone who comes and says, "Why should we wait for moshiach? Let's just do it ourselves!"


Lime and Coconut Cheesecake is going to require you to add a few extras into your shopping basket, that said it really is a lovely dessert suitable for vegetarians and vegans.
1. Break the biscuits to fine crumbs using a blender (or plastic bag and rolling pin).
2. In a saucepan place vegetable oil and 45g/1 1/2 oz of the creamed coconut. Heat gently, stirring continuously, until the coconut has melted.
3. Take off the heat and add the crushed ginger biscuits. Mix well and transfer to a lightly oiled 7-inch cake tin with a spring bottom. Press down firmly and leave to cool in a fridge.
4. Using the saucepan again, add the juice and pulp of the two limes and the rest of the creamed coconut. Heat gently until the coconut has melted.
5. Transfer to a blender and add the tofu, avocado and sugar. Whizz until well blended and smooth.
6. Remove the biscuit base from the fridge and pour the tofu mix into the tin. Decorate with coconut shavings and lime slices. Place in the fridge to set approx 3 hours.
Coconut and Lime Cheesecake healthy?
Coconut and lime cheesecake is a (very slightly) healthier option and is suitable for vegetarians and Vegans. For more great recipes visit The Vegan Society.
Custard Creams are a bit of a naughty treat, and who doesn't like custard?! Biscuit 9 oz (250g) vegan margarine 4 oz (125g) icing sugar 1 tbsp..
Irish soda bread is a great gluten free alternative. INGREDIENTS 1 cup brown rice flour ⅓ cup tapioca flour ⅓ cup potato starch 1 teaspoo..


This Roach/Baneling all-in takes advantage of greedy Terran play by hitting a Terran before his midgame infrastructure can be set up with a huge swell of Roaches and Banelings.
Attack your opponent when your Banelings morph (@8:50ish) with around 10 Roaches, 10 Banelings, and 40 Zerglings. Constantly reinforce with Zerglings and Banelings.
First scout with your initial Zerglings. Use them to take the Xel'Naga Watchtowers or send them outside the front of Terran's base depending on the map. If you see Terran move out with some kind of very early force, make a few Speedlings to stay safe. However, do NOT overproduce early game units because this will slow down your push.
Your next scout will be with an Overlord as soon as you start your Roach Warren (around 6:30). This is merely to scout whether your opponent is opening with Hellbats. If he is, then do not produce more than 1 wave of Banelings – favor Roaches to defend your Drones at home as you attack the front with the same push.
The next scout will be with your initial Roach Warren attack. Try to force a Widow Mine to detonate with a Speedling or two before you commit to the attack. Also, with your all-in, you will see what units your opponent has because all of them must be at the front in order to defend.
Because this build is an all-in, there is no true transition to this build. However, once you destroy at least one base of SCVs, you can transition out of the attack and get economically ahead. Drone up your 3rd base and continue into a macro game, instead of pushing up the main ramp in a potentially bad engagement.
If you do choose to drone up, start 2 Evolution Chambers and a Lair instantly, along with your 3rd and 4th Extractors. You'll likely want +1 Melee over +1 Ranged, though you have the option to transition into any composition involving any combination of Zerglings/Banelings/Roaches that you are most comfortable with.
The obvious transition would be to hit a follow-up push on 3 bases with +1 Melee and +1 Carapace, with both Roach and Baneling Speed. This should hit around 13:30, only 3:30 later than a straight 3base Lair tech Roach/Baneling bust.
Make a bunch of Overlords BEFORE you need to make all of your units. Making Overlords during a fight is a sure way to get supply blocked.
Use Banelings to bust a wall at the natural. Then, all high priority Baneling targets are: packs of Marines/SCVs, researching Tech labs, and the central structure on the top of the ramp.
Do NOT over commit your Roaches if you are waiting on a second wave of Banelings to morph. It is completely fine to pull back whilst you wait for another round of Banelings. Zerglings and Banelings can be replaced; your Roaches cannot.
Do NOT over commit up your opponent's main ramp unless you are absolutely sure that you can push through and win the game with the attack. Favor droning up your 3rd base and transitioning into a macro game over potentially taking a bad engagement up the main ramp.
This build is incredibly strong against any player going for a Tank-less 3 Command Center build (the current metagame). Also, because you take your third base before moving out, it is easy to stop Zergling/Baneling production and saturate your third base in order to transition into a standard 3 base Zerg vs 2 base Terran macro game. Also, as a Zerg player, the engagement itself is quite easy to micro.
However, if you cannot do damage with the Roach/Bane attack, then you will be economically behind the Terran opponent. Also, because it is an all-in, this build is quite difficult to transition out of.
This will work the best on maps with no ramp into the natural, though even on small maps that do have this ramp, this build is strong.


Melanie Severin is a Canadian designer/illustrator and mother of three.
She has been designing stationery and cards since 2005 and her work is well known amongst her fellow designers and the stationery world.
Melanie describes her style as whimsical yet elegant, and aspires to create products that are not only beautiful to look at, but which evoke emotion or thought.
She is inspired by the beauty in our surroundings, including the natural world, urban influences, and travel.
She loves a good cup of coffee and spends a great deal of time researching current and upcoming trends in order to bring you fresh, contemporary products while maintaining a classic, timeless appeal.


Simple: every team in a group plays each other twice, with the top two in each section qualifying automatically for the finals. That's 20 of the 24 finals places taken care of, with a further four filled via the play-offs.
How do the play-offs fit in?
Each separate League (A, B, C and D) in the UEFA Nations League has been allocated one UEFA EURO 2020 place. Four sides from each League will contest single-leg semi-finals and a one-off final (entirely specific to the EURO) in March 2020. The winner of each of these four one-off finals gets a ticket to UEFA EURO 2020.
In theory, the play-offs are contested by the four winners of the quartet of groups that form each of the four Leagues. However, if a UEFA Nations League group winner has already qualified via the European Qualifiers, their spot goes to the next best-ranked team in their League.
If a League does not have four teams to compete (say, for example, ten of the 12 League A teams qualify automatically), the remaining slots are allocated to sides from another League in accordance with the overall rankings. This is how the play-offs stand at the moment.
The teams were split into seven pots: the UEFA Nations League pot, consisting of the four teams set to compete in next year's Finals, as well as Pots 1 to 6. The four countries in the UEFA Nations League pot – Switzerland, Portugal, Netherlands and England – were drawn into the first position in Groups A to D to ensure they each have two dates free for the Finals in June.
The pots were determined by the overall UEFA Nations League rankings issued on 21 November.
The six teams in Pot 1 were drawn into the first position in Groups E to J. The ten teams in Pot 2 were drawn into second positions in the ten groups, with the draw continuing in similar style for Pots 3, 4 and 5 to fill positions 3, 4 and 5 respectively. The teams in Pot 6 were then drawn into the sixth position in the six-team Groups F to J.
There were various other restrictions regarding host nations, prohibited team clashes, winter venues and excessive travel implemented around the draw.


Last week was an amazing week at Dell EMC World where I co-hosted several upcoming podcasts called Luminaries - Talking to the Brightest Mind in Tech, a Dell Podcast that I've been hired to assist with.
I took advantage of the time to meet many of the amazing marketing staff at Dell Technologies and its global family of brands - Dell, DellEMC, VMware, RSA, Pivotal, SecureWorks, and Virtusstream. The company spans technology - from consumer hardware, business hardware, development, security, virtualization, and cloud products.
Amy is a 14 year veteran of the company, bringing her Learning and Development degree to the company, then moving from Learning and Development, to social media monitoring, now to employee advocacy. Amy is on a team of 6 driving employee advocacy with 140,000 employees globally under the Dell umbrella.
Dell's work with employees is unique. They built a social media command center before many other companies and were way ahead of the curve. Amy reveals how her team educated executives on the importance of the impact of social media, why they utilize social data rather than user forums, how they wrote a simple 5-point social media policy, and how they help their employees build their own brand in the effort to drive corporate branding.
This is an incredible interview with tons of actionable data and insight. I'm so thankful for being introduced to Amy at the recommendation of Mark Schaefer.


text:
EUR-Lex - 61991TJ0059 - EN
Document 61991TJ0059
Follow this document
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 10 July 1992. # Franz Eppe v Commission of the European Communities. # Officials - Transfer - Redeployment exercise - Interests of the service. # Joined cases T-59/91 and T-79/91.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 10 July 1992.
Franz Eppe v Commission of the European Communities.
Officials - Transfer - Redeployment exercise - Interests of the service.
Joined cases T-59/91 and T-79/91.
European Court Reports 1992 II-02061
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:T:1992:87
Multilingual display
Language 1 Spanish (es) Danish (da) German (de) Greek (el) English (en) French (fr) Italian (it) Dutch (nl) Portuguese (pt)
Language 2 Please choose Spanish (es) Danish (da) German (de) Greek (el) English (en) French (fr) Italian (it) Dutch (nl) Portuguese (pt)
Avis juridique important
61991A0059
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 10 July 1992. - Franz Eppe v Commission of the European Communities. - Officials - Transfer - Redeployment exercise - Interests of the service. - Joined cases T-59/91 and T-79/91.
European Court reports 1992 Page II-02061
Decision on costs
Operative part
1. Officials ° Assignment ° Transfer ° Principle of equivalence of posts ° Scope
(Staff Regulations, Art. 7(1))
2. Officials ° Assignment ° Transfer ° Administration' s duty to have regard to the interests of officials ° Reconciliation with the interests of the service
3. Officials ° Recruitment ° Vacancy ° Filling of post by promotion or transfer ° Comparative examination of the merits of the candidates ° Absence of most recent staff report
1. Under Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations, every official must be assigned by the appointing authority, by appointment or transfer, to a post in his category which corresponds to his grade.
The principle of equivalence of grade and post calls, in the event of a change in an official' s duties, not for a comparison between his present and previous duties but for a comparison between his present duties and the grade which he occupies within the scale of posts.
Accordingly, Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations does not preclude a transfer decision involving the attribution of new duties which, although different from those previously carried out by the official and seen by him as constituting a diminution of his duties and powers, are nevertheless in conformity with the post corresponding to his grade.
2. A change in an official' s assignment, which must be based primarily on the interests of the service, does not constitute a breach of the duty to have regard to the interests of officials where the administration remains within proper bounds in its use of its wide discretion in evaluating the interests of the service on the one hand and those of the official concerned on the other.
3. The absence of the latest staff report from the file of an official who has applied for a vacant post cannot vitiate the decision rejecting his candidature if, when the comparative examination of merits was carried out, the administration had at its disposal sufficient information on which it could reasonably base its decision.
In Joined Cases T-59/91 and T-79/91,
Franz Eppe, an official of the Commission of the European Communities, represented by G. Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of A. Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume,
Commission of the European Communities, represented by G. Valsesia, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, assisted by D. Waelbroeck, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of R. Hayder, of the Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,
APPLICATION for the annulment of the Commission decision of 17 October 1990, in so far as it changes the organization chart of DG VI and at the same time assigns the applicant, by compulsory transfer, to the new post of EAGGF Adviser, and for the annulment of the Commission decision to publish, on 20 December 1990, Vacancy Notice No COM/164/90 for the post of Head of Unit VI.BI.4 and of the decisions rejecting the applicant' s candidature for that post and appointing another candidate,
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, H. Kirschner and D. Barrington, Judges,
Registrar: P. van Ypersele de Strihou, Legal Secretary,
having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 4 June 1992
1 The applicant was from 1988 Head of Unit VI.BI.4 (Matters common to several products) in the Commission' s Directorate General for Agriculture ("DG VI"), in Grade A 4.
2 In 1990 the applicant expressed dissatisfaction about his situation and applied on several occasions for other posts as Head of Unit or Adviser for which Vacancy Notices were published for appointments at Grades A 5, A 4 and A 3, and stated that if his candidature were considered he would like the possibility of his being promoted to Grade A 3 to be examined.
3 On 9 January 1990 he had a meeting with his Director General at which he expressed his general dissatisfaction in the unit of which he was in charge and asked to be assigned to other duties more appropriate to his experience and knowledge.
4 On 12 February 1990, the applicant confirmed the views put forward at that meeting by a memorandum to his Director General in which he explained the difficulties to which his unit was subject. He concluded that:
"After due reflection, and having regard to all the foregoing circumstances, I have arrived at the conclusion that it is impossible for me to discharge the responsibilities involved in the post of Head of Unit VI.BI.4. I therefore ask you to consider, in the context of the redeployment at present under way, the possibility of entrusting similar responsibilities to me in another department in your directorate in which I could better turn to account the experience and knowledge that I have acquired in more than 20 years in DG VI (Markets, structures, conditions of competition), having now held the Grade A 4 for more than 10 of those years."
5 Following that memorandum, the applicant had a meeting with his Director General on 14 March 1990 during which he stated that, in principle, he was agreeable to being transferred to a post of Adviser that might be created and at the same time expressed his awareness of the fact that his Director General could give him no commitment regarding the level (Grade A 4 or A 3) at which that post ° if created ° would in fact be filled.
6 Three months later, on 21 June 1990, the applicant sent to his Director General, through official channels, a memorandum indicating that he withdrew his agreement in principle to a "transfer to the EAGGF" unless it entailed his "promotion to Grade A 3". He added that non-promotion might be "construed as meaning, in substance, that his superiors were not satisfied with the management capabilities displayed by him in Unit VI.BI.4, having desired the change for that reason". He maintained that the transfer of another Head of Unit in DG VI to a post of Adviser, which occurred in the same period, had been generally seen as a disciplinary measure, as indicated by a number of articles in the press. Because at that time the applicant had not been given his staff report for the period 1987-1989 ° he received it only after a considerable delay ° he considered that he was not in a position to disprove the rumours that there was a parallel between his transfer and that of the other Head of Unit. In his view, the best way of dispelling those rumours would be to promote him to Grade A 3.
7 In a memorandum of 25 June 1990 to the Deputy Directors General, Directors and Heads of Unit, the Director General of DG VI set out the reasons for, and the objectives of, a reorganization of the Directorate General, together with details of how it was to be carried out. Paragraph 4 of Annex I to that memorandum proposed the creation of a post of "Adviser" to Directorate VI.G (EAGGF), for which the following reasons were given:
"The interpretation and the consistent application of the ever more complex and numerous regulations of which account must be taken in the work of the five units responsible for budgetary, financial and monetary matters linked with the financing of common organizations of the markets and action for rural development call for a very substantial qualitative and quantitative effort. Steps must be taken to ensure that that task can be entrusted to an Adviser reporting directly to the Director in charge of Directorate VI.G".
8 On 6 August 1990, the applicant protested to his Director General about the proposal submitted by the latter in July to the Director General for Personnel and Administration for changes to be made to the organization chart of DG VI, in so far as that proposal involved a change of assignemnt for the applicant whereby in the future he would be an Adviser in Directorate VI.G. He referred to the doubts as to his integrity and honour to which such a transfer might give rise. He added that if the transfer took place without consultation of the Advisory Committee on Appointments, any possibility of his being promoted to Grade A 3 would automatically be excluded.
9 On 18 September 1990, the applicant asked the Secretary General of the Commission not to make any immediate change to the organization chart as far as he was concerned, so as to avoid any comparison with the transfer of another Head of Unit "concerning the disciplinary nature of which the public was in no doubt".
10 On 15 October 1990 the Secretary General replied as follows:
"I entirely understand the importance of differentiating between the post of Adviser to the EAGGF and the transfer of Head of Unit ... to a post of Adviser. I have suggested to Mr Legras that he should differentiate between the two cases".
11 On 17 October 1990 the Commission approved the new organization chart of DG VI.
12 By memorandum of 6 November 1990, the Director General of DG VI confirmed to the applicant that he had been appointed Adviser to DG VI.G, EAGGF, with effect from 1 December 1990 at the latest. The memorandum stated, in accordance with the wish expressed earlier by the Secretary General, that that appointment "forms an integral part of the redeployment exercise referred to in the memorandum ... of 25 June 1990, the implementation of which implies no judgment concerning the manner in which you discharged the duties of Head of Unit VI.BI.4. On the contrary, it is simply a response to the legitimate concern to ensure that an experienced qualified lawyer undertakes a first analysis and legal coordination of all the very numerous measures governing the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund".
13 On 9 November 1990, the Director General for Personnel and Administration also confirmed to the applicant that, as part of the changes to the organization chart of DG VI, the Commission had decided on 17 October 1990 to create a post of Adviser to the Director of DG VI.G.EAGGF and to assign him to that post with effect from 1 November 1990.
14 On the same day, the applicant asked his Director General to suspend the re-assignment because it placed him in an embarrassing situation in so far as some people thought that he had been promoted to Grade A 3 whilst others, particularly those outside the institution, might believe that it was a disciplinary measure. He added that only a promotion to Grade A 3 would dispel any doubts.
15 On 27 November 1990, the Director General of DG VI replied to the applicant that there was "absolutely no basis" for such preoccupations and that his reassignment had taken place at his own request.
16 In the meantime the applicant had, on 17 November 1990, submitted a complaint against the Commission decision of 17 October 1990. In it the applicant claimed in particular that the Commission had not observed, with respect to him, the principle, referred to in the memorandum from the Director General of 25 June 1990 concerning the redeployment procedure, that officials would be asked to volunteer.
17 On 21 May 1991, hence after the expiry of the period of four months provided for in Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities but within the period for bringing an action prescribed in Article 91(3) of the Staff Regulations, the Commission rejected the applicant' s complaint, stating in particular that his appointment had not been decided on in breach of the procedure envisaged in the memorandum of 25 June 1990 "in view of the fact that that procedure was intended only for the mobility of staff not holding the rank of Head of Unit".
18 The applicant then brought an action on 5 August 1991, which was registered as Case T-59/91.
19 Taking the view that he had been transferred against his will and seeking to "uphold his honour", on 14 January 1991 the applicant applied for his former post of Head of Unit VI.BI.4, which was the subject of Vacancy Notice No COM/164/90, published on 20 December 1990. Seven other applications were made for that post.
20 By memorandum of 14 February 1991, the secretary of the Advisory Committee on Appointments informed the applicant that "at its meeting on 7 February 1991, the Advisory Committee on Appointments considered the level at which the post should be filled and the qualifications that the person assigned to it should have; it then examined all the applications and heard the views of the Director General for Agriculture." On completion of its work, it concluded:
"that the post of Head of Unit DG VI.BI.4 (Quality policy and other matters concerning several products) should be filled at Grade A 5/4;
after examination of the applications, that your application should not be taken into consideration on the present occasion".
21 On 25 February 1991, the applicant lodged a further complaint concerning: first, the Commission' s decision to publish Vacancy Notice No Com/164/90; secondly, the appointment of Mr V. to that post; and, thirdly, the rejection of his candidature for that post.
22 By decision of 7 March 1991, Mr V. was appointed to the post of Head of Unit VI.BI.4.
23 On 11 March 1991, the appointing authority informed the applicant that his candidature for that post had been unsuccessful.
24 On 15 April 1991, the applicant sent a letter to his Director General in which he again objected to the procedure applied to him and criticized the fact that the tasks or activities for which he would be responsible had not been defined. A copy of that letter was submitted by the applicant to the Inter-services Group meeting of 5 June 1991 in order to be included in the file on his last complaint.
25 On 9 August 1991, hence after expiry of the period of four months provided for in Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities but within the period for bringing an action prescribed in Article 91(3) of the Staff Regulations, the Commission rejected the applicant' s second complaint.
26 In those circumstances, the applicant brought a second action on 7 November 1991, which was registered as Case T-79/91.
27 By order of 15 May 1992, the President of the Fifth Chamber joined Cases T-59/91 and T-79/91 for the purposes of the oral procedure and judgment.
28 Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur, the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) decided to open the oral procedure without any preparatory inquiry.
29 The hearing took place on 4 June 1992. The representatives of the parties presented oral argument and answered the questions put to them by the Court.
30 In his first action (Case T-59/91), the applicant claims that the Court should:
° declare the present action admissible and well founded;
° consequently, annul the Commission' s decision of 17 October 1990 in so far as it changes the organization chart of DG VI and at the same time assigns the applicant, by compulsory transfer, to the new post of EAGGF Adviser, as notified to the applicant by letters of 6 and 9 November 1990;
° order the defendant to pay the costs in their entirety.
In his second action (Case T-79/91), the applicant claims that the Court should:
° consequently, annul the Commission decision to publish, on 20 December 1990, Vacancy Notice No COM/164/90 for the post of Head of Unit VI.BI.4;
° annul the decision of 7 March 1991 appointing Mr F. V. to that post;
° annul the rejection of the applicant' s candidature for that post;
° order the defendant to pay the costs.
The Commission contends that in both cases the Court should:
° dismiss the application as unfounded;
° order the applicant to bear his own costs.
31 In support of his first action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law. The first alleges non-compliance with the redeployment procedure, as defined by the memorandum from the Director General of 25 June 1990, in that, in particular, the Commission infringed the principle of voluntary transfer. The second alleges infringement of Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations, in that the contested transfer decision was not adopted solely in the interests of the service and did not observe the equivalence of posts. The third alleges a misuse of powers, in that the Commission' s reference to the redeployment exercise to explain its decision conceals other reasons. The fourth alleges infringement of the duty to have regard to the interests of officials, in that the Commission wholly failed to take account of the personal interests of the applicant. The fifth alleges breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, in that the Commission did not fulfil its implied commitment that it would not consider the applicant' s application for the post of EAGGF Adviser if the transfer were not accompanied by a promotion to Grade A 3. The sixth alleges breach of the principle of non-discrimination, in that another newly created executive post was, by contrast with that of the applicant, filled on a voluntary basis. The last alleges infringement of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, in that the contested decision does not contain a sufficient or correct statement of reasons.
32 In support of his second action, the applicant refers to the consequences of the illegality of his transfer as alleged in his first action and claims that, first, a manifest error of assessment was made concerning the rejection of his application for his old post and, secondly, Article 25(2) of the Staff Regulations was infringed as regards the statement of the reasons on which that rejection was based.
The first action
Non-compliance with the redeployment proccedure
33 The applicant states that the letter of 6 November 1990 informing him of his transfer stated: "the appointment to the abovementioned post forms an integral part of the redeployment exercise referred to in my memorandum VI/00666 of 25 June 1990". Under the procedure defined by that memorandum, the contested decision could be accounted for only by the fact that, since the first ° voluntary ° stage of the redeployment procedure had been unsuccessful, the Director General was forced to resort to compulsory transfer of the applicant, as provided for in paragraph III(5) of his memorandum of 25 June 1990. That paragraph provides that, in the event of its not being possible to accept any candidature, the Director General would ° solely in the interests of the service ° have to propose the reassignment of an official to be designated by him, at the appropriate time, after hearing the views of the "Selection Group".
34 According to the applicant, it is clear from the facts of the case that the redeployment procedure was not observed, or even initiated, with respect to him, since he was transferred compulsorily and against his will.
35 The applicant maintains that there is no basis for the Commission' s claim, in its reply to his complaint, that the redeployment procedure described in paragraph III of the memorandum of 25 June 1990 was not applicable to him by virtue of his being a Head of Unit. He draws attention to the fact that Annex I to that memorandum, dealing with the changes to the organization chart, expressly refers to the creation of a post of "Adviser" to DG VI.G, EAGGF, to which his superiors intended assigning him.
36 He concedes that, in relation to the redeployment procedure, two types of transfers were carried out (paragraph II.3 of the memorandum concerned): (a) "those which are the result of changes to be made to the organization chart and the transfer of fields of competence", those changes being set out in Annex I to the memorandum, paragraph 4 of which provides for the creation of a post of Adviser in Directorate VI.G, EAGGF; and (b) "those relating to redeployment properly so called", which are set out in Annex II to the same memorandum. But he considers that paragraph III of the memorandum, entitled "The procedure envisaged for transfers", covers all transfers where no specific details are given. He therefore considers that that procedure should thus have been followed, even though his assignment to the post of Adviser to Directorate VI.G, EAGGF, took place following the changes made to the organization chart. In his view, the Commission has no reason to say that that procedure was applicable only to "redeployment properly so called", namely the second category of transfers.
37 In reply, the Commission states that the decentralized powers of the appointing authority are exercised independently by the Director General solely for the internal transfer of officials other than Heads of Unit. For the latter, the new assignment is conditional upon approval by three members of the Commission, namely the member responsible for the sector concerned, the member responsible for personnel and administration and the President of the Commission. The Director General thus has no power to determine on his own the procedure to be followed in reassigning Heads of Unit. The statement that the procedure provided for in paragraph III of the memorandum of 25 June 1990 in fact relates only to "redeployment properly so called" (Annex II to the memorandum) is thus wholly logical since no procedure for the reassignment of Heads of Unit can be adopted by the Director General alone.
38 This Court finds that there can be no question in the present case of breach of the redeployment procedure, as defined in the memorandum from the Director General for Agriculture of 25 June 1990, with particular regard to the emphasis placed on voluntary transfer, since that procedure was not in any event applicable to the applicant. That procedure was in fact laid down by the Director General of DG VI. However, for Heads of Unit, like the applicant, the powers of the appointing authority were not delegated to the Director General but to the relevant member of the Commission, the member responsible for personnel and administration and the President of the Commission, as is apparent from the notice published in Staff Courier No 597 concerning decentralization of the exercise of certain powers relating to personnel management (appointing authority), the content of which is not contested by the parties, as they stated at the hearing. Since the Director General cannot lay down a procedure limiting the discretionary powers of the three members of the Commission exercising the powers of the appointing authority vis-à-vis the applicant, the redeployment procedure cannot be applied to the applicant.
39 Consequently, the contested decision cannot constitute a breach of the redeployment procedure.
40 The applicant stated at the hearing that his action was based, as regards the procedure, solely on the failure to observe the redeployment procedure and that he did not intend alleging infringement of any other procedure, such as that provided for in Article 29 of the Staff Regulations. Therefore, the present plea in law must be dismissed.
Infringement of Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations
41 The applicant maintains that the contested decision is based on Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations and should therefore have been taken solely in the interests of the service and in compliance with the principle of equivalence between grade and post.
42 He sets out, with respect to his new post, the reasons invoked by the Commission to justify the creation of the function of Adviser in Directorate VI.G. In a spirit of good will, the applicant insisted, as soon as he arrived in Directorate VI.G, on the need for his duties to be defined. Despite his formal request to that effect in January 1991, the duties and activities required of him were determined only by memoranda of 17 May and 12 June 1991, over six months after his reassignment.
43 The applicant infers that the post of Adviser to the EAGGF certainly cannot be regarded as equivalent to his previous post as Head of Unit VI.BI.4, the importance of which is clear from the tasks entrusted to that unit. Accordingly, the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations allowing a compulsory transfer were not fulfilled in the present case. According to the applicant, the redeployment measure undermines his rights under the Staff Regulations not only because it reduces his responsibilities but also because his remaining responsibilities, in view of their nature, importance and scope, fall far short of those corresponding to his grade and his post. That decision should therefore be annulled (Case 263/81 List v Commission [1983] ECR 103).
44 The Commission states in reply that "the appraisal of an official' s ability to undertake a particular duty falls within the competence of the administration" (order in Case 23/74 Kuester v Parliament [1974] ECR 331) and also that the doubts expressed by the applicant concerning the equivalence of his new duties with those that he exercised before appear to be without foundation.
45 It states that, for a measure to undermine the right of all officials under Articles 5 and 7 of the Staff Regulations to have duties assigned to them which, in their entirety, are consonant with the post corresponding to their grade, it is not sufficient for it to entail a change in or even any diminution of their duties; the new duties must, in their entirety, fall far short, as regards their nature, importance and scope, of those corresponding to his grade and post.
46 The Commission emphasizes that, in the present case, as indicated by the information given by the Director General and the internal instructions issued by his Director, the new duties entrusted to the applicant appear to be appropriate to his grade, whatever the importance of the Unit VI.BI.4 which the applicant managed previously. The applicant has not therefore, in its opinion, proved any error of appraisal on the part of the institution.
47 It concludes that the appointment of the applicant as an Adviser derives from a simple reassignment measure forming part of a reorganization of its departments decided upon by the administration in the exercise of its discretionary power (Case 176/82 Nebe v Commission [1983] ECR 2475 and Case 198/87 Kerzman v Court of Auditors [1989] ECR 2085).
48 This Court observes that Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations provides that every official must be assigned by the appointing authority, by appointment or transfer, solely in the interests of the service and without regard to nationality, to a post in his category which corresponds to his grade (see in particular Case 176/82 Nebe, paragraph 17).
49 In the present case, the applicant maintains in substance that the new duties entrusted to him following his transfer are not in conformity with the post corresponding to the grade that he occupies within the hierarchy and that, for that reason alone, his transfer is not in the interests of the service. In that regard, it should be borne in mind that the principle of equivalence of grade and post calls, in the event of a change in an official' s duties, not for a comparison between his present and previous duties but for a comparison between his present duties and the grade which he occupies within the scale of posts (Case 19/87 Hecq v Commission [1988] ECR 1681, paragraph 7). In the present case, the new duties assigned to the applicant correspond perfectly to his grade, as is apparent in particular from the explanation given for the creation of that post in the organization chart set out in the memorandum of 25 June 1990 from the Director General of DG VI (see paragraph 7 above).
50 Moreover, whilst it might be regrettable that the applicant had to wait several months before receiving more detailed information regarding the specific scope of his new duties, it must nevertheless be observed that the very nature of the duties assigned to the applicant ° the function of Adviser to the Director responsible for legal coordination of the work of several units ° makes it difficult for them to be very precisely defined in advance and implies that the person concerned should determine the outlines of those duties on the basis of his experience in his new function and of the requirements of the service.
51 It follows that the applicant' s new duties, although different from those which he discharged earlier, are in conformity with the post corresponding to his grade. It must therefore be concluded that the contested decision was not adopted in breach of Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations.
52 Consequently, this plea in law cannot be upheld.
The existence of a misuse of powers
53 The applicant does not contest the usefulness of a properly conducted policy of staff mobility. However, he submits that in the present case that policy was applied for a purpose alien to the general interest and in a manner remote from both the spirit and letter and from the purpose of the redeployment exercise.
54 He claims that the Commission cannot base its decision on his alleged request to be transferred since, in due time, he withdrew his agreement to the possibility of a transfer for specific and serious reasons that were outside his control, namely the existence of numerous rumours as to the grounds on which the transfer was envisaged. The transfer was in fact wrongly associated with that of another Head of Unit, whose move to a post of Adviser had without any doubt been of a disciplinary nature, as evidenced by various articles in the press.
55 The applicant adds that the reason for his request was the shortage of qualified staff in his unit resulting from the transfer of the best customs expert from that unit to another. However, that shortage of qualified staff had been remedied in 1990 so that the unit was able to deal in due time with the tasks for which it was responsible, to the entire satisfaction of his superiors. The applicant emphasizes that that unexpected change had largely come about through his personal efforts. It was also for those reasons that he had withdrawn his request for a transfer.
56 The Commission states in reply that the applicant has not put forward any objective, relevant or consistent factual considerations to show that the contested decision was adopted for the purpose of achieving ends other than those stated (Case C-248/89 Cargill v Commission [1991] ECR I-2987) and that, far from having used its powers for a purpose other than that for which they were conferred, the appointing authority decided upon the applicant' s new assignment solely in the interests of the service and in connection with the reorganization of its departments, without exceeding the wide margin of discretion available to the institutions in such matters.
57 This Court observes that it has been consistently held that, provided that a decision has not been judged to be contrary to the interests of the service, there can be no question of any misuse of power (judgment in Nebe, paragraph 25).
58 It must also be pointed out that the applicant has not produced any evidence to show that the contested decision was taken for purposes other than those invoked in support of it.
59 This plea in law must therefore be rejected.
Breach of the duty to have regard to the interests of officials
60 The applicant claims that by virtue of the duty to have regard to the interests of officials, the administration must, in particular, when giving a decision concerning an official' s situation, take account of all matters capable of affecting its decision and, in so doing, it must take account not only of the interests of the service but also of those of the official concerned (Joined Cases C-116 and 149/88 Hecq v Commission [1990] ECR I-599, paragraph 15).
61 He maintains that in the present case the administration took no account of his personal interests since those interests were seriously injured by the contested measure, which was adopted in disregard of the reservations that he had put forward. The Commission failed to draw any distinction between the various preoccupations of the applicant and merely interpreted his initial request for a transfer as a desire to obtain a transfer as soon as possible, whereas, although he informed his superiors of the problems affecting his unit, he did so out of concern to ensure the proper execution of the tasks entrusted to him in Unit VI.BI.4. The applicant repeats that a transfer had, at one time, seemed to him to provide a possible solution to the problems of his unit but that about six months later, despite his initial pessimism, which was shared by his superiors, he had himself succeeded in resolving most of those problems.
62 The applicant adds that it was following events beyond his control that he found it necessary to call on his superiors to have regard to his welfare. Those events had placed him in a position in which a transfer could not have failed to affect his reputation and his honour and, consequentially, his future career development. Moreover, the letter from his Director General of 6 November 1990, which refers to the non-disciplinary nature of the measure and the true appraisal by the Commission of his very many qualities, in no way restored his good reputation, particularly in the administrative and professional circles outside the Commission.
63 The Commission states in reply that the Court of Justice has consistently held that the requirements of the duty to have regard to the interests of officials cannot prevent the appointing authority from adopting the measures it believes necessary in the interests of the service (Case 111/86 Delauche v Commission [1987] ECR 5345). Moreover "in evaluating the interests of the service and of the [employees] concerned, the appointing authority has a wide discretion and the review ... must be confined to the question whether the appointing authority remained within the bounds of that discretion and did not use it in a manifestly wrong way" (judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-20/89 Moritz v Commission [1990] ECR II-769).
64 In the present case, according to the Commission, the attention drawn by the appointing authority to the applicant' s situation and the many assurances given to him throughout the assignment procedure show that the appointing authority did not fail in its duty to have regard to his interests. All the matters liable to affect its decision, including the reservations expressed by the applicant, were duly considered. In the Commission' s view, the letter from the Director General to the applicant of 6 November 1990 sufficiently indicated the non-disciplinary nature of the measure and the Commission' s true appraisal of the applicant' s very numerous qualities which justified his being assigned to his new duties of Adviser, for which all those qualities are needed.
65 The Commission concludes that if the applicant' s argument were taken to its conclusion the administration would have had no choice but to decline to assign him to his new duties or to promote him to the next higher grade, which would limit the institutions' freedom regarding internal organization in a manner that was hardly acceptable.
66 This Court observes that it has been consistently held that the administration' s duty to have regard to the interests of officials reflects a balance between reciprocal rights and obligations created by the Staff Regulations for relations between the public authority and public service employees and that the requirements of the duty to have regard to the interests of officials cannot prevent the appointing authority from adopting the measures it believes necessary in the interests of the service (Case 111/86 Delauche, cited above) since "the filling of each post must be based primarily on the interests of the service" (Case T-20/89 Moritz, cited above).
67 In the present case, the Commission satisfied the requirements imposed on it by the duty to have regard to the interests of officials by clearly indicating to the applicant, by the letter from the Secretary General of 15 October 1990 and the letter of 6 November 1990 from the Director General, that the decision concerning him involved no judgment as to the manner in which he had discharged the duties of Head of Unit VI.BI.4 and that, on the contrary, it was simply a response to the legitimate concern to ensure that an experienced qualified lawyer undertook a first analysis and legal coordination of all the very numerous measures governing the EAGGF. By so doing, the Commission provided the applicant with a document enabling him to counteract, as far as possible, any rumours about him. Thus, the Commission' s use of its wide discretion in evaluating the interests of the service on the one hand and those of the applicant on the other remained within proper bounds.
Breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
69 The applicant maintains that the Commission did not fulfil its implied commitment that it would not treat him as a candidate for the post of EAGGF Adviser unless he was promoted to Grade A 3 and thus infringed the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. The lack of response to the memoranda he sent to his superiors explaining his reasons for withdrawing his agreement in principle to be transferred entitled him to expect that the transfer would not take place as part of the redeployment exercise unless it was decided on by the Director General after the redeployment procedure had been duly completed and therefore in observance, inter alia, of the principle of voluntary transfer.
70 He adds that the annex to the memorandum of 25 June 1990, in so far as it gives no name, itself reinforced his legitimate expectation that his transfer would be contemplated only if the redeployment procedure was duly observed or the principle of voluntary transfer was applied.
71 Finally, the applicant states that, in view of his past career, he was entitled to expect that he would be promoted to Grade A 3 in the near future. However, as matters now stand, that hope has been severely curtailed.
72 In reply, the Commission states that there could be no question of any breach of a commitment by the administration and that the applicant could not therefore rely on any specific assurances from the administration. Moreover, it finds it difficult to see why the applicant' s reassignment should affect his career prospects. A specific procedure for "promotion" to Grade A 3 is laid down for officials who, like the applicant, hold an intermediate executive position.
73 The Commission concludes the that real reason for the action brought by the applicant seems to be to secure access to Grade A 3.
74 This Court finds that there is no indication whatsoever in the documents before it of any implied commitment by the Commission not to consider him as a candidate for the post of EAGGF Adviser unless he was promoted to Grade A 3 or to apply the redeployment procedure, without being obliged to do so, in so far as the latter gives priority to voluntary transfer. Moreover, the applicant cannot infer from the silence of the administration any decision on its part not to transfer him to the post of EAGGF Adviser since the Staff Regulations, in particular Article 90(3) thereof, are based on the principle that a lack of response on the part of the administration implies an adverse decision. The Commission' s silence cannot therefore be indicative of consent on the part of the administration. It must also be observed that the letter from the Secretary General of 15 October 1990 in reply to the applicant' s letter of 18 September 1990 expressly shows that the Commission gave not the slightest commitment in that regard, since it states: "I entirely understand the importance of a differentiation between the post of Adviser to the EAGGF and the transfer of the Head of Unit IV.E.4 to a post of Adviser. I have suggested to Mr Legras that he should differentiate between the two cases."
75 Furthermore, the fact that the annex to the memorandum of 15 June 1990 gives no name is likewise not indicative of any implied commitment by the Commission since a draft organization chart typically does not include names.
76 In those circumstances, there can be no question of any breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.
77 It follows that this plea in law cannot be upheld.
Breach of the principle of non-discrimination
78 The applicant states that the second executive post created when the organization chart of DG VI was changed, namely that of the Head of the new Unit VI.4 (Promotion of agricultural products) was not filled on an uno actu basis but on the basis of the principle of voluntary transfer (vacancy notice and applications in accordance with Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations). The candidate finally chosen for that post under that procedure is an official in Grade A 4 who, like the applicant, had carried out other duties in DG VI before being reassigned. He concludes that the flagrant difference of treatment between such comparable situations is unacceptable and that no specific statement of reason was given that might justify it.
79 The Commission states that, by acting as it did, it complied with Article 7 of the Staff Regulations and that the applicant can base no argument on the fact that it applied a different procedure in order to fill another post corresponding to Grade A 4 since the procedure followed with regard to him was lawful.
80 This Court finds that, since the procedure followed with regard to the applicant was not in any way vitiated, the applicant cannot claim that the fact that another official was the subject of the same measure under a different procedure constitutes discrimination.
81 This plea in law cannot therefore be upheld.
Failure to state the reasons on which a measure is based
82 The applicant maintains that the second paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations was infringed since any decision adversely affecting an official must state the grounds on which it is based and, furthermore, those grounds must be stated exactly.
83 He claims that the Commission cannot rely on the discretionary power enjoyed by the institutions in organizing their departments in an attempt to evade the obligation to state grounds. The Commission' s decision of 17 October 1990 led to his transfer against his will as a result of a change to the organization chart of DG VI, which created the post of Adviser to the Director of DG VI. As a result, that decision is a measure adversely affecting him and the applicant criticizes the lack of an exact statement of grounds in that it refers, by way of explanation, to the redeployment exercise whereas in fact the redeployment procedure was not observed.
84 The applicant also states that if ° in an attempt to find a statement of grounds ° reference is made to the letters of 6 and 9 November 1990, which brought to his notice the decision adversely affecting him, a divergence of grounds necessarily emerges. The first letter merely indicates that his appointment to the post of Adviser forms an integral part of the redeployment exercise dealt with in memorandum VI/00666 of 25 June 1990. By contrast, the second places his assignment in the context of the changes to the organization chart of the Directorate General for Agriculture. Thus, it was after that change that the Commission decided, on 17 October 1990, to create the post of EAGGF Adviser and to assign him to it.
85 According to the applicant, if the transfer did in fact form part of the redeployment exercise, the decision informing him of his transfer should have set out the grounds enabling him to verify whether the redeployment procedure, as described in the memorandum of 25 June 1990 and involving, inter alia, the principle of voluntary transfer, had been complied with.
86 He adds, in his reply, that it had been agreed, at his meeting with his Director General on 14 March 1990, that the latter could promise him nothing as regards the grade, A 4 or A 3, at which the post of EAGGF Adviser would be filled. That indicates very clearly that when the applicant was proposed for that new post it was intended that the question of his possible promotion to Grade A 3 would be considered and decided in accordance with the usual procedure, that is to say after submission of an application following a Vacancy Notice for A 5, A 4 and A 3 posts in accordance with the arrangements laid down by the Commission decision of 19 July 1988 concerning the filling of intermediate executive posts. That procedure would have enabled the Advisory Committee on Appointments to formulate an opinion as to the level at which the post should be filled. In the present case, the applicant was deprived of the possibility of the Advisory Committee on Appointments being consulted, which might have led to his promotion to Grade A 3, a promotion to which, in view of his past career, he could legitimately aspire in the near future.
87 The Commission observes in the first place that the Court of Justice has consistently held that a measure relating to internal reorganization which is not of such a nature as to affect an official' s position under the Staff Regulations or infringe the principle that the post to which he is assigned should correspond to his grade is not covered by the obligation to state the reasons on which it is based (see in particular Case 338/82 Albertini and Montagnani v Commission [1984] ECR 2123).
88 The Commission adds that even if it were assumed that a measure of internal organization such as that at issue in this case had been subject to the obligation to state reasons, the applicant was in a position to "apprehend the scope of the measure" adopted in relation to him as a result of his numerous contacts and the correspondence exchanged with his superiors on this matter. It is settled law that the grounds of a decision are sufficiently disclosed if the contested measure was adopted in circumstances with which the person concerned is familiar, thus enabling him to apprehend the scope of the measure taken in relation to him (Case 125/80 Arning v Commission [1981] ECR 2539, Joined Cases 36, 37 and 218/81 Seton v Commission [1983] ECR 1789 and Joined Cases C-116 and 149/88, Hecq, cited above).
89 It denies that the reasons given in its letters of 6 and 9 November 1990 are contradictory. The first was intended to deal in particular with the concerns expressed by the applicant about avoiding any confusion with the situation of another Head of Unit. That was why that memorandum made it clear that the appointment of the applicant formed an integral part of the redeployment exercise dealt with in the memorandum of 25 June 1990, without making reference to the procedure described in paragraph III of that memorandum. The second letter places the reassignment of the applicant "in the context of the changes to the organization chart of the Directorate General for Agriculture". The planned reorganization of DG VI, of which the "redeployment" of resources was a manifestation, clearly implied a "change to the organization chart" of the Directorate General. The creation of the new post of Adviser and the assignment of the applicant to it by the Commission under Article 7 of the Staff Regulations presupposed the prior modification of the organization chart. The Commission does not therefore see how the reasons given in those two letters are contradictory.
90 This Court observes that it is settled law that the grounds of a decision are sufficiently disclosed if the contested measure was adopted in circumstances with which the person concerned is familiar, thus enabling him to apprehend the scope of the measure taken in relation to him (Case 125/80 Arning, Joined Cases 36, 37 and 218/81 Seton, and Joined Cases C-116 and C-149/88 Hecq, cited above).
91 It is apparent from the various memoranda exchanged by the parties in 1990 that the applicant perfectly understood the scope of the measure adopted in relation to him.
92 However, it is necessary to consider, first, whether the letters of 6 and 9 November 1990 are inconsistent as far as the basis of that measure is concerned, since the first indicated that the measure formed an integral part of the general redeployment exercise described in the memorandum of 25 June 1990 whilst the second placed that measure in the context of the modification of the organization chart; secondly, it should be examined whether that contradiction was capable of misleading the applicant as to the procedure to be followed in relation to him.
93 In order to answer those questions it must be borne in mind that the redeployment procedure was not applicable to the applicant, contrary to the impression that might have been given by the letter of 6 November 1990. Any imprecision in that regard was remedied by the Commission first by its letter of 9 November 1990 and secondly by its reply to the applicant' s complaint, in which it clearly indicated that "that procedure was intended only for the mobility of staff not holding the rank of Head of Unit".
94 Moreover, it is important, in appraising the various memoranda exchanged by the parties, to take account of their respective purposes. It must be stated that the memorandum of 6 November 1990 was intended, in so far as it referred to the general redeployment exercise, to distinguish between the situation of the applicant and that of another Head of Unit who was the subject of disciplinary proceedings.
95 It follows that since any imprecision in the letter of 6 November 1990 was remedied in the course of the administrative procedure, there can be no question of any infringement of the second paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations.
96 This Court also finds that the reference in the applicant' s reply, in relation to the plea in law concerning infringement of Article 25, to the injury suffered by him through non-application to him of the procedure laid down in the Commission decision of 19 July 1988 constitutes a new plea in law, which is inadmissible by virtue of Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure (see also paragraph 40 above).
97 Consequently, this plea in law must be rejected.
98 It follows from all the foregoing that the first action must be dismissed.
The second action
99 The second action is concerned with three matters: the annulment of Vacancy Notice No COM/164/90, the rejection of the applicant' s candidature, and the appointment of Mr V. to the post thereby declared vacant.
The illegality of Vacancy Notice No COM/164/90
100 The applicant maintains that, since he has shown by his first application that his compulsory transfer was illegal, the Commission was not entitled to treat his post as Head of Unit VI.BI.4 as vacant and therefore to publish Vacancy Notice No COM/164/90.
101 The Commission states in reply that it showed, in relation to the first application, that the assignment of the applicant to new duties was wholly legitimate. It infers that it was therefore necessary, for organizational purposes, to implement a procedure enabling the applicant to be replaced. It was against that background that Vacancy Notice No COM/164/90 (Head of Unit VI.BI.4) was published.
102 This Court finds that the only plea in law put forward by the applicant concerning the illegality of Vacancy Notice No COM/164/90 is the illegality of the decision taken in relation to him by the Commission on 17 October 1990.
103 Since the action brought against that decision is to be dismissed, the second action must also be dismissed as regards the first matter to which it relates.
The illegality of the rejection of the applicant' s candidature for his former post
104 The applicant states, in his reply, that the production by the Commission ° as an annex to its defence ° of the Advisory Committee on Appointments' s opinion No 10/91, to show that that committee examined not only the application form of each candidate in accordance with Article 29(1)(a) of the Staff Regulations but also the personal file of each of them makes it apparent in fact that the applicant' s abilities and aptitude for his former post could not have been validly considered by the Advisory Committee on Appointments at its meeting of 7 February 1991. The primary document for that appraisal should have been the applicant' s staff report for the period 1 July 1987 to 30 June 1989. However, the applicant states, without having been contradicted by the Commission, that the members of the Advisory Committee on Appointments could not have been acquainted with that report during their discussions of 7 February 1991 since it was not adopted in its final form until 22 January 1991 and could not have been formally prepared before 8 February 1991 at the earliest. The Commission, having been unable to appraise all his abilities and aptitude for the post which he had previously held, had therefore, wrongly and without stating its grounds, rejected his application. That flagrant difference of treatment between the applicant and the other candidates is unacceptable and constitutes discrimination.
105 The applicant likewise does not see why the fact that he previously occupied the post to be filled, which he had left against his will, could have disqualified him from submitting his candidature for it.
106 The Commission observes that the applicant does not deny that the appointing authority enjoys a wide discretion regarding the examination of candidatures for a vacant post. It states that the opinion sent to him by the secretary of the Advisory Committee on Appointments gives absolutely no indication that his application was not taken into consideration, but rather that the Advisory Committee on Appointments "examined all the candidatures" and that it "heard the views of Mr Legras, Director General for Agriculture" and that "on completion of its work" it considered that, "with regard to the examination of the candidatures submitted, and after examination thereof, your application should not be taken into consideration on the present occasion". That opinion also clearly indicates that "the committee examined each candidate' s application form".
107 The Commission also challenges the argument that the fact that the applicant had already held that post in the past, to the satisfaction of his superiors, is itself indicative of the existence of a manifest error on the part of the institution in appointing a candidate other than the previous holder of the post. It adds that, on the contrary, it is not surprising that a candidate who has just been reassigned, in the interests of the service, from the post in question to another function within the Directorate General should not be selected.
108 The Commission recognizes that the draft staff report was not forwarded to the applicant until 3 August 1990 but it states that the successive delays occurring after that date were in part due to the fact that the applicant contested that report.
109 It adds that the Court of Justice has consistently held that it is not necessary for all candidates to be at exactly the same stage regarding the state of their periodic reports and that the appointing authority is not required to postpone its decision if the most recent report of one or other of the candidates is not yet final because it has been referred to the appeal assessor or the Joint Committee (Case 263/81 List, cited above). Moreover, since the applicant' s report could add nothing to the excellent appraisal in the previous reports, the absence of the latest one did not prevent the examination of merits from being carried out under the required conditions and could not be prejudicial to him (Case 25/77 Roubaix v Commission [1978] ECR 1081). For that reason, the Commission considers that the Advisory Committee on Appointments had sufficient information available to it in the applicant' s file.
110 As regards the alleged inadequacy of the statement of the grounds for the decision taken, the Commission states that the circumstances in which it was taken and brought to the notice of the applicant were in any event of such a nature as to inform him clearly as to the reasons for and basis of the decision (Case 75/79 Kuhner v Commission [1980] ECR 1677).
111 This Court considers that, despite the fact that the applicant lodged his complaint against the rejection of his candidature and the appointment of Mr V. before those decisions were taken, the application must be declared admissible. By his letter of 15 April 1991, the applicant completed his initial complaint and, in those circumstances, the premature nature of the initial complaint of 25 February 1991 did not in any way frustrate the purpose of the pre-litigation administrative procedure, namely facilitating amicable settlement of the dispute, as the Commission conceded at the hearing.
112 As regards the substance, the Court of First Instance points out, first of all, that the Court of Justice has held that the Community institutions enjoy a wide discretion in organizing their departments to suit the tasks entrusted to them and to assign the staff available to them in the light of such tasks (Case 19/87 Hecq, paragraph 6).
113 In the present case, the Court finds that when the Advisory Committee on Appointments undertook the comparative examination of the merits of the various candidates for the post to be filled it did not have the applicant' s last staff report before it. It is therefore necessary to ask whether the absence of that report could have been prejudicial to the applicant and whether, in those circumstances and having regard to the other documents in the applicant' s file, the appointing authority had reasonable grounds for rejecting his candidature for his former post.
114 In that regard it must be emphasized that the Advisory Committee on Appointments and the appointing authority had various sources of information before them on the basis of which to appraise the applicant' s candidature and to undertake an examination of his merits in comparison with those of the other candidates: in the first place, the excellence of the applicant' s previous reports, to which his latest report could add little; secondly, the fact that the applicant had on numerous occasion expressed his desire, whilst in that post, to leave it, on the one hand by applying in several instances for other posts that had been declared vacant and, on the other, by asking his Director General, on 9 January 1990, for a reassignment; thirdly, the fact that in his curriculum vitae accompanying his application, the applicant had stated: "I hereby apply for post COM/164/90 with a view to securing my promotion to Grade A 3 when the appointment is made", a statement which, in itself, could justify the rejection of the applicant' s candidature by the Advisory Committee on Appointments and the appointing authority, since the Advisory Committee on Appointments had decided, at an earlier stage, that the post to which the applicant' s candidature related was to be filled at Grade A 5/A 4; and fourthly, the fact that the applicant was the previous holder of the post to be filled and that the appointing authority had transferred him, against his will, to another department in a manner which the Court of First Instance has found to be in conformity with the interests of the service.
115 It follows that the Advisory Committee on Appointments and the appointing authority had sufficient information to enable them reasonably to reject the applicant' s candidature for his previous post and that the absence of his latest staff report when the Advisory Committee on Appointments carried out the comparative examination of merits could not have been prejudicial to him.
116 It follows that the action must be dismissed in so far as it relates to the rejection of the applicant' s candidature for his former post.
The appointment of Mr V.
117 The applicant considers that because of the irregularities committed in the procedure leading to the appointment of his successor as Head of Unit VI.BI.4, that appointment must be annulled.
118 The Commission states that although it chose one of the three candidates whose candidatures had been approved by the Advisory Committee on Appointments, that fact cannot affect the legality of the decision which it took in the exercise of its discretion, in the absence of any prima facie evidence of the existence of a manifest error on its part and in view of the fact that the applicant did not at any time seek to call in question the abilities of Mr V. himself.
119 This Court finds that since no irregularity has been ascertained in the procedure leading to the appointment in question the application must be dismissed in so far as it relates to that appointment.
120 It follows that the second action must also be dismissed.
121 Under Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party' s pleadings. However, under Article 88 of those rules, in proceedings between the Communities and their servants, the institutions are to bear their own costs.
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber)
1. Dismisses the actions;
2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.


South Korea's Shin Wolsong 2 has been loaded with its first core of nuclear fuel as it prepares for commissioning.
Fuel loading began at the 1050 MWe OPR-1000 reactor on 14 November after South Korea's Nuclear Safety and Security Commission (NSSC) issued an operating licence to Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power (KHNP) for the reactor on 13 November. Fuel loading of the OPR-1000 reactor began the following day. The unit is scheduled to begin commercial operation in July 2015.
Construction began on Shin Wolsong 2 in 2008 and was completed in 2013, but NSSC withheld permission for the reactor to start up following a discovery in May of that year that safety-related control cabling with falsified documentation had been installed at four reactors. The NSSC approved the restart of the other affected reactors - Shin Kori units 1 and 2 and Shin Wolsong unit 1 - in January 2014 after the completion of recabling work.


What is the best price for a return flight from Detroit to Chicago?
How many airlines fly direct from Detroit to Chicago?
There are 11 airlines who fly direct from Detroit to Chicago.
How many flights are there a week from Detroit to Chicago?
There are 196 flights per week from Detroit to Chicago, as of March 2019.
How long does it take to fly from Detroit to Chicago?
1h 5min is average flight time from Detroit to Chicago.
Which airline is the most popular from Detroit to Chicago in March 2019?
Delta is most popular airline from Detroit to Chicago in March 2019.
Detroit, the largest city lying alongside the United States-Canada border is where the American automotive manufacturing scene first originated. In addition to producing some of the world's finest automobiles, Motor City is considered by many to be the birthplace of the contemporary techno and rock music scene.
This cultural powerhouse is located 238 miles to the East of Chicago, a trip that averages a little over an hour by airplane. The destination city is larger, denser, and has a booming downtown area. Excellent nightlife and great food welcome the tourists from Detroit. American Airlines, Continental Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Spirit Airlines, United, and US Airways all offer non-stop flights from Detroit to Chicago.
Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport, known best by locals as either Detroit Metro or Metro Airport, is a massive airfield housed in Romulus, a nearby suburb. The airport covers a land area of just over 7,000 acres, and is by far one of the biggest transportation centers in the United States.
The Metro Airport is the second-largest hub for the major international carrier, Delta Air Lines, and is a focal point for Air France and Spirit Airlines. Detroit's airport is also one of the most recently modernized in the country. Six runways, two terminals, and 145 passenger gates can be found at the facility. Wayne County Airport won second place on the North America Airport Satisfaction Survey conducted by J.D. Power and Associates in 2010!
Come to Chi-Town: The Windy City Awaits You!
Whatever you are into for fun and entertainment, Chicago is bound to have something you will enjoy. The city's public park scene is incredible, and in no small way is this due to the beauty of Grant and Millennium.
Countless stores are readily available for shoppers to indulge, and Wrigley Field is a quick drive from the airport for baseball lovers wishing for an unforgettable experience of America's favorite pastime. While cold in the winter, Chi-Town is arguably one of the coolest (no pun intended) places to visit during the summer months. The Oriental Institute Museum, Chicago Cultural Center, and Magnificent Mile are the area's top-rated attractions!
Vacations are for splurging, not for stressing about high airfare. Skyscanner is proud to offer cheap flights from Detroit to Chicago every day, which means more fun money in your travel budget!
Looking for hotels in Chicago?


text:
2 days ago Whitney Houston and Notorious B.I.G. will be inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame by Novieku-Babatunde Adeola
'I won't sing my old songs today' – Pharrell Williams regrets chauvinistic and 'rapey' lyrics to 2013 hit single 'Blurred Lines'
October 16, 2019 at 10:30 am | Entertainment
Francis Akhalbey | Staff Writer
Francis Akhalbey is a Social Media techie and part-time Writer based in Accra, Ghana. He loves basketball and dreams to make it in the NBA in his next life. I hope you're reading this LA Lakers! And yes, we have Anthony Davis. Give us the ring already!
Black celebrities who were straight-A students before the fame and fortune
Chicago pastor charged for stealing over $800k meant to feed needy kids – spent $142,000 on Bentley
Naomi Osaka hits back at trolls who criticized her for calling Serena Williams her 'mom'
Denver insurance company to pay $20.5m settlement after discriminating against black and female employees
Pharrell Williams has admitted he regrets the 'rapey' lyrics to Blurred Lines -- Photo via @pharrell on Instagram
When Robin Thicke released his chart-topping and multi-platinum selling hit single, Blurred Lines, featuring Pharrell Williams and T.I. in 2013, it was received with mixed reactions.
Though it gained massive rotation on the airwaves globally and became a party anthem at almost every social gathering, the lyrics to the song was criticized for being chauvinistic and promoting rape culture.
In the wake of the controversy surrounding the song, both Thicke and Pharrell defended the lyrics, claiming it meant no harm.
Watch the moment Pharrell pledges internships for 114 Harlem High School graduates
Did Pharrell really know what he signed up for by performing at an Israeli army fundraiser?
Here's why Pharrell Williams isn't "Happy" with Trump playing his music at rallies
Pharrell Williams's new shoe line is inspired by East Africa's rich and vivid culture
Fast forward 2019, Pharrell, in an interview with GQ Magazine, admitted he regrets the lyrics to the song. The Grammy-award winning singer and songwriter spoke about how some sensitive issues including the objectification of women and lyrics that were swept under the carpet in the past can never be tolerated today.
"Some of my old songs, I would never write or sing today. I get embarrassed by some of that stuff. It just took a lot of time and growth to get to that place," he admitted.
According to the Happy crooner, he initially did not get why people criticised the lyrics of Blurred Lines.
"I didn't get it at first. Because there were older white women who, when that song came on, they would behave in some of the most surprising ways ever. And I would be like, wow. They would have me blushing. So when there started to be an issue with it, lyrically, I was, like, What are you talking about? There are women who really like the song and connect to the energy that just gets you up. And I know you want it—women sing those kinds of lyrics all the time. So it's like, What's rapey about that?" he said.
However, he said he is now facing reality, especially about how men use language synonymous to the song's lyrics to take advantage of women.
"I realized that there are men who use that same language when taking advantage of a woman, and it doesn't matter that that's not my behavior. Or the way I think about things. It just matters how it affects women," he said.
"And I was like, Got it. I get it. Cool. My mind opened up to what was actually being said in the song and how it could make someone feel. Even though it wasn't the majority, it didn't matter. I cared what they were feeling too. I realized that we live in a chauvinist culture in our country. Hadn't realized that. Didn't realize that some of my songs catered to that. So that blew my mind," he added.
Besides criticism of the song's lyrical content, it was also at the center of a copyright lawsuit filed by Marvin Gaye's family. After a five-year legal battle, a California court ordered Robin Thicke and Pharrell to pay $5 million in damages to Gaye's family last year after they were accused of copying his 1977 hit song Got to Give it Up.
Whitney Houston and Notorious B.I.G. will be inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame
Reggae icon Shaggy who was a U.S. Marine wants more care given to veterans
Spike Lee becomes first black jury president of Cannes Festival
'I was jealous' – Will Smith opens up about his wife's friendship with Tupac