Order — ECLI:EU:T:2012:131
Date: 2012-03-19
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Appeals Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible;Staff cases
Origin: Belgium;Luxembourg

Summary 1. Appeals — Grounds — Inadequate statement of reasons — Tribunal stating its reasons by implication — Lawfulness — Conditions (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 36 and Annex I, Art. 7(1)) 2. Appeals — Grounds — Mere repetition of pleas in law and arguments submitted to the Civil Service Tribunal — Inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 138(1)(c)) 1. The obligation of the Civil Service Tribunal to state reasons, pursuant to Article 36 and Article 7(1) of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice, does not require the Civil Service Tribunal to provide an account that follows exhaustively and point by point all the reasoning articulated by the parties to the case. The grounds stated may therefore be implicit, on condition that they enable the persons concerned to know the reasons for which a particular ruling was made and provide the General Court with sufficient material for it to exercise its power of review. (see para. 27) See: 7 December 2011, T‑274/11 P Mioni v Commission, para. 34 and the case‑law cited 2. An appeal must indicate precisely the contested elements of the judgment which it is sought to have set aside, and also the legal arguments specifically advanced in support of that application. An appeal which merely repeats or reproduces verbatim the pleas in law and arguments previously submitted to the Civil Service Tribunal, including those based on facts expressly rejected by that Tribunal, does not satisfy those requirements to state reasons. Such an appeal amounts in reality to no more than a request for re-examination of the application submitted to the Civil Service Tribunal, which the General Court does not have jurisdiction to undertake. (see paras 37-38) See: 23 October 2009, C‑561/08 P and C‑4/09 P Commission v Potamianos, not published in the ECR, paras 58 and 59