Order — ECLI:EU:C:2014:230
Date: 2014-02-06
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Subject matter: Provisions governing the Institutions;Access to documents
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible
Origin: United Kingdom

Summary — Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 6 February 2014 1. Appeals — Grounds — Specific criticism of a point of the General Court’s reasoning necessary (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court, Arts 168(1)(d) and 169(2)) 2. Appeals — Grounds — Lack of specific criticism of a point of the General Court’s reasoning — Failure to indicate the paragraphs of the judgment under appeal that are contested — Inadmissibility — Attempt to remedy the irregularity through the reply — Not permissible (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court, Arts 169(2) and 175(1)) 3. Appeals — Grounds — Plea directed against the decision of the General Court on costs — Inadmissible where all other pleas dismissed (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(2)) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 25, 26) 2. Article 169(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice specifies that the pleas in law and legal arguments relied on must identify precisely those points in the grounds of the decision of the General Court which are contested. An appeal that does not have such characteristics cannot be the subject of a legal assessment which would allow the Court to exercise its function in the area under examination and to carry out its review of legality. That rule makes it possible for equality between litigants to be maintained. Whether the Court is able easily to identify the contested points in the grounds of a judgment under appeal depends on a number of factors, such as the length of the judgment under appeal and that of the appeal itself, the number of grounds of appeal and the complexity of the reasoning developed in both the judgment under appeal and the appeal itself. However, the admissibility of an appeal cannot turn on such factors. Moreover, in view of the function of the reply as set out in Article 175(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the reply cannot remedy the irregularity arising from a failure to comply with Article 169(2) in the application initiating the appeal. (see paras 27-30) 3. See the text of the decision. (see para. 33)