Order — ECLI:EU:C:2001:452
Date: 2001-09-13
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Third Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Appeals;European Central Bank
Procedure: Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible;Staff cases
Origin: Germany

Summary of the Order 
1. Officials — Savants of the European Central Bank — Actions — Time-limits 
(Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European 
Central Bank, Art. 36.2; Conditions of Employment for Staff of the European Central 
Bank, Art. 42; European Central Bank Staff Rules, Art. 8.2) 
2. Appeals — Grounds — Plea raised for the first time in appeal proceedings — 
Inadmissible 
(Art. 225 EC; EC Statute of the Court of justice, Art. 51) 
I - 6041 
SUMMARY — CASE C-467/00 P 
3. Appeals •— Grounds — Flea alleging incorrect appraisal of the facts — Inadmissi­
ble — Whether the Court of justice may review the appraisal of the evidence —• 
Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted 
(Art. 225 EC; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51) 
1. It is clear from Article 36.2 of the 
Protocol on the Statute of the European 
System of Central Banks and of the 
European Central Bank that the Com­
munity judicature is to have jurisdic­
tion in disputes between the European 
Central Bank and its servants within 
the limits and under the conditions laid 
down in the conditions of employment 
applicable to the servants of the Eur­
opean Central Bank. The conditions 
for bringing an action before the Com­
munity judicature, which are laid down 
in Article 42 of the Conditions of 
Employment and amplified in Arti­
cle 8.2 of the Staff Rules, require, in 
particular, that actions be brought 
within two months. 
(see paras 15-16) 
2. A plea in law put forward for the first 
time in the appeal proceedings before 
the Court of Justice must be rejected as 
inadmissible. To allow a party to put 
forward for the first time before the 
Court of Justice a plea in law which it 
has not raised before the Court of First 
Instance would be to allow it to bring 
before the Court a case of wider ambit 
than that which came before the Court 
of First Instance. In an appeal the 
Court's jurisdiction is confined to 
review of the findings of the Court of 
First Instance on the pleas argued 
before it. 
(see paras 22-23) 
3. It is clear from Article 225 EC and 
Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of 
Justice that an appeal is to be limited to 
points of law. Accordingly, the Court of 
First Instance has sole jurisdiction to 
find and appraise the facts, except in a 
case where the factual inaccuracy of its 
findings is revealed by the evidence 
adduced before it. The appraisal of the 
facts does not constitute, save where 
the clear sense of the evidence pro­
duced before it is distorted, a question 
of law which is subject, as such, to 
review by the Court of Justice. 
(see para. 26) 
I - 6042