Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2010:338
Date: 2010-09-01
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Appeals Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Action for damages - unfounded;Staff cases - successful;Appeal - successful

Summary 1. Appeals — Pleas in law — Inadequate statement of reasons — Recourse by the Civil Service Tribunal to an implied statement of reasons — Lawfulness — Conditions (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 36 and Annex I, Art. 7(1)) 2. Appeals — Pleas in law — Error of law (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 10(2)) 3. Officials — Actions — Subject-matter — Instruction to the administration — Inadmissibility (Art. 266 TFEU; Staff Regulations, Art. 91) 1. While the Civil Service Tribunal is under an obligation to state the reasons on which its judgments are based, in accordance with Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, which is applicable to it pursuant to Article 7(1) of Annex I to that Statute, that obligation does not require it to provide an account which covers exhaustively and one by one all the arguments put forward by the parties to the dispute. The reasoning may therefore be implicit on condition that it enables the party concerned to know why the court of first instance has not upheld his arguments and provides the appeal court with sufficient material for it to exercise its power of review. (see para. 36) See: C‑120/06 P and C‑121/06 P FIAMM and FIAMM Technologies v Council and Commission [2008] ECR I‑6513, para. 96; C‑431/07 P Bouygues and Bouygues Télécom v Commission [2009] ECR I‑2665, para. 42 2. The Civil Service Tribunal committed an error of law in allowing the continuation, in a simplified report, of an assessment which, in actual fact, did not exist because the Tribunal had partially set aside the career development report for the previous year. The court of first instance was aware of the risk it was taking in relying on that report, given that it drew attention to the fact that its judgment on the lawfulness of that report was under appeal. (see para. 57) 3. The General Court has no jurisdiction to issue directions to the institutions or to make statements or findings of principle. In accordance with Article 266 TFEU it is for the institution whose act has been declared void to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment annulling it. (see para. 70) See: T‑76/03 Meister v OHIM [2004] ECR-SC I‑A‑325 and II‑1477, para. 38