Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2010:543
Date: 2010-12-16
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

Summary 1. Appeals — Pleas in law — Plea against a ground of the judgment not necessary to support the operative part — Invalid plea in law (Art. 257 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 9) 2. Appeals — Pleas in law — Error of law relied on not identified — Inadmissibility (Art. 257 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 138(1), first subpara., under (c)) 3. Appeals — Pleas in law — Mistaken assessment of the facts — Inadmissibility — Review by the General Court of the assessment of the evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11) 4. 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)) 1. In appeal proceedings, pleas directed against grounds of a judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal which do not provide the necessary basis for the decision under appeal are inoperative and must be rejected. (see para. 34) See: judgment of 19 January 2010 in T‑355/08 P De Fays v Commission, para. 56 and the case-law cited therein 2. It follows from Article 11 of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 138(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court that an appeal must indicate precisely the contested elements of the judgment which the appellant seeks to have set aside, and also the legal arguments specifically advanced in support of the appeal. That requirement is not satisfied by an appeal which does not include any argument specifically identifying the error of law allegedly vitiating the judgment or order in question. Moreover, statements which are too general and imprecise to be legally assessed must be regarded as manifestly inadmissible. (see para. 35) See: order of 10 February 2009 in C‑290/08 P Correia de Matos v Commission, not published in the ECR, para. 18 and the case-law cited therein; order of 6 May 2010 in T‑100/08 P Kerelov v Commission, para. 39 and the case-law cited therein 3. Under Article 11 of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice an appeal to the General Court must be limited to points of law. The Civil Service Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to establish the facts, except where the substantive inaccuracy of its findings is apparent from the documents submitted to it, and to assess those facts. The assessment of the facts does not, therefore, save where the clear sense of the evidence submitted to the Civil Service Tribunal has been distorted, constitute a point of law which is subject as such to review by the appeal court. (see para. 73) See: C‑449/99 P EIB v Hautem [2001] ECR I‑6733, para. 44; C‑121/01 P O’Hannrachain v Parliament [2003] ECR I‑5539, para. 35; C‑230/05 P L v Commission [2006] ECR‑SC I‑B‑2‑7 and II‑B‑2‑45, para. 45 4. The requirement to provide a statement of reasons follows from Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, which applies to the Civil Service Tribunal pursuant to Article 7(1) of Annex I to that Statute. Judgments of the Civil Service Tribunal must contain an adequate statement of reasons to enable the General Court to exercise its power of review. However, that requirement cannot be interpreted as meaning that the Civil Service Tribunal is obliged to respond in detail to every single argument advanced by the applicant, particularly if the argument was not sufficiently clear and precise and was not adequately supported by evidence. The reasoning may 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 paras 82-84) See: judgment of 2 March 2010 in T‑248/08 P Doktor v Council, para. 64 and the case-law cited therein; judgment of 1 September 2010 in T‑91/09 P Skareby v Commission, para. 36 and the case-law cited therein