Order — ECLI:EU:C:2004:168
Date: 2004-03-19
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Appeals
Procedure: Appeal - inadmissible;Staff cases
Origin: United Kingdom

Summary of the Order 1. Appeals – Pleas in law – Incorrect assessment of the facts – Inadmissible – Review by the Court of the findings of fact – Excluded save where the clear sense of the evidence is distorted (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58) 2. Appeals – Pleas in law – Mere repetition of the pleas in law and arguments submitted to the Court of First Instance – Inadmissible – Dismissed (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) 1. Under Article 225 EC and Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice an appeal lies on points of law only and, therefore, the Court of First Instance alone has jurisdiction to find and appraise the facts, save where the factual inaccuracy of its findings results from the documents in the case before it. The appraisal of the facts by the Court of First Instance does not constitute, save where the clear sense of the evidence produced before it is distorted, a question of law which is subject, as such, to review by the Court of Justice. (see para. 36) 2. It follows from Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 112(1)(c) of its Rules of Procedure 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 confines itself to reproducing the pleas in law and arguments previously submitted to the Court of First Instance including those based on facts expressly rejected by it. Such an appeal amounts in reality to no more than a request for re-examination of the application submitted to the Court of First Instance, which the Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction to undertake. (see paras 40-41)