Order — ECLI:EU:T:2008:145
Date: 2008-05-08
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Appeals Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Appeals
Procedure: Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible;Staff cases;Action for damages

Summary Appeals – Pleas in law – Error of law relied on not identified – Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 138(1)(c)) It is clear from Article 11(1) of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 138(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance that an appeal against decisions of the Civil Service Tribunal 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, without even including an argument specifically identifying the error of law allegedly vitiating the judgment under appeal, merely reproduces the pleas in law and arguments previously submitted to the Civil Service Tribunal. Such an appeal amounts in reality to no more than a request for re-examination of the application already submitted to the Civil Service Tribunal, which falls outside the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance. (see paras 21-22) See C‑352/98 P Bergaderm and Goupil v Commission [2000] ECR I‑5291, paras 34 and 35; C‑345/00 P FNAB and Others v Council [2001] ECR I‑3811, para. 30; C‑248/99 P France v Monsanto and Commission [2002] ECR I‑1, para. 68; C‑488/01 P Martinez v Parliament [2003] ECR I‑13355, para. 40