Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2003:402
Date: 2003-07-10
Language of the case: German
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Economic, social and territorial cohesion;Environment;Approximation of laws
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible
Origin: Germany

Summary of the Judgment 1. Appeals – Admissibility – Party not unsuccessful in its submissions before the Court of First Instance (EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 49) 2. Appeals – Pleas in law – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments raised before the Court of First Instance – Inadmissible – Challenge to the interpretation or application of Community law by the Court of First Instance – Whether admissible (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1), first para. (c)) 3. Appeals – Pleas in law – Plea put forward for the first time in the appeal – Inadmissible (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Arts 42(2) and 118) 1. A party which is neither partially nor wholly unsuccessful in its submissions before the Court of First Instance is not entitled to appeal against the judgment under appeal before the Court of Justice, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice. (see para. 42) 2. It follows from Article 225 EC, the first paragraph of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 112(1), first paragraph, (c), of the 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. Where an appeal merely repeats or reproduces verbatim the pleas in law and arguments previously submitted to the Court of First Instance, including those based on facts expressly rejected by that Court, it fails to satisfy the requirements regarding the statement of grounds under those provisions. However, provided that the applicant challenges the interpretation or application of Community law by the Court of First Instance, the points of law examined at first instance may be discussed again in an appeal. If an applicant could not thus base his appeal on pleas in law and arguments already relied on before the Court of First Instance, an appeal would be deprived of part of its purpose. An appeal which seeks specifically to contest the assessment by the Court of First Instance of several points of law which were referred to at first instance and which contains specific indications of the aspects of the judgment under appeal criticised and the pleas in law and the arguments on which it is based is, therefore, admissible. (see paras 48-51) 3. Under Article 118 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Article 42(2) of those rules, which prohibits generally the introduction of new pleas in law in the course of the procedure, applies to the procedure before the Court of Justice on appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance. In an appeal the Court’s jurisdiction is thus confined to review of the assessment by the Court of First Instance of the pleas argued before it. (see para. 52)