Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2012:653
Date: 2012-12-06
Language of the case: German
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 — Intervener’s response — Formal requirements — Statement of forms of order sought — General reference to a document of another party which was not attached to the response — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 141(1) and (2)(c) and (d) and 142(1)(a)) 2. Appeals — Pleas in law — Error of law relied on not identified — Inadmissibility (Art. 257 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21 and Annex I, Art. 11; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 138(1), first para., (c)) 3. Actions for annulment — Jurisdiction of the European Union Court — Heads of claim seeking a direction addressed to an institution — Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU) 4. Acts of the institutions — Presumption of validity — Consequences (Art. 288 TFEU) 5. Appeals — Pleas in law — Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 48(2), 139(2) and 144) 6. Appeals — Pleas in law — Plea against a ground of the judgment not necessary to support the operative part — Ineffective plea in law 7. Judicial proceedings — Statement of reasons for judgments — Scope — Obligation to rule on each alleged legal infringement (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 36 and Annex I, Art. 7(1)) 8. Appeals — Pleas in law — Inadequate or contradictory grounds — Admissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 36 and Annex I, Art. 7(1)) 9. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Absence — Inadmissibility — Arguments included in a document lodged subsequently — No effect (Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 35(1)(e)) 1. Under Article 141(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, any party to the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal may lodge a response within two months from service of the notice of appeal. For the response to serve a purpose, the party lodging it must, in principle, state therein its position as to the appeal, and request that it be dismissed in whole or in part, or express total or partial support for it, or even lodge a cross-appeal, all of which are forms of order provided for in Article 142(1)(a) of the Rules of Procedure. Article 141(2)(c) and (d) of the Rules of Procedure thus states that the response must contain all the essential elements enabling the Union Court to give a ruling on it, in particular the ‘forms of order sought’ and the ‘pleas in law and legal arguments relied on’. A response of an intervener that merely makes a general reference to the response of another party, which is not attached and is therefore not established as corresponding in any respect to the response lodged by that other party with the General Court Registry, does not satisfy the requirements of Article 141(2)(c) and (d) of the Rules of Procedure and must, therefore, be dismissed as inadmissible. Such a reference cannot have the effect of incorporating in the intervener’s response the forms of order sought and legal arguments contained in the response of that party or, a fortiori, of making up for the absence, in that document, of the essential elements which must be included pursuant to Article 141(2)(c) and (d) of the Rules of Procedure. (see paras 37-39) See: C‑416/04 P Sunrider v OHIM [2006] ECR I‑4237, para. 30 T‑209/01 Honeywell v Commission [2005] ECR II‑5527, paras 57 and 63 to 68 and the case-law cited therein 2. See the text of the decision. (see paras 41-43) See: T‑107/07 P Rossi Ferreras v Commission [2008] ECR‑SC I‑B‑1-5 and II‑B‑1‑31, para. 27 and the case-law cited therein 3. See the text of the decision. (see para. 46) See: C‑353/01 P Mattila v Council and Commission [2004] ECR I‑1073, para. 15 and the case-law cited therein 4. See the text of the decision. (see para. 55) See: T‑9/09 P Marcuccio v Commission [2010] ECR‑SC, para. 37 5. See the text of the decision. (see para. 57) See: C‑136/92 P Commission v Brazzelli Lualdi and Others [1994] ECR I‑1981, para. 59 6. See the text of the decision. (see para. 63) See: C‑496/99 P Commission v CAS Succhi di Frutta [2004] ECR I‑3801, para. 68 and the case-law cited therein 7. See the text of the decision. (see para. 75) See: T‑49/08 P Michail v Commission [2009] ECR-SC I‑B‑1‑121 and II‑B‑1‑739, para. 51 and the case-law cited therein; T‑50/08 P Michail v Commission [2009] ECR-SC I‑B‑1‑127 and II‑B‑1‑775, paras 41 and 42 and the case-law cited therein 8. See the text of the decision. (see para. 76) See: C‑3/06 P Groupe Danone v Commission [2007] ECR I‑1331, para. 45 and case-law cited therein 9. See the text of the decision. (see para. 81) See: C‑240/11 P World Wide Tobacco España v Commission [2012] ECR, para. 38 Judgment of 24 March 2011 in T‑376/06 Legris Industries v Commission, not published in the ECR, para. 31