Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2018:411
Date: 2018-06-07
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Third Chamber
Subject matter: Provisions governing the Institutions
Procedure: Appeal - unfounded;Action for damages
Origin: Luxembourg

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 7 June 2018 1. Appeal — Judgment of the Court of Justice – Obligation to address the pleas and claims of the parties — Scope (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) 2. Appeal — Grounds — Grounds of a judgment vitiated by an infringement of EU law — Operative part well founded for other legal reasons — Rejection (Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) 3. Appeal — Grounds — Inadequate statement of reasons — Scope of the obligation to state reasons (Art. 256(1), TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 117(m)) 4. Appeal — Grounds — Plea against a ground of the judgment not necessary to support the operative part — Invalid plea in law (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 56, first para.) 1. So as not to neglect its role, the EU judicature must examine the various claims and pleas submitted by an applicant, as formulated in his pleadings, without modifying their nature or substance. (see para. 18) 2. See the text of the decision. (see para. 24) 3. The obligation to state reasons does not require the EU judicature to provide an account which follows exhaustively and one by one all the arguments put forward by the parties to the case and that the reasoning may therefore be implicit on condition that it enables the persons concerned to know why the EU judicature has not upheld their arguments. In that regard, as regards a decision by which the Court of Justice finds that the General Court has not erred in law by refusing, despite the factors relied on by the appellant, to rebut the presumption of a decisive influence on a subsidiary and, thereby, to comply with the obligation to state reasons, it is sufficient, for the purposes of complying with its obligation to state reasons, for the Court of Justice to invoke the legal principle on which it considered that the General Court was entitled to find that the factors relied on were not capable of rebutting that presumption. (see paras 26, 27) 4. See the text of the decision. (see para. 32)