Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2007:607
Date: 2007-10-18
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Financial provisions;Free movement of goods;Customs Union;Own resources
Concepts: Appeals
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible
Origin: Italy

Summary of the Judgment 1. Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225 EC) 2. Appeals – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance – Error of law relied on not identified – Inadmissibility (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) 1. Under Article 225(1) EC, an appeal lies on a point of law only. The Court of First Instance thus has sole jurisdiction to find and appraise the relevant facts and to appraise the evidence, save where those facts and that evidence have been distorted. (see para. 49) 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 subparagraph, (c), of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice that an appeal must indicate precisely the contested elements of the order or 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 contested judgment, confines itself to reproducing the pleas in law and arguments previously submitted to the Court of First Instance. 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 para. 55)