Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:1998:295
Date: 1998-06-16
Language of the case: German
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Pigmeat;Veterinary legislation
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded
Origin: Germany

Summary of the Judgment
1. Community law — Principles — Rights of the defence — Right to a judicial hearing — Obli­
gation to incorporate in the decision all the submissions of the parties — None
2. Appeals — Pleas in law — Incorrect assessment of the facts — Plea recording disagreement on
the facts found but not raising any points of law — Inadmissible — Appeal dismissed
(EC Treaty, Art. 168a; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51, first para.)
3. Appeals — Pleas in law — Mere repetition of pleas in law and arguments submitted to the
Court of First Instance — Inadmissible — Appeal dismissed
(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of
Justice, Art. 112(1)(c))
I - 8255
SUMMARY — CASE C-221/97 P
1. The right to be heard in the context of
judicial proceedings does not mean that
the court has to incorporate in full in its
decision all the submissions put forward
by each party. The court, after listening to
the submissions of the parties and assessing
the evidence, has to decide whether or not
to grant the relief sought in the applica­
tion and give reasons for its decision.
2. Under Article 168a of the Treaty and the
first paragraph of Article 51 of the Statute
of the Court of Justice, an appeal may
only be based on pleas relating to the
breach of rules of law, any assessment of
the facts being excluded.
A plea alleging breach of the right to be
heard, on the ground of failure to take
into consideration certain parts of the
appellant's submissions, is therefore inad­
missible as seeking to obtain from the
Court of Justice a new assessment of the
facts found by the Court of First Instance,
where the plea does not contain any point
of law requiring analysis but merely records
disagreement on the facts found by the
Court of First Instance and, in particular,
where it has not been shown what effect
the alleged failure had on the outcome of
the proceedings.
3. By virtue of the first paragraph of Article
51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice
and Article 112(1)(c) of the Rules of Pro­
cedure, 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. That
requirement is not satisfied by an appeal
which confines itself to repeating or repro­
ducing word for word the pleas in law
and arguments previously submitted at
first instance, with no precise criticism of
the legal reasoning of the Court of First
Instance being adduced.
I - 8256