Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2010:103
Date: 2010-03-19
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Appeals Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Appeal;Staff cases;Action for damages

Summary 1. Appeals — Pleas in law — Mistaken assessment of the facts — Inadmissibility — General Court’s review of the assessment of the evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11) 2. Appeals — Pleas in law — Inadequate statement of reasons (Art. 253 EC) 1. Under Article 11 of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice, an appeal before the General Court is limited to points of law. The Civil Service Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to establish the facts except where the substantive inaccuracy of its findings is apparent from the documents submitted to it, and to assess those facts. Therefore, save where the clear sense of the evidence presented to the Civil Service Tribunal has been distorted, the assessment of the facts does not constitute a point of law which is subject, as such, to review by the appeal court. Moreover, the appeal court has no jurisdiction, in principle, to examine the evidence which the court of first instance accepted in support of those facts. Where the evidence was duly obtained and the rules and general principles of law relating to the burden of proof were observed, as also were the rules of procedure in relation to the taking of evidence, it is for the court of first instance alone to assess the value which should be attached to the items of evidence produced to it. That assessment does not, therefore, save where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted, constitute a point of law which is subject, as such, to review by the General Court. Such distortion must be obvious from the documents on the Court’s file, without there being any need to carry out a new assessment of the facts and the evidence. The jurisdiction of the General Court to review the findings of fact by the Civil Service Tribunal therefore extends, inter alia, to the substantive inaccuracy of those findings as apparent from the documents on the file, the distortion of the evidence, the legal characterisation of that evidence and the question whether the rules relating to the burden of proof and the taking of evidence have been observed. (see paras 61-64, 95, 102) See: C‑449/99 P EIB v Hautem [2001] ECR I‑6733, para. 44; C‑121/01 P O’Hannrachain v Parliament [2003] ECR I‑5539, para. 35; judgment of 27 April 2006 in C-230/05 P L v Commission, not published in the ECR, paras 45 and 46 and the case-law cited therein; C‑403/04 P and C‑405/04 P Sumitomo Metal Industries and Nippon Steel v Commission [2007] ECR I‑729, para. 39 and the case-law cited therein; T-107/07 P Rossi Ferreras v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I-B-1-5 and II-B-1-31, para. 30; T-284/07 P OHIM v López Teruel [2008] ECR-SC I-B-1-69 and II-B-1-447, para. 47 and the case-law cited therein 2. Observance of the extent of the obligation to state reasons is a question of law reviewable by the General Court on appeal against a judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal. First of all, the extent of the obligation to state reasons depends on the specific circumstances, in particular the content of the measure in question, the nature of the reasons given and the interest which the addressee of the measure may have in obtaining explanations. In order to assess the adequacy of a statement of reasons, it must be viewed in the factual and legal context in which the contested measure was adopted. Secondly, the reasons given for a decision are sufficient if it was adopted in circumstances known to the staff member concerned which enable him to understand the scope of the measure concerning him. (see paras 74-75) See: C‑189/02 P, C‑202/02 P, C‑205/02 P to C‑208/02 P and C‑213/02 P Dansk Rørindustriand Others v Commission [2005] ECR I‑5425, para. 453; judgment of 28 February 2008 in C-17/07 P Neirinck v Commission, not published in the ECR, paras 50 to 52; C‑413/06 P Bertelsmann and Sony Corporation of America v Impala [2008] ECR I‑4951, para. 30; T‑118/04 and T‑134/04 Caló v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-2-37 and II-A-2-253, paras 127 and 128; T‑502/04 Lopparelli v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-2-145 and II-A-2-995, para. 75 and the case-law cited therein