Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2016:305
Date: 2016-05-13
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Appeals Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Appeal - unfounded;Staff cases;Action for damages

Summary 1. Appeal — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas in law and arguments presented before the Civil Service Tribunal — Inadmissibility (Art. 257, third para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11(1); Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 195(2)) 2. Appeal — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — General Court’s review of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 257, third para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11(1)) 1. In accordance with Article 195(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, 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. Consequently, an appeal which merely repeats or reproduces verbatim the pleas in law and arguments submitted to the Civil Service Tribunal, including those based on facts expressly rejected by that court, does not satisfy the requirements to state reasons under those provisions. Such an appeal amounts in reality to a request for re-examination of the application submitted to the Civil Service Tribunal, which the General Court does not have jurisdiction to undertake. (see paras 25, 38, 39) See: Order of 23 October 2009 in Commission v Potamianos and Potamianos v Commission, C‑561/08 P and C‑4/09 P, EU:C:2009:656, paras 58 and 59 and the case-law cited therein 2. The court of first instance has exclusive jurisdiction, first, to establish the facts except where the substantive inaccuracy of its findings is apparent from the documents submitted to it and, second, to assess those facts. The appraisal of the facts does not constitute, save where the clear sense of the evidence produced before the court is distorted, a question of law which is subject, as such, to review by the General Court. Such distortion must be obvious — without any need for a new assessment of the facts and the evidence — from the documents on the Court’s file. (see paras 26, 35) See: Judgment of 8 September 2009 in ETF v Landgren, T‑404/06 P, EU:T:2009:313, paras 191 to 193 and the case-law cited therein