Order — ECLI:EU:C:2001:352
Date: 2001-06-21
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Public procurement in the European Union
Concepts: Appeals
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible
Origin: France

Summary of the Order 
1. Appeals — Pleas in law — Mere repetition of the pleas in law and arguments before 
the Court of First Instance — Error of law relied on not identified — Inadmissibility 
(Art. 225 EC; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51, first para.; Rules of 
Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(l)(c)] 
2. Appeals — Pleas in law — Erroneous appraisal of evidence duly produced — 
Inadmissibility — Rejection — Obligation on the part of the Court of First Instance 
to state reasons for its appraisal of the evidence — Scope 
(Art. 225 EC; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51, para. 1) 
I - 4809 
SUMMARY — CASE C-330/00 P 
1. Article 225 EC, the first paragraph of 
Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of 
Justice and Article 112(l)(c) of the 
Rules of Procedure require appeals to 
indicate precisely the contested ele­
ments 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, 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 argu­
ments 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 appli­
cation submitted to the Court of First 
Instance, which the Court of Justice 
does not have jurisdiction to under­
take. 
(see paras 18-19) 
2. It is for the Court of First Instance 
alone to assess the value to be attached 
to the evidence before it. Accordingly, 
the Court of First Instance cannot, 
subject to the obligation to observe 
general principles and the rules of 
procedure relating to the burden of 
proof and the adducing of evidence and 
not to distort the evidence, be required 
to give express reasons for its assess­
ment of the value of each piece of 
evidence presented to it, in particular 
where it considers that that evidence is 
unimportant or irrelevant to the out­
come of the dispute. 
(see paras 36-37) 
I -4810