Order — ECLI:EU:T:2015:719
Date: 2015-09-21
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Appeals Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible;Staff cases;Judgment delivered after back reference;Action for damages

Summary 1. Appeal — Grounds of appeal — Ground of appeal seeking rectification of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal — Lack of jurisdiction of the General Court (Art. 270 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 122(1)) 2. Appeal — Grounds of appeal — Heads of claim seeking modification of the statement of reasons for a judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal — Criticism of grounds having no influence on the operative part of the judgment under appeal — Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 9) 1. Article 122(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, concerning the rectification of clerical mistakes, errors in calculation and obvious inaccuracies, is not applicable to the procedure before the General Court, which is solely governed by its own Rules of Procedure. An appellant cannot therefore remedy his failure to act under that article by requesting the General Court to correct or rectify alleged clerical mistakes or obvious inaccuracies in contested decisions of the Civil Service Tribunal. (see para. 29) See: Order of 13 January 2014 in Lebedef v Commission, T‑116/13 P and T‑117/13 P, ECR-SC, EU:T:2014:21, paras 44 and 45 2. It is not the role of the appeal court to supplement statements of reasons for decisions delivered by the Civil Service Tribunal. Furthermore, where the Tribunal has granted the appellant’s application and has annulled the decision at issue, a ground of appeal alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal did not consider the second argument raised before it, and that the judgment should be supplemented to take account of that argument, is not capable of having an influence on the operative part of the judgment concerned and of procuring an advantage for the appellant. In that regard, since an appeal under Article 9 of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice may be brought only by a party which has been unsuccessful, in whole or in part, in its submissions, the ground of appeal must be rejected as manifestly inadmissible. (see para. 35) See: Judgments of 19 October 1995 in Rendo and Others v Commission, C‑19/93 P, ECR, EU:C:1995:339, para. 13, and 13 July 2000 in Parliament v Richard, C‑174/99 P, ECR, EU:C:2000:412, para. 33