ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)
4 September 2012
Case T‑642/11 P
Harald Mische
v
European Parliament
andCouncil of the European Union
(Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Appointment — Classification in grade — Competition published before the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations of Officials — Distortion of the facts — Appeal manifestly unfounded)
Appeal:      against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 in Case F‑93/05 Mische v Parliament [2011] ECR-SC seeking to have that judgment set aside.
Held:      The appeal is dismissed. Mr Harald Mische is to bear his own costs and those incurred by the European Parliament in the present proceedings. The Council of the European Union is to bear its own costs.
Summary
1.      Appeals — Pleas in law — Erroneous assessment of the facts — Inadmissibility — Review by the General Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted
(Art. 257 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I thereto, Art. 11(1))
2.      Appeals — Pleas in law — Plea put forward for the first time in the appeal proceedings — Inadmissibility
(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 48(2) and 144)
3.      Appeals — Pleas in law — Plea directed against a ground included purely for the sake of completeness — Ineffective plea in law — Rejection
4.      Appeals — Pleas in law — Inadequate statement of reasons — Reliance by the Civil Service Tribunal on implied reasoning — Lawfulness — Conditions
(Art. 257 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.)
5.      Officials — Actions — Claim for compensation linked to an application for annulment — Rejection of claim for annulment leading to rejection of claim for compensation
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)
6.      Officials — Actions — Actions for damages — Autonomy in relation to the action for annulment — Admissibility notwithstanding the absence of a pre-litigation procedure in accordance with the Staff Regulations — Condition — Claim for compensation linked to an action for annulment
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)
1.      It is apparent from Article 257 TFEU and from Article 11(1) of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice that an appeal to the General Court is limited to points of law. Accordingly, the court of first instance alone has jurisdiction to find the facts, save where the factual inaccuracy of its findings is apparent from the documents in the case before it, and to appraise those facts, save where the clear sense of the evidence produced before it is distorted, and 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, and without recourse to new evidence.
(see para. 24)
See:
T‑377/08 P Commission v Birkhoff [2009] ECR-SC I‑B‑1-133 and II‑B‑1‑807, para. 45 and case-law cited; T‑98/11 P AG v Parliament [2012] ECR-SC, paras 45 and 46
2.      See the text of the decision.
(see para. 37)
See:
C‑414/08 P Sviluppo Italia Basilicata v Commission [2010] ECR I‑2559, para. 114 and case-law cited
3.      See the text of the decision.
(see para. 39)
See:
C‑496/99 P Commission v CAS Succhi di Frutta [2004] ECR I‑3801, para. 68 and case-law cited
4.      While the Civil Service Tribunal is under an obligation to state the reasons on which its judgments are based, in accordance with Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, which is applicable to it pursuant to Article 7(1) of Annex I to that Statute, that obligation does not require it to provide an account which covers exhaustively and one by one all the arguments put forward by the parties to the dispute. The reasoning may be implicit on condition that it enables the party concerned to know why the court of first instance has not upheld its pleas in law or arguments and provides the appeal court with sufficient material for it to exercise its power of review.
(see para. 46)
See:
C‑120/06 P and C‑121/06 P FIAMM and Others v Council and Commission [2008] ECR I‑6513, paragraph 96; C‑431/07 P Bouygues and Bouygues Télécom v Commission [2009] ECR I‑2665, paragraph 42
5.      See the text of the decision.
(see paras 50-51)
See:
T‑50/92 Fiorani v Parliament [1993] ECR II‑555, para. 46; T‑241/03 Marcuccio v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑2-111 and II‑A‑2-517, para. 52; T‑301/11 Ben Ali v Council [2012] ECR, para. 72
6.      See the text of the decision.
(see para. 54)
See:
T‑15/96 Liao v Council [1997] ECR-SC I‑A‑329 and II‑897, paras 57 and 58; T‑378/00 Morello v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I‑A‑311 and II‑1497, para. 102; T‑25/03 deStefano v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑125 and II‑573, para. 78