62011TO0274_SUM
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)7 December 2011
Case T‑274/11 P
VE
v
European Commission
(Appeals – Civil service – Members of the contract staff – Expatriation allowance – Conditions imposed by Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations – Definition of habitual residence – Distortion of the facts – Appeal clearly inadmissible in part and clearly unfounded in part)
Appeal:
against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 15 March 2011 in Case F‑28/10 VE v Commission, seeking to have that judgment set aside.
Held:
The appeal is dismissed. VE is to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission on the appeal.
Summary
Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of the evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted
(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11(1))
Appeals – Grounds – Inadequate statement of reasons – Recourse by the Civil Service Tribunal to implied grounds – Lawfulness – Conditions
(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 36 and Annex I, Art. 7(1))
The first instance court 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 by the first instance court does not, except in the case of distortion of the evidence submitted to that court, constitute a question of law which, as such, is subject 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 para. 18)
See:
Case T‑222/07 P Kerstens v Commission [2008] ECR‑SC I‑B‑1‑37 and II‑B‑1‑267, paras 60 to 62 and the case-law cited therein
The obligation of the Civil Service Tribunal to state reasons, pursuant to Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 7(1) of Annex I thereto, does not require the Civil Service Tribunal to provide an account that follows exhaustively and point by point all the reasoning articulated by the parties to the case. The grounds stated may therefore be implicit, on condition that they enable the persons concerned to know the reasons for which a particular ruling was made and provide the General Court with sufficient material for it to exercise its power of review.
(see para. 34)
See:
2 July 2010, Case T‑485/08 P Lafili v Commission, para. 72 and the case‑law cited therein