EN
ReportsofCases
ECLI:EU:T:2010 :95 1JUDGMENT O F THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Ch amber)
17 March 2010
Case T-78/09 P
European Parliament
v
Laurent Collée
(Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2004 p romotion e xercise — Procedure for the 
allocation o f me rit points — Distortion o f the evidence — Statement of reasons — Value of the 
opinion o f the Reports Committee — Principle of non -discrimination)
Appeal: against the judgment of the European U nion C ivil Service Tribunal in Case F-148/06 
Collée v P arliament [2008 ] ECR-SC I-A-1-455 a nd II-A-1-2527 , seeking the setting-aside 
of that judgment.
Held: The appeal is dismissed. The European Parliament is ordered to bear its own costs and to 
pay those incurred by Mr Laurent Collée in connection w ith th e appeal.
Summ ary
1. Appeals — Pleas in law — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments presented b efore the Civil 
Service Tribunal — Inadmissibility — Challenge to the interpretation or application of Comm unity law 
by the Tribunal — Admissibility
(Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11(1); Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 138(1))
2. Officials — Promotion — Consideration of comparative merits — Administration’s discretion
(Staff Regulations, Art. 45)
1. It is clear in particular from A rticle 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 and lies on th e grounds of lack of jurisdiction 
of the Civil Service Tribunal, a b reach of procedure before it which ad versely affects the interests of the 
appellant, or an infringement of law by th e Tribunal. Moreover, Article 138(1), first subparagraph, 
under (c), of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court provides that an appeal must contain th e 
pleas in law and legal arguments relied on .
It follows that an appeal must indicate precisely the contested elements of the judgment which th e 
appellant seeks to have set aside and also th e legal arguments specifically ad vanced in support of the 
appeal.
That requirement is no t satisfied by an appeal which simply repeats or reproduces verbatim th e pleas 
in law and ar guments already put forward b efore th e Civil Service Tribunal, including th ose which 
were based on f acts expressly rejected by that Tribunal; such an appeal amounts in reality to no m ore
2 ECLI:EU:T:2010 :95SUMM ARY—CASET-78/09P
PARLIAMENTvCOLLÉE
 than a r equest for re-examination o f the application s ubmitted to the Civil Service Tribunal, which the 
General Court does no t have j urisdiction t o undertake. However, provided th at th e appellant 
challenges the interpretation o r application o f law by th e Civil Service Tribunal, the points of law 
examined at first instance may be discussed again in th e course of an appeal. Indeed, if an appellant 
could no t thus base his appeal on p leas in law and arguments already relied on b efore the Civil Service 
Tribunal, an appeal would be deprived of part of its purpose.
(see paras 20-22)
See:
C-19/95 P San M arco v C omm ission [1996 ] ECR I-4435 , paras 37 a nd 38; C-41/00 P Interporc v C omm ission [2003 ] 
ECR I-2125 , para. 17; C-353/01 P M attila v C ouncil and Comm ission [2004 ] ECR I-1073 , para. 27
2. It is no t the role of the Community judicature to assess th e me rits of the various officials eligible for 
promotion. In view of the wide discretion e njoyed by the appointing authority to assess th e me rits to 
be taken into consideration, the judicature m ust confine itself to checking whether the appointing 
authority remained w ithin reasonable limits and did no t use its power in a m anifestly incorrect 
manner.
(see para. 61)
See:
C-277/01 P Parliament v S amper [2003 ] ECR I- 3019 , para. 35; T-262/94 B aiwir v C omm ission [1996 ] ECR-SC 
I-A-257 a nd II-739, para. 66; T-353/03 N ielsen v C ouncil [2005 ] ECR-SC I-A-95 a nd II-443, para. 58