EN
ReportsofCases
ECLI:EU:T:2010 :350 1ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Ch amber)
6 September 2010
Case T-60/08 P
Georgi K erelov
v
European Comm ission
(Appeal — Civil service — Recruitment — Notice of compe tition — Non-inclusion on th e reserve 
list — Exclusion from compe tition for infringement of the rule prohibiting candida tes from m aking 
direct or indirect contact with th e selection b oard — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part 
manifestly unfounded)
Appeal: against the judgment of the European Union C ivil Service Tribunal (Second Ch amber) of 
29 November 2007 i n Case F-19/07 K erelov v C omm ission [2007 ] ECR-SC I- A-1-399 
and II-A-1-2227 , seeking to have th at judgment set aside.
Held: The appeal is dismissed. Mr Georgi Kerelov is to bear h is own costs and to pay those 
incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings.
Summ ary
1. Procedure — Time-limits — Time-limit on account of distance
(Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 9; Ru les of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 96 (4) 
and 102(2))
2. Appeal — Pleas in law — Mistaken assess ment of the facts — Inadmissibility — Review by the 
General Court of the assess ment of the evidence — Possible only wh ere the clear sense of the evidence 
has been distorted
(Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11)
3. Officials — Competitions — Selection board — Disciplinary power to exclude a c andidate from a 
competition
(Staff Regulations, Art. 30; Annex III, Art. 5, fifth para.)
4. Appeal — Pleas in law — Error of law relied on not identified — Inadmissibility
(Art. 225 a EC; S tatute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11(1); Ru les of Procedure of the General 
Court, Art. 138(1), first subpara., u nder (c))
1. Under the terms of Article 96(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the introduction o f 
an application for legal aid s uspends the pe riod prescribed for the bringing of the action u ntil the date 
of no tification o f the order making a d ecision on th at application. In th at respect, th e time-limit on 
account of distance is no t to be regarded as separate from th e procedural time-limit, but simply as an
2 ECLI:EU:T:2010 :350SUMM ARY—CASET-60/08P
KERELOV v COMM ISSION
 extension o f the latter. The time-limit for bringing an action w ithin the me aning of Article 96(4) of the 
Rules of Procedure must be understood to me an th e time-limit for bringing an action p lus a f ixed 
time-limit on a ccount of distance of 10 da ys.
(see paras 14-16)
See:
T-85/97 H oreca-Wallonie v C omm ission [1997 ] ECR II- 2113 , para. 26
2. The court of first instance has exclusive jurisdiction t o find the facts, except where the substantive 
inaccuracy of its findings is apparent from th e documents submitted to it, and to assess th ose facts. 
Thus, the appraisal of the facts by the first instance court does no t, except in th e case of distortion o f 
the evidence submitted to that court, constitute a q uestion o f law which, as such, is subject to review 
by the General Court.
Furthermore, as well as having no j urisdiction to find the facts, the appeal court is also no t compe tent, 
in principle, to consider the evidence which th e court of first instance has admitted in support of the 
finding of those facts. As long as the evidence was duly obtained and the rules and general principles 
of law relating to th e burden of proof were observed, as also were the rules of procedure in relation 
to the taking of evidence, it is for the court of first instance alone to assess th e value which should be 
attached to the items of evidence produced to it. That appraisal does no t therefore constitute — save 
where the clear sense of that evidence has been distorted — a p oint of law which, as such, is open to 
review by the General Court.
Such distortion m ust be obvious from th e documents on th e Court’s file, without there being any need 
to carry out a n ew assessment of the facts and the evidence.
(see paras 28-29)
See:
judgment of 27 April 2006 i n C-230/05 P L v C omm ission, not published in th e ECR, paras 45 a nd 46; T-222/07 P 
Kerstens v C omm ission [2008 ] ECR-SC I-B-1-37 a nd II-B-1-267, paras 60-62; T-404/06 P E TF v L andgren [2009 ] ECR 
II-2841 , paras 191 a nd 192
3. Article 30 o f the Staff Regulations and th e fifth p aragraph of Article 5 of Annex III t o th e Staff 
Regulations expressly confer on th e selection b oard th e authority to dra w u p th e list of suitable 
candida tes, which necessarily implies the authority to exclude from a c ompe tition a c andida te who 
has breached th e prohibition on c ontacting mem bers of the selection b oard s et out in th e no tice of 
compe tition.
(see para. 61)
4. It follows from A rticle 225a EC, A rticle 11(1) of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice and 
Article 138(1), first subparagraph, (c), of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court that an appeal 
must indicate precisely the contested elements of the judgment which th e appellant seeks to have set 
aside and also the legal arguments specifically ad vanced in support of the appeal.
That requirement is no t satisfied by an appeal which does no t include any ar gument specifically 
identifying the error of law allegedly vitiating the judgment or order in question.
ECLI:EU:T:2010 :350 3SUMM ARY—CASET-60/08P
KERELOV v COMM ISSION
Moreover, statements which are too g eneral and imprecise to be legally assessed must be regarded as 
manifestly inadmissible.
(see paras 75-76)
See:
C-19/95 P San M arco v C omm ission [1996 ] ECR I- 4435 , para. 37; C-51/92 P H ercules C hemicals v C omm ission 
[1999 ] ECR I-4235 , para. 113 ; C-300/99 P and C-388/99 P Area Cova and Others v C ouncil [2001 ] ECR I-983, para. 
37; order of 12 December 2006 i n C-129/06 P Autosalone Ispra v C omm ission, not published in th e ECR, paras 31 
and 32; order of 29 November in C-107/07 P W eber v C omm ission, not published in th e ECR, para. 24; T-107/07 P 
Rossi Ferreras v C omm ission [2008 ] ECR-SC I-B-1-5 and II-B-1-31, para. 27