Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Appeals - Grounds - Incorrect assessment of the facts - Inadmissible - Review by the Court of Justice of assessment of evidence - Possible only where the clear sense of evidence has been distorted

(Art. 225 EC; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51)

2. Appeals - Grounds - Inadequate or contradictory grounds - Admissibility

(Art. 225 EC)

3. Officials - Actions - Unlimited jurisdiction - Disputes between the European Investment Bank and its staff - Application by analogy of Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91(1); Staff Regulations of the European Investment Bank, Art. 41)

4. Staff Regulations - Members of the staff of the European Investment Bank - Annulment of a dismissal decision - Payment of arrears of remuneration

Summary

1. Under Article 225 EC and Article 51 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, an appeal lies on a point of law only. Therefore, the Court of First Instance has sole jurisdiction to find and appraise the facts, except in a case where the factual inaccuracy of its findings arises from evidence adduced before it. The appraisal of the facts by the Court of First Instance does not constitute, save where the clear sense of the evidence produced before it is distorted, a question of law which is subject, as such, to review by the Court of Justice.

( see para. 44 )

2. The Court of Justice has jurisdiction under Article 225 EC to review the legal characterisation of those facts by the Court of First Instance and the legal conclusions it has drawn from them. The question whether the grounds of a judgment of the Court of First Instance are contradictory or inadequate is a question of law which is amenable, as such, to judicial review on appeal.

( see para. 45 )

3. Article 41 of the Staff Regulations of the Bank, under which disputes of any nature between the Bank and individual members of staff are to be brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities, does not remove disputes of a financial character between the Bank and its staff from the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice, and therefore from that of the Court of First Instance, and it does not limit the exercise of that jurisdiction according to the particular nature of a dispute. Similarly, the particular nature of the system applicable to the staff of the Bank does not mean that the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice cannot be recognised as having unlimited jurisdiction in disputes of a financial character between the Bank and its staff.

Consequently, the Court of First Instance correctly held that, by applying by analogy Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities, it had unlimited jurisdiction to adjudicate on the financial aspects of a dispute between a member of the staff of the European Investment Bank and the Bank.

( see paras 92, 94-95 )

4. Since an award of arrears of remuneration is the normal consequence of a finding that a dismissal decision is unlawful, including where the applicable system is one governed by contract, the Court of First Instance did not fail to take account of the contractual nature of the system applicable to the staff of the Bank when, after annulling a decision of the Bank dismissing a member of its staff, it ordered the Bank to pay the person concerned the arrears of the remuneration which he should have received since the date of his dismissal.

( see para. 96 )