ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

4 December 2012

Case T‑78/11 P

Erika Lenz

v

European Commission

(Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Social security — Reimbursement of the costs of treatment provided by a ‘Heilpraktiker’ — Obligation to state reasons — Distortion of the facts)

Appeal: against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 14 December 2010 in Case F‑80/09 Lenz v Commission [2010] ECR-SC, and seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Held: The appeal is dismissed. Ms Erika Lenz is to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings.

Summary

1. Appeals — Pleas in law — Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal — Inadmissibility

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 48(2), 139(2) and 144)

2. Appeals — Pleas in law — Incorrect assessment of the facts — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

(Art. TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11(1))

3. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 138(1)(c))

1. See the text of the decision.

(see para. 30)

See:

T‑364/09 P Lebedef v Commission [2010] ECR-SC, para. 56 and the case-law cited therein

2. Under Article 257 TFEU and Article 11(1) of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice, an appeal to the General Court must be limited to points of law. The court of first instance 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.

Moreover, the Civil Service Tribunal is the sole judge of any need to supplement the information available to it in respect of the cases before it. Whether or not the evidence before it is sufficient is a matter to be appraised by it alone and is not subject to review by the General Court on appeal, except where that evidence has been distorted or the substantive inaccuracy of the findings of the Civil Service Tribunal is apparent from the documents in the case.

(see paras 35, 39)

See:

C‑315/99 P Ismeri Europa v Court of Auditors [2001] ECR I‑5281, para. 19 and the case-law cited therein

T‑452/09 P Rosenbaum v Commission and Council [2011] ECR-SC, para. 41; T‑184/11 P Nijs v Court of Auditors [2012] ECR-SC, para. 29 and the case-law cited therein

3. See the text of the decision.

(see para. 48)

See:

T‑157/09 P Marcuccio v Commission [2010] ECR-SC, para. 27