EN
ReportsofCases
ECLI:EU:T:2010 :103 1JUDGMENT O F THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Ch amber)
19 March 2010
Case T-338/07 P
Irène Bianc hi
v
European T r aining Foundation (E T F )
(Appeal — Civil service — Temp orary staff — Contract for a f ixed pe riod — Decision r efusing to 
renew th e contract — Article 47(b) of the CEOS)
Appeal: against the judgment of the European Union C ivil Service Tribunal (Second Ch amber) in 
Case F-38/06 B ianchi v E TF [2007 ] ECR-SC I- A-1-183 a nd II-A-1-1009 , seeking th e 
setting aside of that judgment.
Held: The appeal is dismissed. Mrs Irène Bianchi is ordered to bear her own costs and to pay 
those incurred by th e European Training Foundation ( ETF) for the purposes of these 
proceedings.
Summ ary
1. Appeals — Pleas in law — Mistaken assess ment of the facts — Inadmissibility — General Court’s 
review 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)
2. Appeals — Pleas in law — Inadequate statement of reasons
(Art. 253 EC)
1. Under Article 11 o f Annex I to th e Statute of the Court of Justice, an appeal before the General 
Court is limited to points of law. The Civil Service Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to establish th e 
facts except where the substantive inaccuracy of its findings is apparent from th e documents submitted 
to it, and to assess th ose facts. Therefore, save w here the clear sense of the evidence presented to the 
Civil Service Tribunal has been distorted, the assessment of the facts does no t constitute a p oint of law 
which is subject, as such, to review by the appeal court.
Moreover, the appeal court has no j urisdiction, in principle, to examine the evidence which th e court 
of first instance accepted in support of those facts. Wh ere the ev idence was duly obtained and th e 
rules and general principles of law relating to th e burden of proof were observed, as also were the 
rules of procedure in relation t o th e taking of evidence, it is for the court of first instance alone to 
assess th e value which should be attached to th e items of evidence produced to it. That assessment 
does no t, th erefore, save w here the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted, constitute a p oint 
of law which is subject, as such, to review by the General Court.
2 ECLI:EU:T:2010 :103SUMM ARY—CASET-338/07P
BIANCHIvETF
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.
The jurisdiction o f the General Court to review th e findings of fact by th e Civil Service Tribunal 
therefore extends, inter alia, to th e substantive inaccuracy of those findings as apparent from th e 
documents on th e file, the distortion o f the ev idence, the legal characterisation o f that evidence and 
the question w hether the rules relating to th e burden of proof and th e taking of evidence have b een 
observed.
(see paras 61-64, 95, 102 )
See:
C-449/99 P EIB v H autem [2001 ] ECR I-6733 , para. 44; C-121/01 P O’Hannrachain v P arliament [2003 ] ECR I-5539 , 
para. 35; 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 a nd 
the case-law cited th erein; C-403/04 P and C-405/04 P Sumitomo M etal Industries and Nippon Steel v C omm ission 
[2007 ] ECR I-729, para. 39 a nd th e case-law cited th erein; T-107/07 P Rossi Ferreras v C omm ission [2008 ] ECR-SC 
I-B-1-5 and II-B-1-31, para. 30; T-284/07 P OHIM v Ló pez Teruel [2008 ] ECR-SC I-B-1-69 a nd II-B-1-447, para. 47 
and the case-law cited therein
2. Observance of the extent of the obligation t o state reasons is a q uestion o f law reviewable by the 
General Court on a ppeal against a j udgment of the Civil Service Tribunal. First of all, the extent of 
the obligation t o state reasons depends on th e specific circumstances, in particular th e content of the 
measure in question, the nature of the reasons given and th e interest which th e addr essee o f the 
measure m ay have in obtaining explanations. In order to assess th e ad equacy of a s tatement of 
reasons, it must be viewed in th e factual and legal context in w hich th e contested me asure was 
adopted. Secondly, the reasons given for a d ecision ar e sufficient if it was ad opted in circumstances 
known to th e staff mem ber concerned which enable him to understand th e scope o f the me asure 
concerning him.
(see paras 74-75)
See:
C-189/02 P, C-202/02 P, C-205/02 P to C-208/02 P and C-213/02 P Dansk Rørindustri and Others v C omm ission 
[2005 ] ECR I-5425 , para. 453 ; judgment of 28 February 2008 i n C-17/07 P N eirinck v C omm ission, not published in 
the ECR, paras 50 t o 52; C-413/06 P Bertelsmann a nd So ny Corporation of America v I mpala [2008 ] ECR I-4951 , 
para. 30; T-118/04 a nd T-134/04 Ca ló v C omm ission [2007 ] ECR-SC I- A-2-37 a nd II-A-2-253, paras 127 a nd 128; 
T-502/04 Lo pparelli v C omm ission [2007 ] ECR-SC I-A-2-145 a nd II-A-2-995, para. 75 a nd the case-law cited therein