CELEX: 62008TO0060(01)
Language: en
Date: 2010-09-06 00:00:00
Title: ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber) 6 September 2010.#Georgi Kerelov v European Commission.#Appeal — Civil service — Recruitment — Notice of competition — Non‑inclusion on the reserve list — Exclusion from competition for infringement of the rule prohibiting candidates from making direct or indirect contact with the selection board — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.#Case T-60/08 P.

Reports of Cases
                            ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)
                                                6 September 2010
                                                  Case T-60/08 P
                                                  Georgi Kerelov
                                                          v
                                             European Commission
      (Appeal — Civil service — Recruitment — Notice of competition — Non-inclusion on the reserve
     list — Exclusion from competition for infringement of the rule prohibiting candidates from making
   direct or indirect contact with the selection board — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part
                                              manifestly unfounded)
   Appeal:       against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of
                 29 November 2007 in Case F-19/07 Kerelov v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-1-399
                 and II-A-1-2227, seeking to have that judgment set aside.
   Held:         The appeal is dismissed. Mr Georgi Kerelov is to bear his own costs and to pay those
                 incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings.
                                                      Summary
   1. Procedure — Time-limits — Time-limit on account of distance
   (Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 9; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 96(4)
   and 102(2))
   2. Appeal — Pleas in law — Mistaken assessment of the facts — Inadmissibility — Review by the
   General Court of the assessment of the evidence — Possible only where 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 candidate 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. 225a EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11(1); Rules of Procedure of the General
   Court, Art. 138(1), first subpara., under (c))
   1. Under the terms of Article 96(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the introduction of
   an application for legal aid suspends the period prescribed for the bringing of the action until the date
   of notification of the order making a decision on that application. In that respect, the time-limit on
   account of distance is not to be regarded as separate from the procedural time-limit, but simply as an
EN
          ECLI:EU:T:2010:350                                                                               1
 ---pagebreak---                                               SUMMARY — CASE T-60/08 P
                                                KERELOV v COMMISSION
extension of the latter. The time-limit for bringing an action within the meaning of Article 96(4) of the
Rules of Procedure must be understood to mean the time-limit for bringing an action plus a fixed
time-limit on account of distance of 10 days.
                                                                                                         (see paras 14-16)
          See:
          T-85/97 Horeca-Wallonie v Commission [1997] ECR II-2113, para. 26
2. The court of first instance has exclusive jurisdiction to find the facts, except where the substantive
inaccuracy of its findings is apparent from the documents submitted to it, and to assess those facts.
Thus, 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.
Furthermore, as well as having no jurisdiction to find the facts, the appeal court is also not competent,
in principle, to consider the evidence which the 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 the 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 the value which should be
attached to the items of evidence produced to it. That appraisal does not therefore constitute — save
where the clear sense of that evidence has been distorted — a point of law which, as such, is open to
review by the General Court.
Such distortion must be obvious from the documents on the Court’s file, without there being any need
to carry out a new assessment of the facts and the evidence.
                                                                                                         (see paras 28-29)
          See:
          judgment of 27 April 2006 in C-230/05 P L v Commission, not published in the ECR, paras 45 and 46; T-222/07 P
          Kerstens v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I-B-1-37 and II-B-1-267, paras 60-62; T-404/06 P ETF v Landgren [2009] ECR
          II-2841, paras 191 and 192
3. Article 30 of the Staff Regulations and the fifth paragraph of Article 5 of Annex III to the Staff
Regulations expressly confer on the selection board the authority to draw up the list of suitable
candidates, which necessarily implies the authority to exclude from a competition a candidate who
has breached the prohibition on contacting members of the selection board set out in the notice of
competition.
                                                                                                             (see para. 61)
4. It follows from Article 225a EC, Article 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 the appellant seeks to have set
aside and also the legal arguments specifically advanced in support of the appeal.
That requirement is not satisfied by an appeal which does not include any argument specifically
identifying the error of law allegedly vitiating the judgment or order in question.
2                                                                                                   ECLI:EU:T:2010:350
 ---pagebreak---                                               SUMMARY — CASE T-60/08 P
                                                KERELOV v COMMISSION
Moreover, statements which are too general and imprecise to be legally assessed must be regarded as
manifestly inadmissible.
                                                                                                       (see paras 75-76)
         See:
         C-19/95 P San Marco v Commission [1996] ECR I-4435, para. 37; C-51/92 P Hercules Chemicals v Commission
         [1999] ECR I-4235, para. 113; C-300/99 P and C-388/99 P Area Cova and Others v Council [2001] ECR I-983, para.
         37; order of 12 December 2006 in C-129/06 P Autosalone Ispra v Commission, not published in the ECR, paras 31
         and 32; order of 29 November in C-107/07 P Weber v Commission, not published in the ECR, para. 24; T-107/07 P
         Rossi Ferreras v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I-B-1-5 and II-B-1-31, para. 27
ECLI:EU:T:2010:350                                                                                                     3