Christos Gogos v European Commission.
Date: 2010-05-20
24. However, as the Advocate General observed in point 33 of her opinion, the purpose of those provisions is merely to ensure that the subject-matter of the proceedings is not changed in the appeal (see, to that effect, Case C‑136/92 P Commission  v Brazzelli Lualdi and Others  [1994] ECR I‑1981, paragraphs 57 to 59; Joined Cases 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 Other s v Commission  [2005] ECR I‑5425, paragraph 165; Case C‑229/05 P PKK and KNK  v Council  [2007] ECR I‑439, paragraph 66; and Case C‑202/07 P France Télécom  v Commission  [2009] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 60).
29. It must be observed that the plea that the General Court failed to rule on a plea relied on at first instance amounts essentially to relying on a breach of the obligation to state reasons which derives from Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, applicable to the General Court of the European Union by virtue of the first paragraph of Article 53 of that Statute, and from Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court (see, to that effect, Case C‑283/90 P Vidrányi  v Commission  [1991] ECR I‑4339, paragraph 29, and Case C‑197/99 P Belgium  v Commission  [2003] ECR I‑8461, paragraph 80 read in conjunction with paragraph 83).
30. It is clear from established case-law that the obligation to state reasons does not require the General Court to provide an account which follows exhaustively and one by one all the arguments put forward by the parties to the case and that the reasoning may therefore be implicit on condition that it enables the persons concerned to know why the General Court has not upheld their arguments and provides the Court of Justice with sufficient material for it to exercise its power of review (see, in particular, Case C‑16/07 P Chetcuti  v Commission  [2008] ECR I‑7469, paragraph 87, and Case C‑440/07 P Commission  v Schneider Electric  [2009] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 135).
35. The fact that the General Court, on the merits, arrived at a different conclusion from the appellant cannot in itself vitiate the judgment for failure to state reasons (Case C‑362/05 P Wunenburger  v Commission  [2007] ECR I‑4333, paragraph 80).
44. According to settled case-law, under the second sentence of Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations, the General Court has, in disputes of a financial character, unlimited jurisdiction, pursuant to which it has the power, if need be, of its own motion to order the defendant to pay compensation for the damage caused by the defendant’s wrongful act and, in such a case, taking account of all of the circumstances of the case, to assess the damage suffered ex aequo et bono (see, inter alia, Case 24/79 Oberthür  v Commission  [1980] ECR 1743, paragraph 14; Joined Cases 176/86 and 177/86 Houyoux and Guery  v Commission  [1987] ECR 4333, paragraph 16; Case C‑90/95 P de Compte  v Parliament  [1997] ECR I‑1999, paragraph 45; and Case C‑348/06 P Commission  v Girardot  [2008] ECR I‑833, paragraph 58).
45. ‘Disputes of a financial character’ within the meaning of that provision include not only actions brought by staff members seeking to have an institution held liable, but also all those seeking payment by an institution to a staff member of a sum which he considers to be due to him under the Staff Regulations or other measure governing their working relations (see, to that effect, Case C‑135/06 P Weißenfels v Parliament [2007] ECR I‑12041, paragraph 65).
46. According to the case-law of the Court an action by which an official seeks annulment of a decision affecting his position under the Staff Regulations may also give rise to a dispute of a financial character (see Oberthür  v Commission , paragraph 14, and Houyoux and Guery  v Commission , paragraph 16, read in conjunction with paragraph 1).
49. The unlimited jurisdiction conferred on the Courts of the European Union by Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations entrusts the Courts of the Union with the task of providing a complete solution to the disputes brought before it ( Weißenfels  v Parliament , paragraph 67, and Case C‑197/09 RX‑II M  v EMEA  [2009] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 56).
56. It must be observed, in that regard that, although the failure, if proven, on the part of the General Court to adjudicate within a reasonable time can give rise to a claim for damages brought against the European Union under the provisions of Article 268 TFEU in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU (Case C‑385/07 P Der Grüne Punkt – Duales System Deutschland  v Commission  [2009] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 195), Article 113(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court provide that, in an appeal, the appellant’s claims must seek to set aside, in whole or in part, the judgment of the General Court and, as the case may be, seek the same form of order, in whole or in part, as that sought at first instance (Joined Cases C‑120/06 P and C‑121/06 P FIAMM and Others v Council [2008] ECR I‑6513, paragraph 205).