French Republic v European Commission.
Date: 2013-07-11
70. In this regard, it is clear from Article 256 TFEU and Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union that an appeal lies on points of law only.
71. Moreover, it is settled case-law that, where the appellant challenges the interpretation or application of EU law by the General Court, the points of law examined at first instance may be discussed again in the course of an appeal. Indeed, if an appellant could not thus base his appeal on pleas in law and arguments already relied on before the General Court, an appeal would be deprived of part of its purpose (see, inter alia, Joined Cases C-514/07 P, C‑528/07 P and C-532/07 P Sweden and Others  v API and Commission  [2010] ECR I-8533, paragraph 116, and Case C-335/09 P Poland  v Commission  [2012] ECR I-0000, paragraph 27).
73. However, to the extent that the Commission puts forward more detailed objections of inadmissibility in relation to a number of specific pleas or complaints of the appeal, those objections fall to be addressed in the context of the examination of the pleas concerned.
The first plea, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons
Arguments of the parties
82. It should be recalled at the outset that the extent of the obligation to state reasons is a question of law reviewable by the Court on appeal (Case C-413/06 P Bertelsmann and Sony Corporation of America v Impala  [2008] ECR I-4951, paragraph 30 and the case-law cited).
83. The Court has also held that the obligation for the General Court, under Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, applicable to the General Court by virtue of the first paragraph of Article 53 thereof, and Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, 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. The reasoning of the General Court may therefore be implicit on condition that it enables the persons concerned to know the reason for the General Court’s decision and provides the Court of Justice with sufficient material for it to exercise its power of review (see, inter alia, Case C‑260/09 P Activision Blizzard Germany v Commission  [2011] ECR I-419, paragraph 84 and Case C-403/10 P Mediaset  v Commission  [2011] ECR I-117, paragraph 88).
106. Second, the French Republic has not shown to the requisite legal standard that the General Court adopted an interpretation of those scientific opinions which is manifestly at odds with their content.
110. In those last paragraphs of the judgment under appeal, the General Court recalled the case-law of the Court of Justice according to which, when new elements change the perception of a risk or show that that risk can be contained by measures less restrictive than the existing measures, it is for the institutions and, in particular, the Commission, which has the power of legislative initiative, to bring about an amendment to the rules in the light of the new information (see Case C‑504/04 Agrarproduktion Staebelow  [2006] ECR I-679, paragraph 40). The General Court inferred from this that the relaxation of preventive measures previously adopted had to be warranted by new elements, such as new knowledge or new scientific discoveries, changing the assessment of the risk in question.
119. In that regard it is settled case-law that, when the General Court has found or assessed the facts, the Court of Justice has jurisdiction under Article 256 TFEU to review the legal characterisation of those facts by the General Court and the legal conclusions it has drawn from them (see, inter alia, Case C-551/03 P General Motors  v Commission  [2006] ECR I-3173, paragraph 51; Case C-397/03 P Archer Daniels Midland and Archer Daniels Midland Ingredients  v Commission  [2006] ECR I-4429, paragraph 105; and Bertelsmann and Sony Corporation of America v Impala , paragraph 29).
142. As regards the appellant’s argument, pleaded in the alternative, that the General Court erred in law in failing to ascertain whether, in determining the level of risk deemed acceptable, the Commission had taken into account the gravity of the risk of transmission to humans of TSEs actually occurring and the irreversible nature of TSEs as diseases, it must be recalled that in a sphere in which the European Union  legislature is called on to undertake complex assessments, judicial review of the exercise of its powers must be limited to examining whether it is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment or a misuse of powers or whether the legislature has manifestly exceeded the limits of its discretion (Case C‑236/01 Monsanto Agricoltura Italia and Others  [2003] ECR I‑8105, paragraph 135).
149. In an appeal the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice is in principle confined to a review of the findings of law on the pleas argued before the General Court (see, inter alia, Case C‑266/05 P Sison v Council , paragraph 95 and the case-law cited). Therefore, a party cannot, in principle, put forward for the first time before the Court of Justice a plea in law which it has not raised before the General Court, because that would amount to allowing the Court of Justice to review the legality of the findings of the General Court, in the light of pleas of which the latter did not take cognisance (Case C-544/09 P Germany v Commission  [2011] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 63).