Hellenic Republic v European Commission.
Date: 2010-07-29
42. It follows, admittedly, from settled case-law that, pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 256(1) TFEU, the first paragraph of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 112(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of that Court, an appeal must indicate precisely the contested elements of the judgment which the appellant seeks to have set aside and the legal arguments specifically advanced in support of the appeal. Thus, an appeal which merely repeats or reproduces verbatim the pleas and arguments relied on before the General Court does not satisfy the requirement to state reasons under those provisions  (see, inter alia, Joined Cases C‑125/07 P, C‑133/07 P, C‑135/07 P and C‑137/07 P Erste Group Bank and Others  v Commission [2009] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 131).
43. However, provided that the appellant challenges the interpretation or application of Community 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 (Case C‑425/07 P AEPI v Commission  [2009] ECR I-3205, paragraph 24).
46. There can be no doubt that such wording makes that time-limit binding. The fact that three language versions, including the Greek version, provide that Member States are to forward that information to the Commission ‘by’ 10 July each year does not confer on that article a different meaning as against the other language versions.
76. In accordance with Article 225(1) EC and the first paragraph of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, an appeal lies on points of law only, the General Court having exclusive jurisdiction to find and appraise the relevant facts and to assess the evidence. The appraisal of those facts and the assessment of that evidence thus do not, save where they distort the facts or evidence, constitute a point of law which is subject, as such, to review by the Court of Justice on appeal (see, inter alia, Case C‑104/00 P DKV  v OHIM  [2002] ECR I‑7561, paragraph 22; Case C‑173/04 P Deutsche SiSi-Werke  v OHIM  [2006] ECR I‑551, paragraph 35; and Case C‑38/09 P Schräder  v CPVO  [2010] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 69).
81. It should be noted at the outset that, according to settled case-law, to allow a party to put forward for the first time before the Court of Justice a plea in law which it has not raised before the General Court would be to authorise it to bring before the Court of Justice, the appellate jurisdiction of which is limited, a case of wider ambit than that which came before the General Court. In an appeal, the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice is thus confined to a review of the findings of law on the pleas argued before the General Court (see, to that effect, Case C‑136/92 P Commission  v Brazzelli Lualdi and Others  [1994] ECR I-1981, paragraphs 58 and 59; Case C‑266/97 P VBA  v VGB and Others  [2000] ECR I‑2135, paragraph 79; Joined Cases C-456/01 P and C‑457/01 P Henkel v OHIM  [2004] ECR I-5089, paragraph 50; and Case C‑16/06 P Les Éditions Albert René  v OHIM [2008] ECR I-10053, paragraph 126).
87. It must be borne in mind at the outset that, according to settled case-law, the question whether the grounds of a judgment of the General Court are contradictory is a question of law which is amenable, as such, to judicial review on appeal (see, inter alia, Joined Cases C‑120/06 P and C‑121/06 P FIAMM and Others  v Council and Commission  [2008] ECR I‑6513, paragraph 90, and Case C‑385/07 P Der Grüne Punkt – Duales System Deutschland  v Commission  [2009] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 71).