JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

19 November 2009

Case T-50/08 P

Christos Michail

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Appeal – Civil service – Officials – Reports procedure – Career development report – 2004 assessment period – Duty of the Civil Service Tribunal to state reasons)

Appeal: against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 22 November 2007 in Case F-34/06 Michail v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000, seeking the setting aside of that judgment.

Held: The appeal is dismissed. Mr Christos Michail is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission of the European Communities in the context of the present instance.

Summary

1.      Appeal – Pleas in law – Heads of claim not supported by any specific plea – 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))

2.      Procedure – Statement of reasons for judgments – Scope

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 36 and Annex I, Art. 7(1))

3.      Appeal – Pleas in law – Distortion of the clear sense of the evidence – Findings of fact from the Court’s file substantially incorrect – Admissibility

(Art. 225a EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11(1))

4.      Actions for annulment – Pleas in law – Invalid plea in law – Concept

5.      Appeals – Pleas in law – Plea against a ground of the judgment not necessary to support the operative part – Invalid plea in law

1.      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, under (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.

Consequently, heads of claim in an appeal seeking to have a judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal set aside must be dismissed as inadmissible if they are not supported by any specific plea.

(see paras 30-33)

See: C‑19/95 P San Marco v Commission [1996] ECR I‑4435, para. 37; C‑8/95 P New Holland Ford v Commission [1998] ECR I‑3175, para. 23

2.      While the obligation of the Civil Service Tribunal to give reasons for its decisions does not go so far as to require it to respond in detail to every argument advanced by the parties, particularly where the arguments are not sufficiently clear and precise and are not based on detailed evidence, it does, at the very least, require it to examine all the infringements of law alleged before it. In that respect, judgments of the Civil Service Tribunal must be sufficiently reasoned in order for the Court to be able to review them.

(see paras 42, 56)

See: C‑221/97 P Schröder and Others v Commission [1998] ECR I‑8255, para. 24; C‑274/99 P Connolly v Commission [2001] ECR I‑1611, para. 121; C‑197/99 P Belgium v Commission [2003] ECR I‑8461, para. 81; C‑397/03 P Archer Daniels Midland and Archer Daniels Midland Ingredients v Commission [2006] ECR I‑4429, para. 60 and the case-law cited therein; judgment of 4 October 2007 in C-311/05 P Naipes Heraclio Fournier v OHIM, not published in the ECR, para. 52 and the case-law cited therein; judgment of 25 October 2007 in C-167/06 P Komninou and Others v Commission, not published in the ECR, para. 22

3.      Complaints based on findings of fact and on the assessment of those facts in the contested decision are admissible on appeal where the appellant contends that the Civil Service Tribunal has made findings which the documents in the file show to be substantially incorrect or that it has distorted the clear sense of the evidence before it. A plea alleging an incomplete examination of the facts is also regarded as admissible on appeal.

(see para. 50)

See: C‑238/99 P, C‑244/99 P, C‑245/99 P, C‑247/99 P, C‑250/99 P to C‑252/99 P and C‑254/99 P Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij and Others v Commission [2002] ECR I‑8375, paras 392 to 405; C‑229/05 P PKK and KNK v Council [2007] ECR I‑439, para. 35 and the case-law cited therein; T_253/06 P Chassagne v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I-B-2-0000 and II-B-2-0000, para. 57

4.       In an action for annulment, the Community judicature may dismiss a plea or complaint as ineffective where it finds that that plea or complaint is not capable, in the event that it is well founded, of leading to the annulment sought.

(see para. 59)

See: C‑46/98 P EFMA v Council [2000] ECR I‑7079, para. 38; C‑76/01 P Eurocoton and Others v Council [2003] ECR I‑10091, para. 52

5.      Where one of the grounds adopted by the Civil Service Tribunal is sufficient to sustain the operative part of its judgment, any defects that might vitiate other grounds given in the judgment have, in any event, no bearing on that operative part and, accordingly, a plea relying on such defects is ineffective and must be dismissed.

(see para. 65)

See: C‑326/91 P de Compte v Parliament [1994] ECR I‑2091, para. 94; C‑496/99 P Commission v CAS Succhi di Frutta [2004] ECR I‑3801, para. 68