ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

29 July 2010

Case T-475/08 P

Radu Duta

v

Court of Justice of the European Union

(Appeal — Civil service — Temporary staff — Recruitment — Post as Legal Secretary — Appeal manifestly inadmissible)

Appeal: against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 4 September 2008 in Case F-103/07 Duta v Court of Justice [2008] ECR-SC I-A-1-277 and II-A-1-1481, and seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Held: The appeal is dismissed. Mr Radu Duta is to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the present proceedings.

Summary

1.      Procedure — Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings — Conditions

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 48(2), 138(1)(c) and 144)

2.      Appeals — Pleas in law — Mere repetition of pleas and arguments produced before the Civil Service Tribunal — Error of law relied on not identified — Inadmissibility

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 141(2))

1.      It follows from Article 138(1)(c), read in conjunction with Article 48(2) and Article 144 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, that an appeal must contain, inter alia, a summary of the pleas in law relied on, and that new pleas in law may not be introduced in the course of the proceedings unless they are based on matters of law or of fact which have come to light in the course of the procedure.

(see para. 28)

See: C‑430/00 P Dürbeck v Commission [2001] ECR I‑8547, para. 17; judgment of 19 January 2010 in T-355/08 P De Fays v Commission, para. 34

2.      A complaint which does not specifically identify the error of law allegedly vitiating the contested judgment and which essentially confines itself to reproducing the arguments already submitted to the Civil Service Tribunal amounts in reality to no more than a request for re-examination of the application submitted to the Civil Service Tribunal, which the appeal court does not have jurisdiction to undertake.

(see para. 32)

See: C‑234/02 P Ombudsman v Lamberts [2004] ECR I‑2803, para. 77 and the case-law cited therein; judgment of 20 September 2006 in C-4/06 P Ouariachi v Commission, not published in the ECR, para. 24