ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

2 December 2010

Case T-73/10 P

Svetoslav Apostolov

v

European Commission

(Appeal — Civil service — Recruitment — Competition — Rejection of application — Period allowed for bringing proceedings — Delay — Appeal in part clearly inadmissible and in part clearly unfounded)

Appeal: brought against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 15 December 2009 in Case F-8/09 Apostolov v Commission [2009] ECR-SC I-A-1-509 and II-A-1-2763, seeking, inter alia, to have that order set aside.

Held: The appeal is dismissed. Mr Svetoslav Apostolov is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings.

Summary

1.      Appeals — Pleas in law — Mistaken assessment of the facts — Inadmissibility — Review by the General Court of the assessment of the evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11)

2.      Procedure — Time-limit for instituting proceedings — Claim barred by lapse of time — Earlier order granting the appellant legal aid — No effect

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 96(1))

1.      The first instance court has exclusive jurisdiction to find the facts, save where a substantive inaccuracy in its findings is attributable to the documents submitted to it, and to appraise those facts. The appraisal of the facts by the first instance court does not, except in the case of distortion of the evidence submitted to that court, constitute a question of law which, as such, is subject to review by the General Court.

(see para. 24)

See: T‑404/06 P ETF v Landgren [2009] ECR II‑2841, paras 191 and 192 and the case-law cited therein

2.      There is no connection between an application for legal aid and the main action such that the order ruling on that application can prejudge the admissibility of the action, since the application does not have the same subject-matter as the action and can even be filed before the action, in accordance with Article 96(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal. Consequently, the appellant is not entitled to deduce from the order granting him legal aid that his main action, which he had not yet even brought, was admissible.

(see para. 26)

See: T‑37/93 Stagakis v Parliament [1994] ECR-SC I‑A‑137 and II‑451, para. 23