ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)
28 June 2011
Case T‑454/09 P
Rinse van Arum
v
European Parliament
(Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Reports — Staff report — Reporting exercise for 2005 — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
Appeal: against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2009 in Case F‑139/07 van Arum v Parliament [2009] ECR-SC I‑A‑1-291 and II‑A‑1-1571, seeking to have that judgment set aside.
Held: The appeal is dismissed. Mr Rinse van Arum is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament in these proceedings.
Summary
1. Appeals — Pleas in law — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments presented before the Civil Service Tribunal — Inadmissibility
(Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11(1); Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 138(1))
2. Officials — Promotion — Consideration of comparative merits — Award of merit points
(Staff Regulations, Art. 45)
3. Appeals — Pleas in law — Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal — Inadmissibility
(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58)
4. Officials — Reports procedure — Staff report — Review by the appointing authority in the context of a complaint — Limits
(Staff Regulations, Art. 90)
5. Procedure — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements
(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 43(1) and 44(1)(c))
6. Appeals — Pleas in law — Mistaken assessment of the facts — Inadmissibility
(Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11)
1. It follows in particular from 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. That requirement is not satisfied by an appeal which confines itself to repeating or reproducing word for word the pleas in law and arguments previously submitted to the Civil Service Tribunal. In reality, such an appeal amounts to no more than a request for re-examination of the application submitted to the Civil Service Tribunal, which falls outside the jurisdiction of the General Court.
(see paras 26, 27)
See: 17 March 2010, T‑78/09 P Parliament v Collée, paras 20 to 22
2. In accordance with Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, which provides that promotion is by selection following consideration of the comparative merits of officials eligible for promotion, the decision on the award of merit points provided for in the general implementing provisions must not be based on an examination of the staff report of each official in isolation, but on a comparison of each official’s merits with those of other officials. Consequently, the fact that an official’s final staff report is more favourable than the report as it stood on the date when the decision on the award of merits points was taken does not necessarily mean that he should be awarded additional merit points.
(see para. 67)
See: Parliament v Collée, para. 61
3. To allow a party to put forward for the first time before the General Court a plea in law which it has not raised before the Civil Service Tribunal would be to allow it to bring before the Court, whose jurisdiction in appeals is limited, a case of wider ambit than that which came before the Civil Service Tribunal. In an appeal the Court’s jurisdiction is therefore confined to review of the findings of law on the pleas argued before the court of first instance.
(see para. 79)
See: C‑186/02 P and C‑188/02 P Ramondín and Others v Commission [2004] ECR I‑10653, para. 60; C‑25/05 P Storck v OHIM [2006] ECR I‑5719, para. 61
4. Staff reports express the freely expressed opinion of the reporting officers and not the assessment of the appointing authority. Consequently, in the context of a complaint lodged against a staff report, the appointing authority, like the court when hearing an action, is not entitled to assume the role of the reporting officers and conduct an exhaustive review, and must confine itself to carrying out a limited review.
(see para. 109)
See: 6/79 and 97/79 Grassi v Council [1980] ECR II‑2141, para. 15; T‑1/91 Della Pietra v Commission [1992] ECR II‑2145, para. 23; T‑187/98 Cubero Vermurie v Commission [2000] ECR-SC I‑A‑195 and II‑885, para. 36; T‑165/04 Vounakis v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑2155 and II‑A‑735, para. 28
5. The body of the application must contain the essential elements of the applicant’s arguments, the annexes having only a probative function.
(see para. 133)
See: T‑416/03 Angelidis v Parliament [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑2-317 and II‑A‑2-1607, paras 92 and 93 and the case-law cited therein
6. Given that, under Article 11 of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice, an appeal before the General Court is limited to points of law, the Civil Service Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to find the facts, except where the substantive inaccuracy of its findings is apparent from the documents submitted to it, and to assess those facts.
(see para. 153)
See: 19 March 2010, T‑338/07 P Bianchi v ETF, para. 61 and the case-law cited therein