ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT
(Appeal Chamber)
23 May 2011
Case T‑493/09 P
Y
v
European Commission
(Appeal — Civil service — Contract staff — Dismissal — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
Appeal: against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 7 October 2009 in Case F‑29/08 Y v Commission [2009] ECR‑SC I‑A‑1‑393 and II‑A‑1‑2099, seeking to have that judgment set aside.
Held: The appeal is dismissed. Mr Y is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in these proceedings.
Summary
1. Appeal — Pleas in law — Error of law relied on not identified — Inadmissibility
(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. Appeal — 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)
3. Appeal — Pleas in law — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments presented before the Civil Service Tribunal — Inadmissibility
(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))
4. Officials — Rights and obligations — Obligation to inform the hierarchy of facts giving rise to presumption of the existence of illegal activity or serious failure to comply — Scope
(Staff Regulations, Art. 22a)
1. It follows from Article 11(1) of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 138(1), first subparagraph, (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.
Complaints based on errors of law which do not identify those elements with the requisite precision and which do not develop substantiated legal arguments in support of the appellant’s allegations do not satisfy that requirement.
(see paras 27, 28)
See: 17 March 2010, T‑78/09 P Parliament v Collée, paras 20 and 21
2. Under Article 11 of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice an appeal before the General Court lies on points of law only and, therefore, the Civil Service Tribunal alone has jurisdiction to find and appraise the facts, save where the factual inaccuracy of its findings results from the documents in the case before it.
In accordance with the role of the appeal court, the distortion of the clear sense of the evidence must be obvious from the documents in the case without its being necessary to undertake a fresh assessment of the facts and evidence.
(see paras 34, 35)
See: C‑8/95 P New Holland Ford v Commission [1998] ECR I‑3175, para. 72; C‑551/03 P General Motors v Commission [2006] ECR I‑3173, para. 54; C‑167/04 P JCB Service v Commission [2006] ECR I‑8935, para. 108; 19 March 2010, T‑338/07 P Bianchi v ETF, para. 61 and the case‑law cited therein
3. An appeal which merely repeats or reproduces verbatim the pleas in law and arguments already presented before the Civil Service Tribunal does not satisfy the requirements of Article 11(1) of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 138(1), first subparagraph, (c), of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. Such an appeal amounts in reality to no more than a request for re‑examination of the application already submitted to the Civil Service Tribunal, which falls outside the jurisdiction of the General Court.
(see para. 57)
See: Parliament v Collée, para. 22
4. Article 22a(3) of the Staff Regulations provides that an official who has communicated, pursuant to Article 22a(1), information concerning facts which give rise to a presumption of the existence of possible illegal activity or conduct which may reveal a serious failure to comply with the obligations of officials of the European Communities ‘shall not suffer any prejudicial effects on the part of the institution […] provided that he acted reasonably and honestly’. Even if that requirement to act reasonably and honestly may be interpreted as obliging the official concerned to take steps to demonstrate the truth of his claims, that should evidently and on any view not lead him to omit to keep his superiors informed about those steps, particularly where they concern investigations capable of compromising the image of the institution. The official concerned also cannot justify those steps by the fact that his superiors did not inspire him with confidence, since the provisions of Article 22a(1) of the Staff Regulations expressly provide that the official must, if he considers it useful, inform the Secretary‑General or any person in an equivalent position, or the European Anti‑Fraud Office direct, of facts such as those referred to in that article.
(see para. 62)