ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Appeal Chamber)
6 May 2010
Case T-100/08 P
Georgi Kerelov
v
European Commission
(Appeal — Civil service — Recruitment — Open competition — Refusal by the Director of EPSO to communicate to a candidate information and documents relating to the admission test — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
Application: appeal brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 12 December 2007 in Case F-110/07 Kerelov v Commission, not published in the ECR, asking for that order to be set aside.
Held: The appeal is dismissed. Georgi Kerelov is ordered to bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the Commission in the context of the present proceedings.
Summary
1. Procedure — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements
(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para., and Annex I, Art. 7(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c))
2. Procedure — Decision taken by way of reasoned order — Contestation — Conditions — Obligation to contest the Civil Service Tribunal’s assessment of those conditions
(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 76)
3. Procedure — Decision taken by way of reasoned order — Possibility of giving judgment without an oral procedure
(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 76)
4. Appeals — Pleas in law — Error of law relied on not identified — Inadmissibility
(Art. 225a EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 138(1), first subpara., under (c))
1. The summary of the applicant’s pleas in law on which the application is based must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court to rule on the application, if necessary, without any further information. In order to guarantee legal certainty and sound administration of justice it is necessary, in order for an action to be admissible, that the basic legal and factual particulars relied on be indicated, at least in summary form, coherently and intelligibly in the application itself.
The fact that an application does not satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance renders it inadmissible. By definition, in order to determine whether an application satisfies those conditions, the Civil Service Tribunal need not examine any other document, so that it may consider itself to have sufficient information simply from reading the application.
(see paras 16-17)
See: T‑209/01 Honeywell v Commission [2005] ECR II‑5527, paras 55 and 56 and the case-law cited therein; T-371/08 P Nijs v Court of Auditors [2009] ECR-SC I-B-1-47 and II-B-1-271, para. 22
2. The application of the procedure provided for in Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal does not in itself prejudice the right to a proper and effective judicial protection, since that provision is applicable only where it is clear that the Civil Service Tribunal manifestly has no jurisdiction over the action or some of its heads of claim, or where the action is, either entirely or in part, manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law. Accordingly, if an applicant takes the view that the Civil Service Tribunal has incorrectly applied that article, he must challenge the assessment by the court of first instance of the conditions to which the application of that provision is subject.
Where an applicant merely contests the fact that the Civil Service Tribunal has given a decision by way of a reasoned order, without challenging the Civil Service Tribunal’s assessment of the conditions for the application of Article 76 of its Rules of Procedure, his pleas must be dismissed as manifestly unfounded.
(see paras 25-26)
See: C‑396/03 P Killinger v Germany and Others [2005] ECR II‑4967, para. 9; C‑308/07 P Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso v Parliament [2009] ECR I‑1059, para. 36
3. It is clear from the very wording of Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal that applicants do not have a right to a hearing which cannot be waived. The application of the provisions of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal relating to procedural issues, including Article 76, does not guarantee that an oral procedure will take place, since the Tribunal may give judgment following a solely written procedure.
(see para. 31)
See: order of 8 July 1999 in C-199/98 P Goldstein v Commission, not published in the ECR, para. 18; T‑222/07 P Kerstens v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I-B-1-37 and II-B-1-267, paras 33 and 36 and the case-law cited therein
4. 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, (c), of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance 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 does not include any argument specifically identifying the error of law allegedly vitiating the judgment or order in question.
Moreover, statements which are too general and imprecise to be legally assessed must be regarded as manifestly inadmissible.
(see paras 38-39)
See: C‑19/95 P San Marco v Commission [1996] ECR I‑4435, para. 37; C‑51/92 P Hercules Chemicals v Commission [1999] ECR I‑4235, paragraph 113; C‑300/99 P and C‑388/99 P Area Cova and Others v Council [2001] ECR I‑983, para. 37; order of 12 December 2006 in C-129/06 P Autosalone Ispra v Commission, paras 31 and 32; order of 29 November 2007 in C-107/07 P Weber v Commission, not published in the ECR, para. 24; T-107/07 P Rossi Ferreras v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I-B-1-5 and II-B-1-31, para. 27