ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

6 September 2012

Case T‑519/11 P

Sandro Gozi

v

European Commission

(Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Request for assistance — Commission decision not to reimburse to the applicant the costs incurred in proceedings before a national criminal court — Appeal partly clearly inadmissible and partly clearly unfounded)

Appeal:      against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 20 July 2011 in Case F‑116/10 Gozi v Commission, [2011] ECR-SC, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Held:      The appeal is dismissed. Mr Sandro Gozi is ordered to bear his own costs and those incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings.

Summary

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

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58 and Annex I thereto, Art. 11)

2.      Officials — Administration’s obligation to provide assistance — Scope

(Staff Regulations, Art. 24)

3.      Appeals — Pleas in law — Plea put forward for the first time in the appeal proceedings — Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58)

1.      It is clear from Article 11 of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice, which reproduces the wording of Article 58 of that Statute, that an appeal is limited to points of law and lies on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction of the Civil Service Tribunal, a breach of procedure before it which adversely affects the interests of the appellant, or an infringement of Union law by the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Civil Service Tribunal has sole jurisdiction to find and assess the facts, so that such an appraisal does not constitute a point of law which is subject as such to review by the appeal court. However, the jurisdiction of the General Court to review the findings of fact by the Civil Service Tribunal extends to the substantive inaccuracy of those findings as apparent from the documents in the file, the distortion of the evidence, the legal characterisation of that evidence and the question whether the rules relating to the burden of proof and the taking of evidence have been observed.

(see paras 20-21)

See:

C‑403/04 P and C‑405/04 P Sumitomo Metal Industries and Nippon Steel v Commission [2007] ECR I‑729, paragraph 39 and the case-law cited therein

T‑248/08 P Doktor v Council [2010] ECR-SC, paras 39 to 43 and the case-law cited therein

2.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 28)

See:

T‑67/99 K v Commission [2000] ECR-SC I‑A‑127 and II‑579, paras 34 to 36

3.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 35)

See:

C‑266/97 P VBA v VGB and Others [2000] ECR I‑2135, para. 79; C‑167/04 P JCB Service v Commission [2006] ECR I‑8935, para. 114; judgment of 21 January 2010 in C‑150/09 P Iride and Iride Energia v Commission, not published in the ECR, paras 73 and 74