JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

17 March 2010

Case T-78/09 P

European Parliament

v

Laurent Collée

(Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2004 promotion exercise — Procedure for the allocation of merit points — Distortion of the evidence — Statement of reasons — Value of the opinion of the Reports Committee — Principle of non-discrimination)

Appeal: against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-148/06 Collée v Parliament [2008] ECR-SC I-A-1-455 and II-A-1-2527, seeking the setting-aside of that judgment.

Held: The appeal is dismissed. The European Parliament is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Laurent Collée in connection with the appeal.

Summary

1.      Appeals — Pleas in law — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments presented before the Civil Service Tribunal — Inadmissibility — Challenge to the interpretation or application of Community law by the Tribunal — Admissibility

(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 — Administration’s discretion

(Staff Regulations, Art. 45)

1.      It is clear in particular from Article 11(1) of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice that an appeal to the General Court 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 law by the Tribunal. Moreover, Article 138(1), first subparagraph, under (c), of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court provides that an appeal must contain the pleas in law and legal arguments relied on.

It follows 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 simply repeats or reproduces verbatim the pleas in law and arguments already put forward before the Civil Service Tribunal, including those which were based on facts expressly rejected by that Tribunal; such an appeal amounts in reality to no more than a request for re-examination of the application submitted to the Civil Service Tribunal, which the General Court does not have jurisdiction to undertake. However, provided that the appellant challenges the interpretation or application of law by the Civil Service Tribunal, the points of law examined at first instance may be discussed again in the course of an appeal. Indeed, if an appellant could not thus base his appeal on pleas in law and arguments already relied on before the Civil Service Tribunal, an appeal would be deprived of part of its purpose.

(see paras 20-22)

See: C‑19/95 P San Marco v Commission [1996] ECR I‑4435, paras 37 and 38; C‑41/00 P Interporc v Commission [2003] ECR I‑2125, para. 17; C‑353/01 P Mattila v Council and Commission [2004] ECR I‑1073, para. 27

2.      It is not the role of the Community judicature to assess the merits of the various officials eligible for promotion. In view of the wide discretion enjoyed by the appointing authority to assess the merits to be taken into consideration, the judicature must confine itself to checking whether the appointing authority remained within reasonable limits and did not use its power in a manifestly incorrect manner.

(see para. 61)

See: C‑277/01 P Parliament v Samper [2003] ECR I‑3019, para. 35; T‑262/94 Baiwir v Commission [1996] ECR-SC I‑A‑257 and II‑739, para. 66; T‑353/03 Nielsen v Council [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑95 and II‑443, para. 58