Case C‑239/16P
Ante Šumelj and Others
v
European Commission
(Appeal— Article181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice— Action for damages— Act of accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union— Commitments relating to a strategy for judicial reform— Creation followed by the abolition of the position of public bailiff— Damage suffered by persons appointed as public bailiffs— Monitoring of the Republic of Croatia’s commitments by the European Commission— Appeal dismissed— Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded in part)
Summary— Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) 1February 2017
1.Appeal— Grounds— Error of law relied on not identified— Inadmissibility
(Art.256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art.58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 168(1)(d) and 169)
2.Appeal— Grounds— Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the facts put before the General Court— Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted— Review of the legal classification given to the facts of the dispute— Included
(Art.256(1), second subpara., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art.58, first para.)
1.An appeal must indicate precisely the contested elements of the judgment which the appellant seeks to have set aside, and the legal arguments specifically advanced in support of the appeal. A ground of appeal does not meet those requirements which does not contain any legal argument to demonstrate the manner in which the General Court allegedly erred in law, and which merely constitutes a request to have the action brought at first instance re-examined, in breach of the rules imposed by both the Statute of the Court of Justice and its Rules of Procedure.
(see para. 24)
2.It follows from Article256(1), second subparagraph, TFEU and Article58, first paragraph, of the Statute of the Court of Justice that the General Court has exclusive jurisdiction, first, to find the facts, except where the substantive inaccuracy of its findings is apparent from the documents submitted to it, and, second, to assess those facts. When the General Court has established or assessed the facts, the Court of Justice has jurisdiction under the abovementioned Article256 to review the legal characterisation of those facts by the General Court and the legal conclusions it has drawn from them.
(see para. 25)