Avis juridique important

Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 March 1997. - Giorgio Bernardi v European Parliament. - Appeal - Ombudsman - Nominations - Appointment procedure - Action for annulment - Appeal clearly inadmissible and unfounded. - Case C-303/96 P. European Court reports 1997 Page I-01239

Summary

1 Appeals - Pleas in law - Mere repetition of the pleas in law and arguments before the Court of First Instance - Inadmissible - Appeal dismissed

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 49 and 51; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c))

2 Appeals - Pleas in law - Plea in law directed against the decision of the Court of First Instance on costs - Inadmissible where all the other pleas in law are dismissed

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51, second para.)

3 The combined effect of Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 112(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure is that an appeal must indicate precisely the contested elements of the judgment of the Court of First Instance 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 merely repeats or reproduces word for word the arguments previously submitted to the Court of First Instance.

4 Where all the other pleas in law relied upon in an appeal against a decision of the Court of First Instance have been dismissed, the plea concerning the lawfulness of its decision on costs must, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 51 of the Statute of Court of Justice, be dismissed as inadmissible.