- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 October 1997. # Association internationale des utilisateurs de fils de filaments artificiels et synthétiques et de soie naturelle (AIUFFASS) and Apparel, Knitting & Textiles Alliance (AKT) v Commission of the European Communities. # Appeal - Article 92(3)(a) and (c) of the EC Treaty - Textiles - Manifest error of assessment - Excess capacity - Admissibility. # Case C-55/97 P.
ECLI:EU:C:1997:465
61997CO0055
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Avis juridique important
61997O0055
European Court reports 1997 Page I-05383
Summary
Keywords
Appeals - Pleas in law - Erroneous assessment of the facts - Inadmissibility - Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of evidence - None save where the clear sense has been distorted (EC Treaty, Art. 168a; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51)
Summary
Under Article 168a of the EC Treaty and the first paragraph of Article 51 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, an appeal may be based only on grounds relating to the infringement by the Court of First Instance of rules of law, to the exclusion of any appraisal of the facts.
Therefore, the Court of First Instance alone has jurisdiction, first, to find the facts except where a substantive inaccuracy in its findings is attributable to the documents submitted to it and, second, to assess those facts. Moreover, provided that the evidence has been properly obtained and the general principles of law and the rules of procedure in relation to the burden of proof and the taking of evidence have been observed, it is for the Court of First Instance alone to assess the value which should be attached to the evidence produced to it. That assessment does not, therefore, constitute (save where the clear sense of that evidence has been distorted) a point of law which is subject, as such, to review by the Court of Justice.