- 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 (Second Chamber) of 16 October 1997. # Konstantinos Dimitriadis v Court of Auditors of the European Communities. # Appeal clearly inadmissible and clearly unfounded. # Case C-140/96.
ECLI:EU:C:1997:493
61996CO0140
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
61996O0140
European Court reports 1997 Page I-05635
Summary
Keywords
1 Appeals - Pleas in law - Erroneous assessment of the facts - Inadmissibility - Dismissal (EC Treaty, Art. 168a; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51)
2 Officials - Obligation of the institution to provide assistance - Scope
3 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)
4 Appeals - Pleas in law - Plea concerning the decision of the Court of First Instance as to costs - Inadmissible where all other pleas have been rejected (EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51, second para.)
Summary
5 An appeal may be based only on grounds relating to the infringement of rules of law, to the exclusion of any appraisal of the facts. The Court of First Instance has exclusive jurisdiction, first, to establish the facts, except where the substantive inaccuracy of its findings is attributable to the documents submitted to it and, secondly, to assess those facts. The Court of Justice has jurisdiction under Article 168a of the Treaty to review the legal characterization of those facts by the Court of First Instance and the legal conclusions it has drawn from them.
6 Although the administration is required, when faced with an incident which is incompatible with the good order and tranquillity of the service, to intervene with all the necessary vigour so as to ascertain the facts and to take the appropriate action in full knowledge of the matter, it cannot take disciplinary action against the official in question unless the preliminary measures ordered clearly establish that the official concerned has engaged in conduct detrimental to the proper functioning of the service or to the dignity and reputation of another official.
7 The appraisal by the Court of First Instance of the evidence put before it does not 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.
8 Where all the other pleas in an appeal against a decision of the Court of First Instance have been rejected, the plea concerning the illegality of the decision of that Court as to costs must, by virtue of the second paragraph of Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, be rejected as inadmissible.