13 February 2025 (*1)

( Appeal – Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Civil service – Staff member of the European Investment Bank (EIB) – Non-conversion of a fixed-term contract into a contract of indefinite duration – Legitimate expectations – Action for annulment and for damages )

In Case C‑614/24 P,

APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 20 September 2024,

RS, represented by B. Maréchal, avocat,

appellant,

the other party to the proceedings being:

European Investment Bank (EIB),

defendant at first instance,

THE COURT (Eighth Chamber),

composed of S. Rodin, President of the Chamber, N. Piçarra and N. Fenger (Rapporteur), Judges,

Advocate General: J. Kokott,

Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,

having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to rule by reasoned order, pursuant to Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice,

makes the following

1By his appeal, RS seeks to have set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 10 July 2024, RS v EIB (T‑624/22, ‘the judgment under appeal’, EU:T:2024:461), by which the General Court dismissed his action for annulment of the decision of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of 20 December 2021 not to convert his employment contract into a contract of indefinite duration (‘the non-conversion decision’), for compensation for the damage he allegedly suffered as a result, and for annulment of the EIB’s letter of 20 December 2021 confirming the non-conversion decision.

The appeal

2Pursuant to Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, where the appeal is, in whole or in part, manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded, the Court may at any time, acting on a proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur and after hearing the Advocate General, decide by reasoned order to dismiss that appeal in whole or in part.

3That provision must be applied in the present case.

4On 6 January 2025, the Advocate General took the following position:

‘Introductory remarks’

The first ground of appeal, alleging infringement of the rights to data protection, confidentiality and privacy

7. Moreover, according to Article 170(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the subject matter of the proceedings before the General Court may not be changed in the appeal. In that regard, it is settled case-law that the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice in an appeal is confined to a review of the assessment by the General Court of the pleas and arguments debated before it. To allow a party to put forward for the first time before the Court of Justice a plea in law which it has not raised before the General Court would be to authorise it to bring before the Court of Justice, whose jurisdiction in appeals is limited, a case of wider ambit than that which came before the General Court (see, to that effect, judgments of 27 April 2023, PL v Commission, C‑537/21 P, EU:C:2023:363, paragraph 31; of 29 February 2024, Euranimi v Commission, C‑95/23 P, EU:C:2024:177, paragraph 53; and of 4 October 2024, Falke v Commission, C‑127/23 P, EU:C:2024:861, paragraph 28).

9. Consequently, the first ground of appeal must be rejected as manifestly inadmissible in its entirety.

The second ground of appeal, alleging a failure to state “serious” reasons and the disproportionate character of the non-conversion decision

10. By his second ground of appeal, which relates, in essence, to paragraphs 59, 65, 74 and 75 of the judgment under appeal, the appellant criticises the General Court for having rejected the first part of his first plea, raised at first instance and alleging several irregularities vitiating the non-conversion decision.

11. In support of that second ground of appeal, the appellant submits, in essence, that both the EIB, in the non-conversion decision, and the General Court did not take account of all the relevant facts and evidence or of the fact that the accusations made against him were dismissed. In paragraph 59 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court wrongly failed to take into consideration, in detail, the statements of the two other female witnesses concerned and the fact that the appellant’s survey “regarding shoes” was mainly conducted outside working hours. In addition, the applicant reiterates that he satisfied all the conditions laid down in Note to Staff No 810 for the conversion of a contract into a contract of indefinite duration.

12. It is apparent from Article 256(1) TFEU and the first paragraph of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union that an appeal is to be limited to points of law and that the General Court therefore has exclusive jurisdiction to find and appraise the relevant facts and to assess the evidence. The appraisal of those facts and the assessment of that evidence do not, save where the facts or evidence are distorted, constitute a point of law which is subject, as such, to review by the Court of Justice on appeal (judgments of 25 January 2022, Commission v European Food and Others, C‑638/19 P, EU:C:2022:50, paragraph 71, and of 4 October 2024, García Fernández and Others v Commission and SRB, C‑541/22 P, EU:C:2024:820, paragraph 211).

15. Accordingly, the second ground of appeal must also be rejected as manifestly inadmissible.

The third ground of appeal: breach of the principle of good administration

16. By his third ground of appeal, the appellant complains that the General Court rejected the third plea raised at first instance, alleging infringement of the principle of good administration and of his legitimate expectations, as assessed in paragraph 133 et seq. of the judgment under appeal.

17. In the light of the case-law referred to in paragraph 5 above, it must be held that, in the context of the third ground of appeal, the appellant not only fails to identify the error of law allegedly vitiating the General Court’s reasoning, but also merely reproduces verbatim, to a very large extent, the claims that he made at first instance.

Conclusion

19. In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the appeal must be dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.’

5 For the same reasons as those given by the Advocate General, the appeal must be dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.

Costs

6 Under Article 137 of the Rules of Procedure, applicable to proceedings on appeal pursuant to Article 184(1) of those rules, a decision as to costs is to be given in the order that closes the proceedings. In this case, since the present order is adopted before the appeal is served on the other parties to the proceedings and, therefore, before they could have incurred costs, it is appropriate to decide that the appellant is to bear his own costs.

On those grounds, the Court (Eighth Chamber) hereby orders:

Luxembourg, 13 February 2025.

ECLI:EU:C:2025:140

15

Registrar

President of the Chamber

*

*Language of the case: English.