44Furthermore, if it were necessary to interpret the third part as questioning the reasons stated for the judgment under appeal on this point, it should be noted that judgments of the Civil Service Tribunal must contain an adequate statement of reasons to enable the General Court to exercise its power of review. However, that obligation cannot be interpreted as meaning that the Civil Service Tribunal was required to respond in detail to every single argument on which the appellant relies, particularly if the argument is not sufficiently clear and precise and is not adequately supported by evidence. The reasoning may be implicit on condition that it enables the party concerned to know why the court of first instance has not upheld his arguments and provides the appeal court with sufficient material for it to exercise its power of review (see judgment of 16 December 2010 in Lebedef v Commission, T‑52/10 P, ECR-SC, EU:T:2010:543, paragraphs 83 and 84 and the case-law cited).
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.