Avis juridique important
Judgment of the Court of 20 October 1992. - Council of the European Communities v European Parliament, Commission of the European Communities, United Kingdom and Kingdom of the Netherlands. - Application for revision - Admissibility. - Case C-295/90 REV.
European Court reports 1992 Page I-05299
Summary
Parties
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part
++++
Procedure ° Revision of a judgment ° Conditions for the admissibility of an application ° New fact
(Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC, Art. 41)
SummaryAn application for revision of a judgment of the Court in support of which no fact is relied upon which would have been of such a nature as to be a decisive factor, and which, when the judgment was given, was unknown to the party claiming the revision, is inadmissible.
PartiesIn Case C-295/90 REV,
Council of the European Communities, represented by Arthur Alan Dashwood, a Director in its Legal Department, and Jill Aussant, a Principal Administrator in that department, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Joerg Kaeser, Manager of the Legal Directorate of the European Investment Bank, 100 Boulevard Konrad Adenauer, Kirchberg,
applicant for revision,
v
European Parliament, represented by Jorge Campinos, Jurisconsult, assisted by Roland Bieber, Legal Adviser, and Kieran Bradley, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the General Secretariat of the European Parliament, Kirchberg,
Commission of the European Communities, represented by C.W.A. Timmermans, Deputy Director General of the Legal Service, and Denise Sorasio, Legal Adviser, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Roberto Hayder, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by J.E.G. Vaux, of the Treasury Solicitor' s Department, acting as Agent, assisted by Richard Plender and Derrick Wyatt, Barristers, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the British Embassy, 14 Boulevard Roosevelt,
and
Kingdom of the Netherlands, represented by J.W. de Zwaan and T. Heukels, Deputy Legal Advisers at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Netherlands Embassy, 5 Rue C.M. Spoo,
defendants,
APPLICATION for revision of the judgment delivered by the Court of Justice on 7 July 1992 in Case C-295/90 Parliament v Council [1992] ECR I-4193,
THE COURT,
composed of: O. Due, President, C.N. Kakouris, G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, M. Zuleeg and J.L. Murray (Presidents of Chambers), G.F. Mancini, R. Joliet, F.A. Schockweiler, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, F. Grévisse, M. Diez de Velasco, P.J.G. Kapteyn and D.A.O Edward, Judges,
Advocate General: F.G. Jacobs,
Registrar: J.-G. Giraud,
after hearing the views of the Advocate General,
gives the following
Judgment
Grounds1 By letter of 24 July 1992, received at the Court on 29 July 1992, the Council lodged an application under Article 41 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC and the corresponding provisions of the Protocols on the Statutes of the Court of Justice of the ECSC and EAEC for revision of the judgment delivered by the Court on 7 July 1992 in Case C-295/90 Parliament v Council [1992] ECR I-4193.
2 The applicant requests that the word "Council" be deleted from the beginning of paragraph 22 of that judgment and that the sentence "The Council expressed no view on this point" be added at the end of paragraph 22.
3 The Council maintains that it never expressed its views concerning any temporal limitation of the effects of the judgment, either in its pleadings or at the hearing. The other parties have indicated that they do not wish to submit any observations.
4 In considering the admissibility of the present application, it is appropriate to bear in mind that, according to the first paragraph of Article 41 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court,
"An application for revision of a judgment may be made to the Court only on discovery of a fact which is of such a nature as to be a decisive factor, and which, when the judgment was given, was unknown to the Court and to the party claiming the revision".
5 However, the Council does not refer in support of its application to the discovery of any new fact of that kind. The error referred to by the Council constitutes a clerical error which has been dealt with in an order of the Court made today.
6 It follows that the application for revision must be declared inadmissible.
Decision on costsCosts
7 Since neither of the parties has made any submissions concerning costs, they must be ordered to bear their own costs.
Operative partOn those grounds,
THE COURT
hereby:
1. Dismisses the application for revision as inadmissible;
2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Top