 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |
Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions) |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions) >> KN v Council and Others (Procedure - Application for revision - Order) [2025] EUECJ T-139/22AJ-REV_CO (10 April 2025) URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2025/T13922AJREV_CO.html Cite as: [2025] EUECJ T-139/22AJ-REV_CO |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Help]
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE GENERAL COURT
10 April 2025 (*)
( Procedure - Application for revision )
In Case T‑139/22 AJ-REV,
KN, represented by J. Stojsavljevic-Savic, Solicitor,
applicant,
v
Council of the European Union,
European Commission,
European External Action Service (EEAS),
and
Eulex Kosovo,
defendants,
APPLICATION for revision of the order of 19 May 2022, KN v Council and Others (T‑139/22 AJ), lodged on 10 December 2024,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE GENERAL COURT
makes the following
Order
Background to the application for revision
1 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 4 March 2022, the applicant for revision, KN ('the applicant'), submitted an application for legal aid in order to bring an action for damages pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU, seeking compensation for the harm she allegedly suffered as a result of various acts and omissions by the Council of the European Union, the European Commission, the European External Action Service (EEAS) and Eulex Kosovo in the context of the implementation of Council Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP of 4 February 2008 on the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo, EULEX KOSOVO (OJ 2008 L 42, p. 92).
2 By order of 19 May 2022, KN v Council and Others (T‑139/22 AJ, not published) ('the contested order'), the President of the General Court, referring inter alia to the order of 10 November 2021, KS and KD v Council and Others (T‑771/20, not published, EU:T:2021:798), dismissed the application for legal aid, holding that the General Court manifestly lacked jurisdiction to rule on the action envisaged by the applicant.
3 Lastly, by judgment of 10 September 2024, KS and Others v Council and Others (C‑29/22 P and C‑44/22 P, EU:C:2024:725), the Court of Justice set aside in part the order of 10 November 2021, KS and KD v Council and Others (T‑771/20, not published, EU:T:2021:798).
4 By document lodged at the Court Registry on 10 December 2024, the applicant applied for revision of the contested order.
Form of order sought by the applicant
5 The applicant claims that the Court should:
– revise the contested order;
– grant her legal aid.
Law
Arguments of the applicant
6 The applicant submits in particular that she is in the same position as that of the applicants in the case giving rise to the judgment of 10 September 2024, KS and Others v Council and Others (C‑29/22 P and C‑44/22 P, EU:C:2024:725).
7 The applicant therefore argues that, first, the legal premiss on which her application for legal aid was refused was erroneous and, second, that that error constitutes a fact capable of being a decisive factor of which the Court and the applicant were unaware when the contested order was served.
8 Consequently, the applicant submits that the conditions set out in Article 169(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court are met, such that her application should be granted.
Findings of the Court
9 Under Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure, where the action is manifestly inadmissible, the General Court may decide to give a decision by reasoned order without taking further steps in the proceedings.
10 It should be specified that that provision is intended to apply to all actions brought before the General Court, including exceptional applications such as applications for revision (see, to that effect, order of 10 July 2014, Guardian Industries and Guardian Europe v Commission, T‑82/08 REV, not published, EU:T:2014:693, paragraph 18 and the case-law cited).
11 In the present case, the Court, considering that it has sufficient information from the documents in the file, has decided to give a decision without taking further steps in the proceedings.
12 As a preliminary point, it should be borne in mind that Article 169(1) of the Rules of Procedure provides that, in accordance with Article 44 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, an application for revision of a decision of the General Court may be made only on discovery of a fact which is of such a nature as to be a decisive factor and which, when the judgment was delivered or the order served, was unknown to the General Court and to the party claiming revision.
13 According to settled case-law, revision is not an appeal procedure but an exceptional review procedure that allows the authority of res judicata attaching to a final judgment to be called into question on the basis of the findings of fact relied upon by the Court. Revision presupposes the discovery of elements of a factual nature which existed prior to the judgment and which were unknown at that time to the Court which delivered it as well as to the party applying for revision and which, had the Court been able to take them into consideration, could have led it to a different determination of the proceedings (judgments of 7 March 1995, ISAE/VP and Interdata v Commission, C‑130/91 REV, EU:C:1995:60, paragraph 6; and of 2 April 2009, Yedaş Tarim ve Otomotiv Sanayi ve Ticaret v Council and Commission, C‑255/06 P-REV, not published, EU:C:2009:212, paragraph 16; and order of 16 April 2012, de Brito Sequeira Carvalho v Commission, T‑40/07 P-REV and T‑62/07 P-REV, not published, EU:T:2012:182, paragraph 12).
14 Moreover, it has been held that in the light of the exceptional nature of the revision procedure, the conditions governing the admissibility of an application for revision of a judgment are to be interpreted strictly (orders of 16 April 2012, de Brito Sequeira Carvalho v Commission, T‑40/07 P-REV and T‑62/07 P-REV, not published, EU:T:2012:182, paragraph 12, and of 4 December 2014, JAS v Commission, T‑573/11 REV, not published, EU:T:2014:1124, paragraph 23).
15 In the present case, the applicant submits that, following the judgment of 10 September 2024, KS and Others v Council and Others (C‑29/22 P and C‑44/22 P, EU:C:2024:725), a new fact has come to light, consisting of an error related to the jurisdiction of the General Court. The applicant therefore argues, in substance, that it is the judgment of 10 September 2024, KS and Others v Council and Others (C‑29/22 P and C‑44/22 P, EU:C:2024:725) and, as relevant, the solution adopted by the Court of Justice, which constitute elements of a factual nature.
16 However, it should be stated that, even assuming that the question of the General Court's manifest lack of jurisdiction to hear and determine the action, as described in the application for legal aid, constitutes the legal premiss which led to the dismissal of that application, the fact remains that that is a question of law and not an element of a factual nature.
17 It follows, a fortiori, that the judgment of 10 September 2024, KS and Others v Council and Others (C‑29/22 P and C‑44/22 P, EU:C:2024:725), and the solution adopted by the Court of Justice, cannot constitute elements of a factual nature for the purposes of Article 44 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union (see, by analogy, order of 8 May 2019, Hochmann Marketing v EUIPO, C‑118/18 P-REV, not published, EU:C:2019:396, paragraph 28 and the case-law cited).
18 It follows from the foregoing that the present application for revision must be dismissed, without it being necessary to rule on the other conditions of admissibility, and without it being necessary to rule on the application for legal aid.
19 This order is without prejudice to the applicant's right to make a fresh application for legal aid.
Costs
20 Since the present order has been made before the defendants were notified of the application for revision and before they could incur any costs, it is sufficient to decide that the applicant is to bear her own costs, in accordance with Article 133 of the Rules of Procedure.
On those grounds,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE GENERAL COURT
hereby orders:
1. The application for revision is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
2. KN shall bear her own costs.
Luxembourg, 10 April 2025.
V. Di Bucci | M. van der Woude |
Registrar | President |
* Language of the case: English.
© European Union
The source of this judgment is the Europa web site. The information on this site is subject to a information found here: Important legal notice. This electronic version is not authentic and is subject to amendment.
BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2025/T13922AJREV_CO.html