 |
[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) >> KO v Council and Others (Procedure - Application for revision - Order) [2025] EUECJ T-520/21AJ-REV_CO (10 April 2025) URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2025/T52021AJREV_CO.html Cite as: [2025] EUECJ T-520/21AJ-REV_CO |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Help]
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber)
10 April 2025 (*)
( Procedure - Application for revision - Conditions - No new fact - Manifest inadmissibility )
In Case T‑520/21 AJ-REV,
KO, represented by J. Stojsavljevic-Savic, Solicitor,
applicant for revision,
the other parties to the proceedings being
Council of the European Union,
and
European Commission,
and
European External Action Service (EEAS),
defendants in the main proceedings,
APPLICATION for revision of the order of 26 November 2021, KO v Council and Others (T‑520/21 AJ), brought on 10 December 2024,
THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber),
composed, at the time of the deliberations, of M.J. Costeira (Rapporteur), President, M. Kancheva and T. Perišin, Judges,
Registrar: V. Di Bucci,
having regard to the regularised version of the application,
having regard to Article 169(5) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court,
makes the following
Order
Background to the application for revision
1 By order of 26 November 2021, KO v Council and Others (T‑520/21 AJ) ('the contested order'), adopted on the basis of Article 146(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the applicant for revision, KO ('the applicant'), was refused legal aid on the ground that the General Court manifestly lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the action seeking to establish the non‑contractual liability of the European Union for alleged acts and omissions of the defendants in relation to 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 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 partially annulled the order of 10 November 2021, KS and KD v Council and Others (T‑771/20, not published, EU:T:2021:798), by which the General Court had declared that it manifestly lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine an action for non-contractual liability of the European Union in respect of various acts and omissions relating to the implementation of Joint Action 2008/124, and referred the case back to the General Court.
The form of order sought by the applicant
3 The applicant claims that the Court should:
– revise the contested order,
– grant the applicant legal aid.
Law
The applicant's arguments
4 The applicant submits, in essence, that the action in respect of which she has applied for legal aid is connected with the case referred back to the General Court by 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), referred to in paragraph 2 above, so that the jurisdiction of the General Court to hear and determine some of the claims made in that case, now confirmed by the Court of Justice, also applies in the present case.
5 The applicant infers from this that the ground which supports the contested order, alleging that the General Court manifestly lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the action that she intended to bring for legal aid, is incorrect. In her view, that circumstance constitutes a fact which is of such a nature as to be a decisive factor, within the meaning of Article 169(1) of the Rules of Procedure, unknown to the General Court and to herself at the time the contested order was served.
6 Taking the view that all the other conditions of admissibility laid down in Article 169 of the Rules of Procedure are satisfied in the present case, the applicant claims that the Court should revise the contested order and grant her legal aid.
Findings of the General Court
7 Pursuant to Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure, where it is clear that the General Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine an action or where the action is manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law, the General Court may, on a proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur, at any time decide to give a decision by reasoned order without taking further steps in the proceedings. That provision applies 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).
8 In the present case, the Court considers that it has sufficient information from the documents in the file and has decided, pursuant to that provision, that there is no need to take any further steps in the proceedings.
9 It should be borne in mind that, under Article 169(1) of the Rules of Procedure, 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.
10 In that regard, it follows from settled case-law that revision is not an appeal procedure but an exceptional review procedure that allows the authority of res judicata attaching to a judgment or an order 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 or the order and which were unknown at that time to the court which delivered that judgment 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. Moreover, in the light of the exceptional nature of the revision procedure, it has been held that the conditions governing the admissibility of an application for revision were to be interpreted strictly (see, to that effect, order of 17 September 2019, García Ruiz v Parliament, T‑146/19, not published, EU:T:2019:653, paragraphs 16 and 17 and the case-law cited).
11 In the present case, the alleged new factor relied on by the applicant consists in the fact that the legal premiss on which the dismissal of her application for legal aid was based was fundamentally incorrect, which she claims to have discovered at the time of delivery of 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).
12 In that regard, it is sufficient to find that the jurisdiction of the General Court to hear and determine the action which the applicant intended to bring for legal aid, even if it follows from the solution adopted by the Court of Justice in an allegedly connected case, does not constitute a fact for the purposes of Article 169(1) of the Rules of Procedure. Since the revision procedure is not an appeal procedure, it cannot lead the General Court, in the absence of any new fact, prior to service of the order, to call into question the legal assessments which support the contested order (see, to that effect, order of 11 December 2018, GX v Commission, C‑233/17 P‑REV, not published, EU:C:2018:1001, paragraph 22).
13 It follows that the present application for revision must be dismissed, without it being necessary to rule on the other conditions of its admissibility, and without there being any need to rule on the application for legal aid. That finding remains without prejudice to the applicant's right to submit a new application for legal aid, in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of Procedure.
Costs
14 As the present order has been adopted before the application for revision has been served on the defendants and before the latter could have incurred costs, it is sufficient to decide that the applicant must bear her own costs pursuant to Article 133 of the Rules of Procedure.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber)
hereby orders:
1. The application for revision is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
2. KO shall bear her own costs.
Luxembourg, 10 April 2025.
V. Di Bucci | M.J. Costeira |
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/T52021AJREV_CO.html