Language of document : ECLI:EU:F:2011:38

JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
(Third Chamber)

13 April 2011

Case F‑29/09 REV

Giorgio Lebedef and Trevor Jones

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Revision of a judgment — New fact — None — Inadmissibility)

Application:      whereby Mr Lebedef and Mr Jones seek revision of the judgment of the Tribunal of 30 September 2010 in Case F‑29/09 Lebedef and Jones v Commission.

Held: The application for revision is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. The applicants are ordered to pay the costs. The Council of the European Union, intervener in support of the form of order sought by the Commission, is ordered to bear its own costs.

Summary

1.      Procedure — Revision of a judgment — Conditions for the admissibility of the application for revision — New fact — Concept

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 44)

2.      Procedure — Revision of a judgment — Conditions for the admissibility of the application for revision — New fact — Burden of proof

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 44, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 19(2))

1.      Under the first paragraph of Article 44 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, an application for revision must be based on the discovery of one or more facts predating delivery of the judgment in issue, but which were unknown to the Tribunal and to the party claiming the revision, and which are of such a nature as to be a decisive factor on the content of the judgment. Under the second paragraph of that article, it is only where the Court finds that a new fact exists, recognises that it is of such a character as to lay the case open to revision and declares the application admissible on that ground that it can examine the substance of the case.

(see para. 22)

2.      In an application for revision of a judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal, under the first paragraph of Article 44 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 119(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, it is for the applicant for revision to establish that it did not discover the facts, which arose before delivery of the judgment and which, in the applicant’s submission, justify revision of the judgment, until after the judgment was delivered.

(see para. 24)