ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber)
18 December 2019 (*)
(Procedure — Rectification — Interpretation of a judgment — Inadmissibility)
In Case T‑838/16 REC-INTP,
BP, represented by E. Lazar, lawyer,
applicant,
v
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), represented initially by C. Manolopoulos and M. O’Flaherty, then by M. O’Flaherty, acting as Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck, A. Duron and I. Antypas, lawyers,
defendant,
APPLICATION under Articles 164 and 168 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court seeking, first, rectification and, second, interpretation of the judgment of 11 July 2019, BP v FRA, T‑838/16, EU:T:2019:494,
THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber),
composed of V. Tomljenović, President, I. Labucka (Rapporteur) and I. Nõmm, Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
Background to the dispute, procedure and forms of order sought
1 The General Court delivered the judgment of 11 July 2019, BP v FRA, T‑838/16, EU:T:2019:494 (‘the judgment in question’).
2 By document lodged at the Court Registry on 15 July 2019, the applicant applied to the Court, first, on the basis of Article 164 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, for rectification of paragraphs 113, 138, 320 and 335 of the judgment in question and, second, on the basis of Article 168 of the Rules of Procedure, for interpretation of paragraph 335 of the judgment in question.
3 On 27 July 2019, the applicant sent the Court Registry a corrigendum to the document lodged on 15 July 2019.
4 On 7 August 2019, the present case was allocated to the Fifth Chamber of the General Court (former composition) and subsequently reallocated to the Second Chamber of the General Court on 24 October 2019.
5 On 20 November 2019, the Court requested that the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) submit its comments on the application for interpretation.
6 FRA did not send the Court Registry any comments on that application.
7 The applicant claims that the Court should:
– rectify paragraphs 113, 138, 320 and 335 of the judgment in question;
– interpret paragraph 335 of the judgment in question;
– order FRA to pay the costs.
Law
8 By document lodged at the Court Registry on 15 July 2019, the applicant applied for (i) rectification of paragraphs 113, 138, 320 and 335 of the judgment in question and (ii) interpretation of paragraph 335 of the judgment in question.
9 As regards, in the first place, the application for rectification, in accordance with Article 164(1) of the Rules of Procedure, it is appropriate to rectify the clerical mistakes or inaccuracies contained in paragraphs 113, 138, 320 and 335 of the judgment in question and, of the Court’s own motion, those contained in paragraphs 116 and 139.
10 As regards, in the second place, the application for interpretation, the applicant requests that the Court interpret paragraph 335 of the judgment in question in both the French version and the version in the language of the case.
11 In that respect, it should be noted from the outset that, in accordance with paragraph 9 of the present order, paragraph 335 of the judgment in question in the version in the language of the case has been rectified so as to bring it into line with the wording of the French version of that paragraph, which states:
‘Consequently, the complaint must be upheld, without it being necessary to identify the person responsible for the leak at FRA.’
12 Accordingly, it is necessary to rule on the application for interpretation only in so far as it concerns paragraph 335 of the French version of the judgment in question.
13 To that end, it should be recalled that, under Article 168(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, in accordance with Article 43 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, if the meaning or scope of a judgment is in doubt, the General Court is to construe it on application by any party establishing an interest therein.
14 According to settled case-law, an application for interpretation of a judgment must, in order to be admissible, relate to the operative part of the judgment concerned, and the essential grounds thereof, and seek to resolve an obscurity or ambiguity that may affect the meaning or scope of that judgment, in so far as that judgment was required to decide the particular case before the court concerned (see order of 17 May 2018, Westfälische Drahtindustrie and Others v Commission, T‑393/10 INTP, EU:T:2018:293, paragraph 13 and the case-law cited).
15 An application for interpretation of a judgment is therefore inadmissible where it relates to matters not decided by the judgment concerned or seeks to obtain from the court in question an opinion on the application, implementation or consequences of its judgment (order of 17 May 2018, Westfälische Drahtindustrie and Others v Commission, T‑393/10 INTP, EU:T:2018:293, paragraph 13).
16 In the present case, the applicant seeks, by her application for interpretation, to obtain an opinion on the application, implementation or consequences of the judgment in question, for the purposes, inter alia, of bringing litigation proceedings before national courts, and not to resolve an obscurity or ambiguity that may affect the meaning or scope of the judgment in question.
17 The applicant in fact seeks the interpretation of paragraph 335 of the judgment in question — in which the Court held that, in order to uphold the complaint alleging, in essence, breach of the applicant’s personal data, it was not necessary to identify the person responsible for the leak of those data at FRA — for the purposes of ascertaining whether such an identification is precluded in any other proceedings that may be brought before national courts, the European Anti-Fraud Office or the European Prosecutor, or whether it is for FRA to make such an identification.
18 Consequently, the application for interpretation must be dismissed as inadmissible.
Costs
19 Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.
20 As to the application for rectification, the Court considers that since these are rectification proceedings, there is no need to give a decision as to costs.
21 As to the application for interpretation, since FRA did not lodge any comments, the applicant must be ordered to bear her own costs.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber)
hereby orders:
1. Paragraph 113 of the judgment should read ‘… when she (i) obtained a copy of the file [confidential]; and (ii) received FRA’s rejoinder …’ instead of ‘… when she (i) obtained a copy of the file [confidential]; and (ii) received FRA’s rejoinder …’.
2. Paragraph 116 of the judgment should read ‘… the applicant had, at the very least, become aware, on 12 December 2016, [confidential]’ instead of ‘… the applicant had, at the very least, become aware, on 12 December 2016, [confidential]’.
3. Paragraph 138 of the judgment should read ‘they concern [confidential]’ instead of ‘they concern [confidential]’.
4. Paragraph 139 of the judgment should read ‘… even though the applicant was, at the very least, aware [confidential] in December 2016’ instead of ‘… even though the applicant was, at the very least, aware [confidential] in December 2016’.
5. Paragraph 320 of the judgment, in the version in the language of the case, should read ‘… in so far as it relates [confidential]’ instead of ‘… in so far as it relates [confidential]’.
6. Paragraph 335 of the judgment, in the version in the language of the case, should read ‘… without it being necessary to identify the person responsible …’ instead of ‘… with it being necessary to identify the person responsible …’.
7. The application for interpretation is dismissed as inadmissible.
8. BP shall bear her own costs.
Luxembourg, 18 December 2019.