JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
(Third Chamber)

15 June 2011

Case F‑17/05 REV

José António de Brito Sequeira Carvalho

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Application for revision of a judgment — New fact — None — Inadmissibility of the application)

Application:      in which Mr de Brito Sequeira Carvalho seeks revision of the judgment of 13 December 2006 in Case F‑17/05 de Brito Sequeira Carvalho v Commission.

Held:      The application for revision is dismissed as inadmissible. The applicant is to pay all the costs.

Summary

1.      Procedure — Revision of a judgment — Application relating to a judgment at first instance replaced by a judgment of the appeal court — Inadmissibility

2.      Procedure — Revision of a judgment — Pleas in law — Plea alleging the inadmissibility of the appeal lodged against the judgment which the applicant seeks to have revised — Inadmissibility

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

3.      Procedure — Revision of a judgment — Pleas in law — Claims for annulment of a decision set aside on appeal — Inadmissibility

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

4.      Procedure — Revision of a judgment — Conditions for the admissibility thereof — Formal requirements — Establishment of a link between the facts relied on and paragraphs in the contested judgment

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 44; Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Arts 35 and 119(2))

1.      Claims for revision are inadmissible where a judgment delivered by the appeal court has replaced the judgment at first instance which the applicant seeks to have revised. Furthermore, where the person applying for revision does not contest the judgment on appeal in his application, even though the application was brought after the date on which that judgment was delivered, the application cannot be regarded as seeking revision of that judgment and cannot therefore result in the case being referred to the General Court of the European Union pursuant to Article 8(2) of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice.

(see paras 36, 37, 39)

See:

13 December 2006, F‑17/05 de Brito Sequeira Carvalho v Commission

2.      Under the revision procedure provided for in Article 44 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, it is not for a court which has given judgment in a case to rule on the admissibility of an appeal lodged against the decision it delivered.

(see para. 42)

3.      The aim of the revision procedure provided for in Article 44 of the Statute of the Court of Justice is for the court hearing the application to reach a different decision from the one it delivered in the case. Consequently, the procedure does not enable the applicant, even though his claims were upheld in the judgment whose revision is sought, to obtain a different statement of reasons from that appearing in the grounds for the judgment. It follows that an applicant may not seek annulment of a decision that has been set aside on appeal and has disappeared from the legal order even before the application for revision was submitted.

(see para. 44)

See:

6 March 2002, T‑77/99 REV Ojha v Commission, para. 12 and the case-law cited therein

4.      An application for revision is inadmissible where it is inconsistent and imprecise and where it fails to establish either an adequate link between the facts relied on and the points on which the judgment is challenged, or a link between the facts and the documents supposedly proving the existence of those facts which have been produced in support of the application for revision. The initiation of a revision procedure under Article 44 of the Statute of the Court of Justice presupposes the discovery of information of a factual nature which preceded the delivery of the judgment, but of which the applicant was unaware before the delivery of that judgment.

Furthermore, it follows from Article 119(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal that an application for revision is to indicate, inter alia, the nature of the evidence to show that there are facts justifying revision of the judgment. In that respect, it is for the party applying for revision to prove that it did not discover the facts justifying, in its view, revision of the judgment until after the judgment was delivered, even though those facts occurred prior to delivery of the judgment.

(see paras 50, 51, 54-58)

See:

2 April 2009, C‑255/06 P-REV Yedaş Tarim ve Otomotiv Sanayi ve Ticaret v Council and Commission, para. 22 and the case-law cited therein