C-233/17

ORDER OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) 2 May 2019 (*) (Article 155 of the Rules of Procedure — No failure to adjudicate on the application for revision) In Case C‑233/17 P-REV OST, APPLICATION under Article 155 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, brought on 14 January 2019, GX, residing in Bucharest (Romania), represented by G.-M. Enache, lawyer, applicant, the other party to the proceedings being: European Commission, represented by G. Gattinara and D. Milanowska, acting as Agents, THE COURT (Fourth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, K. Jürimäe, D. Šváby, S. Rodin and N. Piçarra, Judges, Advocate General: Y. Bot, Registrar: A. Calot Escobar, having regard to the written procedure, after hearing the Advocate General, makes the following Order 1        By his application, GX requests that a failure of the Court of Justice to adjudicate in the order of 11 December 2018, GX v Commission (C‑233/17 P‑REV, not published, EU:C:2018:1001), be remedied. 2        By that order, the Court dismissed GX’s application, brought on the basis of Article 44 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, for revision of the order of 22 February 2018, GX v Commission (C‑233/17 P, not published, EU:C:2018:102). 3        In support of his application, GX claims, in essence, that, in its order of 11 December 2018, GX v Commission (C‑233/17 P-REV, not published, EU:C:2018:1001), the Court failed to adjudicate on his ‘head of claim … relating to the baseless references to the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal’ made by the General Court in its order of 3 March 2017, GX v Commission (T‑556/16, not published, EU:T:2017:139), against which the appeal dismissed by the Court by the order of 22 February 2018, GX v Commission (C‑233/17 P, not published, EU:C:2018:102), was brought. GX therefore claims that the Court should re‑examine its order of 11 December 2018, GX v Commission (C‑233/17 P-REV, not published, EU:C:2018:1001). 4        In its written observations, submitted in accordance with Article 155(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the European Commission maintains that GX’s application is manifestly inadmissible or, in the alternative, manifestly unfounded and contends that the Court should dismiss that application and order GX to pay the costs. 5        Under Article 155(1) of the Rules of Procedure, if the Court has failed to adjudicate on a specific head of claim or on costs, any party wishing to rely on that may, within a month after service of the decision, apply to the Court to supplement its decision. 6        It follows that a failure to adjudicate within the meaning of that provision stems from the Court’s breach of its obligation to adjudicate on all the heads of claim submitted to it by the parties, including those relating to costs. 7        Moreover, Article 155(3) of the Rules of Procedure provides that, after the opposite party has submitted its observations on an application brought on the basis of Article 155(1), the Court, after hearing the Advocate General, is to decide both on the admissibility and on the substance of the application. 8        In the present case, in his application for revision dismissed by the order of 11 December 2018, GX v Commission (C‑233/17 P-REV, not published, EU:C:2018:1001), GX claimed that the Court should set aside the order of 22 February 2018, GX v Commission (C‑233/17 P, not published, EU:C:2018:102), annul the decision of 20 August 2014 sent to him by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO), order the payment of compensation for the material and non-material harm he suffered on account of that decision and order the Commission to pay the costs. 9        In paragraph 19 of the order of 11 December 2018, GX v Commission (C‑233/17 P-REV, not published, EU:C:2018:1001), the Court recalled, first, that revision is not an appeal procedure but an exceptional review procedure that allows the authority of res judicata attaching to a final judgment or to an order made pursuant to Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure to be called into question on the basis of the findings of fact relied upon by the Court. Secondly, the Court noted that 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 the judgment or the order 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. 10      As is apparent from paragraph 21 of the order of 11 December 2018, GX v Commission (C‑233/17 P-REV, not published, EU:C:2018:1001), the Court held that GX had put forward, in support of its application for revision of the order of 22 February 2018, GX v Commission (C‑233/17 P, not published, EU:C:2018:102), no new facts capable of justifying an application for revision, but in fact sought the annulment of that order, on the ground that the Court’s reasoning set out in that order was vitiated by errors. 11      Consequently, as is apparent from the operative part of the order of 11 December 2018, GX v Commission (C‑233/17 P-REV, not published, EU:C:2018:1001), the Court dismissed the application for revision in its entirety and ordered GX to pay the costs, in accordance with the form of order sought by the Commission. 12      It follows from the foregoing that, contrary to what is claimed by GX, in the order of 11 December 2018, GX v Commission (C‑233/17 P-REV, not published, EU:C:2018:1001), the Court did not fail to adjudicate on any head of claim put forward by him in his application for revision. 13      Accordingly, GX’s application to remedy a failure of the Court to adjudicate in the order of 11 December 2018, GX v Commission (C‑233/17 P-REV, not published, EU:C:2018:1001), must be dismissed.  Costs 14      Under Article 138(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. Since the Commission has applied for costs and GX has been unsuccessful, he must be ordered to pay the costs. On those grounds, the Court (Fourth Chamber) hereby orders: 1.      The application under Article 155(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice brought on 14 January 2019 by GX is dismissed. 2.      GX shall pay the costs. Luxembourg, 2 May 2019. A. Calot Escobar   M. Vilaras Registrar   President of the Fourth Chamber *      Language of the case: English.