ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber)

18 November 2019 (*)

(Procedure — Interpretation of an order — Inadmissibility)

In Case T‑917/16 REV-INTP,

BP, represented by E. Lazar, lawyer,

applicant,

v

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), represented by M. O’Flaherty, acting as Agent, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer,

defendant,

APPLICATION for interpretation of the order of 11 July 2019, BP v FRA (T‑917/16 REV, EU:T:2019:548),

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 by the parties

1        By application lodged at the Registry of the Civil Service Tribunal on 19 March 2012, the applicant, BP, brought an action seeking annulment of the decisions of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) not to renew her contract of employment and to reassign her to another department until the end of her contract.

2        The applicant also requested that FRA be ordered to pay compensation in respect of the damage which she claimed to have suffered.

3        The Civil Service Tribunal dismissed the action in its entirety by judgment of 30 September 2013, BP v FRA (F‑38/12, EU:F:2013:138; ‘the original judgment’).

4        By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 10 December 2013, the applicant brought an appeal against the original judgment.

5        By its judgment of 3 June 2015, BP v FRA (T‑658/13 P, EU:T:2015:356; ‘the judgment on appeal’), the Court, first, set aside the original judgment, in so far as it dismissed the action brought against FRA’s decision not to renew the contract of employment, and, second, annulled the latter decision.

6        By document lodged at the Court Registry on 27 December 2016, the applicant made an application for revision of the original judgment, pursuant to Article 44 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Article 169 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

7        By order of 11 July 2019, BP v FRA (T‑917/16 REV, EU:T:2019:548) (‘the order of 11 July 2019’), the Court dismissed the application for revision as inadmissible.

8        By document lodged at the Court Registry on 23 July 2019, the applicant applied to the Court for an interpretation of the order of 11 July 2019 (‘the application for interpretation’).

9        She seeks, in particular, the interpretation of paragraph 57 of the order of 11 July 2019, which states:

‘In the light of these considerations, it must be concluded that the assessments in paragraphs 65, 72, 94, 95 and 99 of the original judgment were annulled by the Court and that the application for revision must therefore be dismissed in so far as it concerns those paragraphs.’

10      On 10 September 2019, FRA sent its comments on the application for interpretation to the Court Registry.

11      By document lodged at the Court Registry on 16 September 2019, the applicant informed the Court Registry that she intended to persist with her earlier application for omission of certain information vis-à-vis the public.

12      The applicant claims that the Court should:

–        interpret paragraph 57 of the order of 11 July 2019;

–        order FRA to pay the costs.

13      FRA contends that the Court should:

–        dismiss the application for interpretation as inadmissible;

–        order the applicant to pay the costs.

 Law

14      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 or order is in doubt, the General Court is to construe it on application by any party establishing an interest therein.

15      According to settled case-law, an application for interpretation of a judgment must, in order to be admissible, concern the operative part of the judgment in question, 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 judgment of 26 January 2017, Commission v Verile and Gjergji, T‑104/14 P-INTP, EU:T:2017:33, paragraph 7 and the case-law cited).

16      According to that line of authority, 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 (see order of 8 July 2015, Bimbo v OHIM, T‑357/11 INTP, EU:T:2015:534, paragraph 9 and the case-law cited).

17      In the present case, the applicant is unclear as to whether paragraph 57 of the order of 11 July 2019 is to be interpreted as meaning that a fresh application for revision of the original judgment may be made to the General Court, sitting not as a court of first instance but as a court responsible for hearing appeals against judgments delivered by the Civil Service Tribunal.

18      More specifically, the applicant requests that the Court interpret paragraph 57 of the order of 11 July 2019 for the purposes of establishing which court may have jurisdiction to rule on any appeal against the order of 11 July 2019, or any applications for interim measures or for revision.

19      By her application for interpretation, the applicant does not seek in any way to resolve an obscurity or ambiguity that may affect the meaning or scope of the order itself, but seeks, in essence, to obtain an opinion from the Court as to the courts which have jurisdiction and the legal remedies available to her in order to (i) challenge the content and (ii) obtain a revision of paragraphs 65, 72, 94, 95 and 99 of the original judgment.

20      Accordingly, the application for interpretation must be dismissed as inadmissible.

 Costs

21      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.

22      Since the applicant has been unsuccessful, she must be ordered to pay the costs, in accordance with the form of order sought by FRA.

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber)

Hereby orders:

1.      The application for interpretation is dismissed as inadmissible.

2.      BP shall bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA).

Luxembourg, 18 November 2019.

*      Language of the case: English.