Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62018CJ0045

    Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 October 2018.
    Claire Staelen v European Ombudsman.
    Appeal — Application for revision — Admissibility criteria.
    Case C-45/18 P.

    Court reports – general

    Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 October 2018 — Staelen v Ombudsman

    (Case C‑45/18 P) ( 1 )

    (Appeal — Application for revision — Admissibility criteria)

    1. 

    Appeal — Grounds — Error of law relied on not identified — Ground lacking precision — Inadmissibility

    (Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; European Data-protection Supervisor, Arts 168(1)(d) and 169(2))

    (see paras 14, 15, 66)

    2. 

    Judicial proceedings — Revision of a judgment — Grounds — Ground alleging the illegality of a provision of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Ground raised for the first time in revision proceedings — Inadmissibility

    (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 44; European Data-protection Supervisor, Art. 159)

    (see paras 21-25)

    3. 

    Judicial proceedings — Revision of a judgment — Conditions for the admissibility thereof — New fact — Definition — Judgment of the Court of Justice — Not included

    (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 44; European Data-protection Supervisor, Art. 159)

    (see paras 30-35)

    Operative part

    The Court:

    1. 

    Dismisses the appeal;

    2. 

    Orders Ms Claire Staelen to pay the costs.


    ( 1 ) OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.

    Top