Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions) >> Manlio Serio v Commission of the European Communities. [1974] EUECJ C-115/73 (2 July 1974)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/1974/C11573_rev.html

[New search] [Help]

IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The source of this judgment is the web site of the Court of Justice of the European Communities. The information in this database has been provided free of charge and is subject to a Court of Justice of the European Communities disclaimer and a copyright notice. This electronic version is not authentic and is subject to amendment.

61973J0115(01)
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 July 1974.
Manlio Serio v Commission of the European Communities.
Case 115-73 rév.
European Court reports 1974 Page 00671
Greek special edition 1974 Page 00345

++++
IN CASE 115/73 REV .
MANLIO SERIO, OFFICIAL OF THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, REPRESENTED BY REMO SERIO, OF THE SALERNO BAR, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG IN THE CHAMBERS OF JOSEPH GUILL, 23, RUE SEIMETZ, APPLICANT,
V
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER, GIORGIO PINCHERLE, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF ITS LEGAL ADVISER, PIERRE LAMOUREUX, 4 BOULEVARD ROYAL, DEFENDANT,

APPLICATION FOR THE REVISION OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT GIVEN ON 4 APRIL 1974 IN CASE 115/73,

1 BY APPLICATION FILED ON 10 MAY 1974 THE APPLICANT ASKS FOR A REVISION OF THE JUDGMENT GIVEN BY THIS COURT ON 4 APRIL 1974 IN CASE 115/73 .
2 UNDER THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE PROTOCOL ON THE STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE ANNEXED TO THE EEC TREATY 'AN APPLICATION FOR REVISION OF THE JUDGMENT MAY BE MADE TO THE COURT ONLY ON DISCOVERY OF A FACT WHICH IS OF SUCH A NATURE AS TO BE A DECISIVE FACTOR, AND WHICH, WHEN THE JUDGMENT WAS GIVEN, WAS UNKNOWN TO THE COURT AND TO THE PARTY CLAIMING THE REVISION '.
3 THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THIS SAME ARTICLE PROVIDES THAT THE REVISION SHALL BE OPENED BY A JUDGMENT OF THE COURT EXPRESSLY RECORDING THE EXISTENCE OF A NEW FACT, RECOGNIZING THAT IT IS OF SUCH A CHARACTER AS TO LAY THE CASE OPEN TO REVISION AND DECLARING THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE ON THIS GROUND .
4 UNDER ARTICLE 100 ( 1 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THE COURT SITTING IN THE DELIBERATION ROOM SHALL GIVE IN THE FORM OF A JUDGMENT ITS DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION .
5 AS REGARDS THE FACTS ON WHICH THE APPLICATION IS BASED AND THE EVIDENCE OF THEM THE APPLICANT EXPRESSLY REFERS TO THE COURT FILE OF THE CASE .
HE CLAIMS MOREOVER IN HIS APPLICATION THAT THE COURT SHOULD REVISE THE JUDGMENT OF 4 APRIL 1974 AND GIVE A NEW JUDGMENT 'BASED ON ALL THE ARGUMENTS SUBMITTED AND THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED '.
6 IT FOLLOWS FROM THESE SUBMISSIONS THAT THE APPLICANT, WITHOUT ALLEGING ANY NEW FACT, SEEKS IN REALITY, BY THE EXPEDIENT OF THE PROCEDURE OF REVISION ALLOWED BY ARTICLE 41 OF THE PROTOCOL ON THE STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EEC, TO RE-OPEN THE JUDGMENT GIVEN ON 4 APRIL 1974 AND TO ASK THE COURT TO GIVE A NEW JUDGMENT ON THE MERITS OF THE APPLICATION IN CASE 115/73 .
7 THE APPLICATION MUST THEREFORE BE REJECTED AS INADMISSIBLE SINCE IT DOES NOT SATISFY THE CONDITIONS OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE PROTOCOL ON THE STATUTE OF THE COURT OR ARTICLE 99 ( 1 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE .

8 UNDER ARTICLE 70 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE SECOND SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 69 ( 3 ) OF THE RULES, IN PROCEEDINGS BY STAFF, INSTITUTIONS SHALL BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS .
9 UNDER THE SECOND SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 69 ( 3 ) THE COURT MAY ORDER A PARTY TO PAY COSTS WHICH THE COURT CONSIDERS THAT PARTY TO HAVE UNREASONABLY OR VEXATIOUSLY CAUSED THE OPPOSITE PARTY TO INCUR .
10 IN ITS OBSERVATIONS THE COMMISSION HAS STATED THAT AT THE PRESENT STAGE OF PROCEEDINGS IT HAS NOT INCURRED COSTS WHICH IT COULD SEEK TO RECOVER .
11 IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE APPLICANT MUST BEAR HIS OWN COSTS WITHOUT IT BEING NECESSARY TO INQUIRE WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECOND SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 69 ( 3 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE ARE APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE .

ON THOSE GROUNDS,
THE COURT ( FIRST CHAMBER )
HEREBY :
1 . DECLARES THE APPLICATION FOR REVISION TO BE INADMISSIBLE;
2 . ORDERS THE APPLICANT TO BEAR HIS OWN COSTS .

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010