ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Full Court)
13 July 2007
Case F-1/05 INT
Pia Landgren
v
European Training Foundation (ETF)
(Procedure – Interpretation of an order – Conditions for the admissibility of the application)
Application: brought under Article 129 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, applicable mutatis mutandis to the Civil
Service Tribunal pursuant to Article 3(4) of Council Decision 2004/752/EC, Euratom of 2 November 2004 establishing the European
Union Civil Service Tribunal (OJ 2004 L 333, p. 7), until the entry into force of its rules of procedure, in which the ETF
seeks an interpretation of the order of the Tribunal (Full Court) in Case F-1/05 Landgren v ETF [2007] ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000.
Held: The application for an interpretation is dismissed as inadmissible. The ETF is ordered to pay the costs of the present proceedings.
Summary
Procedure – Interpretation of a judgment – Conditions for the admissibility of the application
(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 129; Council Decision 2004/752, Art. 3(4))
For an application for interpretation of a judgment to be admissible, it must 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 intended to resolve the particular case before the Court. Such an application
is therefore inadmissible where it seeks to obtain from the Court in question an opinion on the application, implementation
or consequences of its judgment or order.
(see para. 8)
See:
5/55 Assider v High Authority [1954-1956] ECR 135, 142; 70/63 A High Authority v Collotti and Court of Justice [1965] ECR 275, 280; 110/63 A Willame v Commission [1966] ECR 287, 290; 206/81 A Alvarez v Parliament [1983] ECR 2865, paras 8 to 11; 146/85 INT and 431/85 INT Maindiaux and Others v ESC and Others [1988] ECR 2003,
paras 5 and 6
T-22/91 INT Raiola-Denti and Others v Council [1993] ECR II‑817, para. 6; T‑573/93 (129) Caballero Montoya v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I‑A‑271 and II‑761, para. 27