JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber)

6 March 2001

Case T-77/99

Girish Ojha

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — VAT-free importation of personal effects — Action for damages — Breach of administrative duty — Material and nonmaterial damage’

Full text in French II-293

Application for:

compensation to make good the material and nonmaterial damage suffered by the applicant as a result of being deprived of use of his vehicle during the period running from 1 February 1996 to 31 December 1997.

Held:

The Commission is ordered to pay to the applicant the sum of BEF 35000 by way of compensation for the material damage caused to him, together with interest at an annual rate of interest of 6.75%, with effect from delivery of the judgment until actual payment. The remainder of the application is dismissed. The Commission is ordered to bear its own costs and pay one half of those of the applicant. The applicant is ordered to bear one half of its own costs.

Summary

Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Illegality — Damage — Causal link — Burden of proof (EC Treaty, Art. 215 (now Art. 288 EC)) Officials — Decision concerning the administrative status of an official — Personal file — Notice of taking up duties not placed on personal file — Maladministration of such a kind as to render the institution liable — None — Conditions (Staff Regulations, Art. 26) Officials — Actions — Action for compensation — Claim for annulment of a pre-litigation decision refusing a request for compensation — Claim cannot be assessed in isolation from claims for annulment (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)

6 March 2002

Case T-77/99 REV

Girish Ojha

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Application for revision of a judgment — New fact — None — Inadmissible’

Full text in French II-131

Application for:

revision of the judgment of the court of First Instance of 6 March 2001 in Case T-77/99 Ojha v Commission [2001] ECRSC I-A-61 and II-293.

Held:

The application for revision is dismissed as inadmissible. The applicant for revision is ordered to pay the costs.

Summary

Procedure — Revision of a judgment — Conditions of admissibility of application — New fact — Meaning — Fact known at the time when judgment was delivered — Excluded — Inadmissible

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 41 and 46, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 126(1)(c))

Revision is not an appeal procedure but an exceptional review procedure that allows the authority of res judicata attaching to a final judgment to be called in question on the basis of the findings of fact relied upon by the court. Revision presupposes the discovery of elements of a factual nature which existed prior to the judgment and which were unknown at that time to the court which delivered it 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.

An application for revision, in support of which the applicant relies on a document lodged at the Court of First Instance by the defendant during the hearing of the case and distributed to all the members of the chamber and to the representative of the applicant who submitted his observations on it without disputing its content, is therefore inadmissible.

(see paras 12, 19, 21)

See: C-185/90 PREV Gill v Commission [1992] ECR I-993, para. 12; C-1/91 REV II ISAE/VP and Interdatav Commission [1996] ECR I-65, para. 6; C-2/98 P De Compte v Parliament [1999] ECR I-1787, para. 24; C-5/93 P DSM v Commission [1999] ECR I-4695, para. 43; T-8/89 REV DSM v Commission [1992] ECR II-2399, para. 14;T-26/89 REV De Compte v Parliament [1997] ECRSC I-A-305 and II-313, para. 15; T-91/96 REV Council v Hankan [1998] ECRSC I-A-597 and II-1809, para. 13