JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)

12 November 1998

Case T-91/96 (125)

Council of the European Union

v

Nicole Hankart

‛Officials — Action for revision — Decisive new fact — None — Inadmissible’

Full text in French II-1809

Application for:

revision of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 February 1998 in Case T-91/96 Hankart v Council [1998] ECRSC II-149.

Decision:

Application dismissed.

Abstract of the Judgment

On 17 November 1995 Ms Hankart, a grade D 3 servant of the Commission, took part in the first of a series of written tests in open competition Conseil/C/360. By decision of the selection board of 13 March 1996, she was refused admission to the subsequent tests, on the ground that she had given up at the stage of the third written test. On 13 June 1996 she brought proceedings contesting that decision. By judgment of 17 February 1998 in Case T-91/96 Hankart v Council [1998] ECRSC II-149, the Court of First Instance annulled that decision. The Council reconvened the selection board in the competition, which requested Ms Hankart to sit the first part of the written tests. Ms Hankart's lawyer advised that, following another competition, his client had on 1 May 1997 been appointed a grade C 5 official of the Commission and that she was therefore no longer interested in taking part in any competition. He proposed that the Council should compensate his client for having lost the chance of being appointed an official of the Council at the same time as the persons whose names had been entered on the list of successful candidates.

On 2 June 1998 the Council brought proceedings for revision of the judgment of 17 February 1998.

Admissibility of the application for revision

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 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 (paragraph 13).

See: C-185/90 PREV Gill v Commission [1992] ECR I-993, para. 12; C-130/91 REV II ISAE/VPand Interdata v Commission [1996] ECR I-65, para. 6; T-26/89 (125) de Compte v Parliament [1997] ECRSC II-847, para. 15

The decision of the selection board in the competition was annulled by the judgment of 17 February 1998 on the ground that the selection board did not have any reliable procedure enabling it to conclude that the applicant had not taken part in the third test (paragraph 25).

It is not disputed that, at the time of bringing her action, Ms Hankart had an interest in obtaining a declaration that that irregularity was unlawful, since it had denied her the possibility of being appointed an official of the Council following that competition (paragraph 26).

She rightly maintains that her appointment as a Commission official on 1 May 1997 did not cause that interest to cease to exist. In fact, if competition Conseil/C/360 had been properly organised, she would have had the chance of being appointed an official as early as 1 November 1996, that being the date on which the first recruitments took place following that competition. Moreover, assuming that she wished to become an official of the Council, her appointment as an official of the Commission did not guarantee her the possibility of a transfer to the Council (paragraph 27).

See: 155/78 M v Commission [1980] ECR 1797, para. 6; 293/87 Vainkerv Parliament [1989] ECR 23, paras 11 and 12; T-156/89 Valverde Mordi v Cowl of Justice [1991] ECR II-407, paras 34 and 36

The action brought by Ms Hankart which culminated in the judgment of 17 February 1998 cannot be regarded as having been rendered nugatory by her appointment as a Commission official, or as constituting an abuse (paragraph 28).

The Council has not proved the existence of any factors which, had the Court been able to take them into consideration, could have led it to a different determination of the proceedings (paragraph 29).

Operative part:

The application for revision is dismissed as inadmissible.