CELEX: 62019CO0928
Language: en
Date: 2021-09-29 00:00:00
Title: Rectification order of 29 September 2021.#European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU) v European Commission.#Rectification of judgment.#Case C-928/19 P.

ORDER OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber)
   29 September 2021 (
         *1
      )
   (Rectification of judgment)
   In Case C‑928/19 P-REC,
   APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 19 December 2019,
   
      European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU), established in Brussels (Belgium), represented by R. Arthur, Solicitor, and K. Apps, Barrister,
   appellant,
   the other parties to the proceedings being:
   
      Jan Willem Goudriaan, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by R. Arthur, Solicitor, and K. Apps, Barrister,
   applicant at first instance,
   
      European Commission, represented by I. Martínez del Peral, M. Kellerbauer and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents,
   defendant at first instance,
   THE COURT (Grand Chamber)
   composed of K. Lenaerts, President, R. Silva de Lapuerta, Vice-President, A. Prechal, M. Vilaras, E. Regan, N. Piçarra and A. Kumin, Presidents of Chambers, E. Juhász, M. Safjan, S. Rodin, F. Biltgen, K. Jürimäe, C. Lycourgos, P.G. Xuereb and N. Jääskinen (Rapporteur), Judges,
   Advocate General: P. Pikamäe,
   Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,
   after hearing the Advocate General,
   makes the following
   
      Order
   
   
            1
         
         
            On 2 September 2021, the Court (Grand Chamber) delivered the judgment in EPSU v Commission (C‑928/19 P, the judgment at issue, EU:C:2021:656).
         
      
            2
         
         
            By document lodged at the Court Registry on the same day, the European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU), pursuant to Article 154 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, which applies to the procedure on appeal by virtue of Article 190(1) of those rules, made a request for rectification of paragraph 16 and of the operative part of the judgment at issue.
         
      
            3
         
         
            Invited by the Registrar of the Court, in accordance with Article 154(2) of the Rules of Procedure, to submit its observations, the European Commission stated that it considered that the judgment at issue contained an error in paragraph 16 of its grounds as regards the allocation of the costs of the parties at first instance, but that that error did not affect the operative part of that judgment.
         
      
            4
         
         
            In that regard, it should be pointed out that paragraph 16 of the judgment at issue contains an inaccuracy in that it states that the General Court ordered the applicants at first instance, EPSU and Mr Jan Willem Goudriaan, to pay the costs. However, in paragraphs 142 and 143 of the judgment of 24 October 2019, EPSU and Goudriaan v Commission (T‑310/18, EU:T:2019:757), the General Court held that, having regard to the circumstances of the case, and in particular the attitude of the Commission, equity required, in accordance with Article 135(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, that each party bear its own costs, notwithstanding the fact that the applicants at first instance had been unsuccessful and the Commission had expressly sought an order for them to pay the costs.
         
      
            5
         
         
            In those circumstances, it must be held that paragraph 16 of the judgment at issue contains an ‘obvious inaccuracy’, within the meaning of Article 154(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, which it is appropriate to rectify pursuant to that provision, applicable to the procedure on appeal by virtue of Article 190(1) of those rules.
         
      
            6
         
         
            However, given that the rectification mentioned in the preceding paragraph is sufficient to correct the inaccuracy identified by EPSU, since it will be apparent from paragraph 16 of the judgment at issue, as rectified, that each party bore its own costs at first instance, there is no need to rectify the operative part of that judgment. That inaccuracy relates solely to the allocation of the costs of the proceedings at first instance, whereas point 2 of the operative part of that judgment relates exclusively to the allocation of the costs of the appeal proceedings.
         
       
         
            On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby orders:
         
       
         
            
                     
                        1.
                     
                  
                  
                     
                        Paragraph 16 of the judgment of 2 September 2021, EPSU v Commission (C‑928/19 P, EU:C:2021:656), shall read as follows:
                     
                     
                        ‘By the judgment under appeal, the General Court dismissed the applicants’ action in its entirety and ordered each party to bear its own costs.’
                     
                  
               
       
         
            
                     
                        2.
                     
                  
                  
                     
                        The request for rectification is refused as to the remainder.
                     
                  
               
       
         
            
                     
                        3.
                     
                  
                  
                     
                        The original of this order shall be annexed to the original of the rectified judgment. A note of this order shall be made in the margin of the original of the rectified judgment.
                     
                  
               
       
            
               
                  Luxembourg, 29 September 2021.
                  
                     
                        A. Calot Escobar
                        Registrar
                     
                     
                        K. Lenaerts
                        President
                     
                  
               
            
         (
         *1
      )	Language of the case: English.