Orders nº T-727/18 REC of Tribunal General de la Unión Europea, February 13, 2020

Resolution DateFebruary 13, 2020
Issuing OrganizationTribunal General de la Unión Europea
Decision NumberT-727/18 REC

(Procedure - Rectification order - Rejection)

In Case T-727/18 REC,

ZW, represented by T. Petsas, lawyer,

applicant,

v

European Investment Bank (EIB),

defendant,

APPLICATION for rectification of the order of 21 November 2019, ZW v EIB (T-727/18, not published, EU:T:2019:809),

THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber),

composed of S. Gervasoni (Rapporteur), President, P. Nihoul and J. Martín y Pérez de Nanclares, Judges,

Registrar: E. Coulon,

makes the following

Order

1 On 21 November 2019, the General Court delivered the order in ZW v EIB (T-727/18, not published, EU:T:2019:809; ‘the order at issue’).

2 By document lodged at the Court Registry on 4 December 2019, the applicant, ZW, asked the General Court to rectify paragraphs 5, 6, 8 to 13, 19, 21, 22, 27 and 29 of the order at issue.

3 Under Article 164(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the General Court may, of its own motion or on application by a party, rectify clerical mistakes, errors in calculation and obvious inaccuracies.

4 In the present case, it must be recalled, first, that the General Court has sole jurisdiction to determine the relevant facts and, more generally, the information relevant to the resolution of the dispute, which will be mentioned in the decision which closes the proceedings (see, to that effect, order of 6 June 2017, Frank v Commission, T-603/15 REC, not published, EU:T:2017:394, paragraphs 8 to 10). The absence of any mention of certain information additional to that already set out in the background to the dispute and the conduct of the proceedings which are set out in the order at issue cannot, therefore, be regarded as constituting a clerical error or an obvious inaccuracy within the meaning of the provision cited in the previous paragraph.

5 The same is true of the absence of any mention of the applicant’s communication of additional information to the Ombudsman following her complaint of 5 July 2017 (in paragraph 5 of the order at issue), the lack of detail of certain grounds for rejecting that complaint (in paragraph 6 of the order at issue) and the absence of any indication of the times at which the application and the applicant’s request that her action be declared admissible were lodged at the Registry (in paragraph 9 of the order at issue).

6 The same is also true of the absence of certain details relating to the requests for amicable settlement of 22 May and 12 June 2019 (in paragraph 8 of the order at issue), especially since the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT