19 July 2017 (*1)

(Procedure — Interpretation of an order)

In Case T-347/14 INTP,

Olga Stanislavivna Yanukovych, as heir of Viktor Viktorovych Yanukovych, residing in Kiev (Ukraine), represented by T. Beazley QC,

applicant,

Council of the European Union, represented by J.-P. Hix and P. Mahnič Bruni, acting as Agents,

defendant,

supported by

European Commission, represented initially by S. Bartelt and D. Gauci, and subsequently by E. Paasivirta and J. Norris-Usher, acting as Agents,

intervener,

APPLICATION for interpretation of the order of 12 July 2016, Yanukovych v Council (T-347/14, ‘the order in the main proceedings’, EU:T:2016:433),

THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber),

composed of G. Berardis (Rapporteur), President, D. Spielmann and Z. Csehi, Judges,

Registrar: E. Coulon,

makes the following

1.By application lodged at the Court Registry on 10 February 2017, the applicant, Mrs Olga Stanislavivna Yanukovych, as heir of Viktor Viktorovych Yanukovych, filed, pursuant to Article 168 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, an application for interpretation of point 3 of the operative part of the order of 12 July 2016, Yanukovych v Council (T-347/14, ‘the order in the main proceedings’, EU:T:2016:433)

The operative part of the order in the main proceedings is worded as follows:

1.‘1. Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine and Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in their original versions, are annulled in so far as they concern Mr Viktor Viktorovych Yanukovych.

2.The action is dismissed as to the remainder.

3.The Council of the European Union shall bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by Mrs Olga Stanislavivna Yanukovych, as heir of Mr Viktorovych Yanukovych, in relation to the claim for annulment made in the application.

4.Mrs Stanislavivna Yanukovych, as heir of Mr Viktorovych Yanukovych, shall bear her own costs and shall pay those incurred by the Council in relation to the claim for annulment made in the statement of modification.

3.By her application for interpretation, the applicant claims that point 3 of the operative part of the order in the main proceedings contains an ambiguity with regard to its scope, in particular, with regard to whether the costs incurred by Mr Viktorovych Yanukovych, while he was still alive, can be excluded. The applicant maintains that it is apparent from a purely literal interpretation of the point in the operative part of the order in the main proceedings that, as regards the claim for annulment made in the application, the Council of the European Union is ordered to pay only the costs incurred by the applicant, as heir of Mr Viktorovych Yanukovych, and not the costs incurred by the latter prior to his death. In that regard, the applicant claims that, in the light of the context and content of the order in the main proceedings, point 3 of the operative part thereof must be interpreted as meaning that the claim for annulment made in the application covers all recoverable costs incurred by Mr Viktorovych Yanukovych before his death, as well as all recoverable costs incurred by the applicant after his death.

Accordingly, the applicant claims that the Court should:

–declare that point 3 of the operative part of the order in the main proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that the Council is to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by her and by Mr Viktorovych Yanukovych, in so far as concerns the claim for annulment made in the application;

–in the event that the present application for interpretation is challenged, order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings initiated by that application, or, otherwise, order the parties to bear their own costs.

5.By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 17 March 2017, the Commission stated that it had no observations to submit on the present application for interpretation.

6.In its observations on the application for interpretation lodged on 27 March 2017, the Council submits, first, that it does not support the literal interpretation proposed by the applicant. According to the Council, point 3 of the operative part of the order in the main proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that, as regards the claim for annulment made in the application, all recoverable costs include costs incurred by Mr Viktorovych Yanukovych up to the time of his death. The Council submits that that interpretation is clear not only from the very wording of that point of the operative part, but also from paragraphs 96 and 97 of the order in the main proceedings. In that regard, the Council states that, contrary to what the applicant appears to claim, the recoverable costs must be defined by reference to the claim for annulment made in the application, in respect of which the successful party is entitled to have its recoverable costs paid, rather than by reference to the person representing the successful party. Finally, as regards the costs of the present proceedings, the Council claims that the Court should order each party to bear its own costs.

7.In that regard, it must be noted that Article 43 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union provides that if the meaning or scope of a judgment is in doubt, the Courts of the European Union are to construe it on application by any party or any institution of the European Union establishing an interest therein.

8.An application for interpretation of a judgment or an order must be reviewed with regard not only to the operative part of the judicial decision in question, but also to the grounds constituting its essential basis, in so far as they are necessary to determine the exact meaning of what is stated in the operative part (see, by analogy, judgment of 23 October 2008, People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran v Council, T-256/07, EU:T:2008:461, paragraph 60).

9.In the present case, the application for interpretation of the order in the main proceedings relates to point 3 of the operative part thereof, which expressly concerns costs relating to the claim for annulment made in the application, while point 4 of the operative part of the order in the main proceedings expressly concerns costs relating to the claim for annulment made in the statement of modification. It is apparent from paragraph 96 of the order in the main proceedings that the Court ruled on the costs of the case pursuant to Article 134(2) of the Rules of Procedure, under which, where there is more than one unsuccessful party, the Court is to decide how the costs are to be shared. Consequently, in paragraph 97 of the order in the main proceedings, having noted that the Council had been unsuccessful in relation to the claim for annulment made in the application, the Court ordered the Council to pay the costs relating to that claim, in accordance with the form of order sought by the applicant, and the applicant to pay the costs relating to the claim for annulment made in the statement of modification, in accordance with the form of order sought by the Council.