ORDER OF THE COURT (Eighth Chamber)

14 January 2021 (*1)

(Rectification order – Articles 154 and 159a of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Conditions – Review of the statement of reasons – Manifest inadmissibility)

In Case C‑50/20 P-REC,

APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 29 January 2020,

ZW, represented by T. Petsas, dikigoros,

appellant,

the other party to the proceedings being:

European Investment Bank (EIB), represented by T. Gilliams and K. Carr, acting as Agents,

defendant at first instance,

THE COURT (Eighth Chamber),

composed of N. Wahl, President of the Chamber, F. Biltgen and L.S. Rossi (Rapporteur), Judges,

Advocate General: M. Campos Sánchez-Bordona,

Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,

after hearing the Advocate General,

makes the following

1On 3 September 2020, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) made the order in ZW v EIB (C‑50/20 P, not published, EU:C:2020:652; ‘the order under appeal’).

2By document lodged at the Court Registry on 22 September 2020, ZW filed, pursuant to Article 154 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, which applies to the procedure on appeal in accordance with Article 190(1) of those rules, an application for rectification of points 3, 8, 10, 14 and 18 of the position of Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona, reproduced in paragraph 4 of the order under appeal.

3Pursuant to Article 159a of the Rules of Procedure, where a request or an application referred to in Chapter IX of those rules is, in whole or in part, manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded, the Court may, having heard the Judge-Rapporteur and the Advocate General, at any time decide to dismiss it, in whole or in part, by reasoned order.

4It is appropriate to apply that provision in the present case.

5In support of her application for rectification, ZW submits, in essence, that the Court of Justice, first, erred in omitting to classify the decision the annulment of which she sought as an act concerning a member of staff of the European Investment Bank (EIB) that is such as to affect ZW adversely, and, second, was inaccurate in its assessment of the arguments that she put forward in support of the second to fourth complaints, as set out in paragraphs 62 and 64 of her appeal.

6At the request of the Registrar, the EIB lodged its observations on that application; it submits, in essence, that the application does not satisfy the requirements of Article 154 of the Rules of Procedure.

7In that regard, it should be borne in mind that Article 154 of the Rules of Procedure, which is contained in Chapter IX of those rules, provides in paragraph 1 that clerical mistakes, errors in calculation and obvious inaccuracies may be rectified by the Court of Justice, of its own motion or at the request of a party made within two weeks after delivery of the judgment or service of the order.

8In the present case, since it does not seek the rectification of clerical mistakes, errors of calculation or obvious inaccuracies but a review of the statement of reasons of the order under appeal and the legal reasoning contained therein, the present application for rectification undoubtedly goes beyond the subject matter of Article 154(1) of the Rules of Procedure (see, to that effect, order of 15 June 2017, Laufen Austria v Commission, C‑637/13 P‑REC, not published, EU:C:2017:481, paragraph 6), with the result that it does not manifestly satisfy the requirements resulting from that provision.

9In those circumstances, that application must, pursuant to Article 159a of the Rules of Procedure, be dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

On those grounds, the Court (Eighth Chamber) hereby orders:

ZW’s application for rectification of points 3, 8, 10, 14 and 18 of the position of Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona, reproduced in paragraph 4 of the order of 3 September 2020, ZW v EIB (C‑50/20 P, not published, EU:C:2020:652), is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

Luxembourg, 14 January 2021.

Registrar

President of the Eighth Chamber

*

Language of the case: English.