1 THE APPLICATION, MADE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIRED FORMS AND TIME LIMITS, IS FOR REVISION OF THE JUDGMENT CONCERNING THE SAME PARTIES, DELIVERED BY THE COURT OF JUSTICE ( FIRST CHAMBER ) ON 28 JUNE 1972, WHICH REJECTED THE APPLICANT' S APPLICATION FOR HIS RECLASSIFICATION AS DESIGNER AT THE JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE, ISPRA, AND FOR HIS PROMOTION TO GRADE B 3 .
2 BY THE TERMS OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE PROTOCOL ON THE STATUTE OF THE COURT, ANNEXED TO THE EEC TREATY, ARTICLE 42 OF THE PROTOCOL ON THE STATUTE OF THE COURT ANNEXED TO THE EURATOM TREATY, AND ARTICLE 100 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, THE COURT SHALL FIRST, SITTING IN THE DELIBERATION ROOM AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ITS DECISION ON THE MERITS, GIVE IN THE FORM OF A JUDGMENT ITS DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF AN APPLICATION FOR REVISION .
3 BY THESE SAME PROVISIONS, A REQUEST FOR THE REVISION OF A JUDGMENT MAY BE MADE TO THE COURT ONLY ON THE DISCOVERY OF A FACT WHICH IS OF SUCH A NATURE AS TO BE A DECISIVE FACTOR, AND WHICH, WHEN THE JUDGMENT WAS GIVEN, WAS UNKNOWN TO THE COURT AND TO THE PARTY REQUESTING THE REVISION;
4 IN SUPPORT OF HIS REQUEST, THE APPLICANT PRODUCES A PERIODIC REPORT FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1 JULY TO 30 JUNE 1971, PRIOR TO THE PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT, WHICH WAS COMMUNICATED TO HIM ON 6 OCTOBER 1972 AND THUS WAS UNKNOWN TO HIM AND TO THE COURT AT THE POINT WHEN THE JUDGMENT OF WHICH REVISION IS REQUESTED WAS PRONOUNCED;
5 UNDER THE HEADINGS " TYPE OF EMPLOYMENT " AND " DESCRIPTION OF PRINCIPAL TASKS ASSIGNED AND PERFORMED ", THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS, RESPECTIVELY : " DESIGNER " AND " ELECTRO-MECHANICAL AND MECHANICAL DESIGN AND PLANNING ";
6 THE APPLICANT CONCLUDES FROM THIS THAT THE POST HE OCCUPIED AT THE TIME UNDER CONSIDERATION, WAS ALWAYS THAT OF DESIGNER AND THAT THE CHIEF TASKS ALLOTTED TO HIM AND CARRIED OUT CORRESPONDED TO THAT POST;
7 THE JUDGMENT OF WHICH REVISION IS REQUESTED IS BASED, INTER ALIA, ON THE FINDING THAT THE APPLICANT CONCEDED THAT HE DID NOT CARRY OUT ALL THE FUNCTIONS OF A DESIGNER .
8 THE CONTENTS OF THE PERIODIC REPORT ARE NOT SUCH AS TO CONTRADICT THIS FINDING .
9 AS TO THE REFERENCE TO " DESIGNER ", THE SCOPE AND EFFECT OF THE LEGAL ACT BY WHICH THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY ASSIGNED THE APPLICANT TO THE POST OF LABORATORY ASSISTANT, CANNOT BE MODIFIED BY A REFERENCE IN A PERIODIC REPORT .
10 FURTHERMORE, THE DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICANT' S ACTIVITIES, FROM WHICH IT EMERGES THAT HE EXECUTES CERTAIN DESIGNS AND PROJECTS, IS NOT INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE FINDINGS, WHICH HE ADMITS AND ON WHICH THE JUDGMENT IS FOUNDED, THAT HIS FUNCTIONS COMPRISED A PART BUT NOT ALL OF THE FUNCTIONS OF A DESIGNER .
11 THESE REFERENCES, THEN, CANNOT BE REGARDED AS REVEALING A NEW FACT WHICH IS OF SUCH A NATURE AS TO BE A DECISIVE FACTOR IN THE DISPUTE DECIDED BY THE JUDGMENT OF 28 JUNE 1972 .
12 THE REQUEST FOR REVISION IS THEREFORE INADMISSIBLE .
13 THE PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED IN HIS REQUEST .
14 BY ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY SHALL BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS;
15 HOWEVER, BY ARTICLE 70 OF THE SAID RULES, THE INSTITUTIONS SHALL BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS IN THE CASE OF ACTIONS BY OFFICIALS AND SERVANTS OF THE COMMUNITIES .
THE COURT ( FIRST CHAMBER )
HEREBY DECIDES :
1 . THE REQUEST FOR REVISION IS DISMISSED AS INADMISSIBLE .
2 . EACH OF THE PARTIES SHALL BEAR HIS OWN COSTS .
