Corte di giustizia UE/2025

62021CO0779 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) 15 January 2025 ( *1 ) (Rectification of judgment – Articles 154 and 159a of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] – Obvious inaccuracies – None) [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑779/21 P-REC and C‑799/21 P-REC, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] under Article 56 of the Statute of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], brought on 14 December 2021 and 16 December 2021 respectively, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , represented initially by A. Bouquet, F. Castillo de la Torre, F. Clotuche‑Duvieusart and B. Eggers, acting as [OSCURATO:PERSONA], and subsequently by A. Bouquet, D. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], F. Clotuche‑Duvieusart and B. Eggers, acting as [OSCURATO:PERSONA], appellant in Case C‑779/21 P, supported by: [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Spain , represented by L. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and A. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], acting as [OSCURATO:PERSONA], intervener in the appeal, the other parties to the proceedings being: [OSCURATO:PERSONA] populaire pour la libération de la Saguia-el-Hamra et du Rio de oro ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) , represented by G. Devers, avocat, applicant at first instance, Council of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], defendant at first instance, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , represented initially by J.‑L. Carré, A.‑L. Desjonquères and T. Stéhelin, acting as [OSCURATO:PERSONA], and subsequently by G. Bain, B. Herbaut, T. Stéhelin and B. Travard, acting as [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] marocaine de l’agriculture et du développement rural (Comader) , represented by N. Angelet, G. Forwood and A. Hublet, avocats, and by N. Forwood, Barrister-at-Law, interveners at first instance, and Council of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , represented initially by F. Naert and V. Piessevaux, acting as [OSCURATO:PERSONA], and subsequently by F. Naert, A. Nowak‑Salles and V. Piessevaux, acting as [OSCURATO:PERSONA], appellant in Case C‑799/21 P, supported by: [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Belgium , represented initially by J.‑C. Halleux, C. Pochet and M. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], acting as [OSCURATO:PERSONA], and subsequently by C. Pochet and M. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], acting as [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Spain , represented by L. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and A. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], acting as [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , represented by M.Z. Fehér and K. Szíjjártó, acting as [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , represented by P. Barros da Costa and A. Pimenta, acting as [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , represented initially by B. Ricziová, acting as Agent, and subsequently by S. Ondrášiková, acting as Agent, interveners in the appeal, the other parties to the proceedings being: [OSCURATO:PERSONA] populaire pour la libération de la Saguia-el-Hamra et du Rio de oro ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) , represented by G. Devers, avocat, applicant at first instance, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , represented initially by J.‑L. Carré, A.‑L. Desjonquères and T. Stéhelin, acting as [OSCURATO:PERSONA], and subsequently by G. Bain, B. Herbaut, T. Stéhelin and B. Travard, acting as [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , represented initially by A. Bouquet, F. Castillo de la Torre, F. Clotuche‑Duvieusart and B. Eggers, acting as [OSCURATO:PERSONA], and subsequently by A. Bouquet, D. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], F. Clotuche‑Duvieusart and B. Eggers, acting as [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] marocaine de l’agriculture et du développement rural (Comader) , represented by N. Angelet, G. Forwood and A. Hublet, avocats, and by N. Forwood, Barrister-at-Law, interveners at first instance, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, C. Lycourgos, I. Jarukaitis, M.L. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], S. Rodin, A. Kumin, N. Jääskinen (Rapporteur) and M. Gavalec, Presidents of Chambers, A. Arabadjiev, E. Regan and Z. Csehi, Judges, [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: T. Ćapeta, Registrar: A. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], after hearing the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], makes the following [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1 On 4 October 2024, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) delivered the judgment in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Council v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ( C‑779/21 P and C‑799/21 P , EU:C:2024:835 ) (‘the judgment at issue’). 2 By letter lodged at the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 24 October 2024, supplemented by a corrigendum received at that registry on 6 November 2024, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] submitted a request for rectification of paragraphs 127 and 128 of the judgment at issue pursuant to Article 154 of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], applicable to appeal proceedings pursuant to Article 190(1) of those rules. 3 By letters lodged at the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 25 and 28 October 2024 respectively, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Spain, on the basis of the same provisions, requested that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] rectify paragraph 127 of the judgment at issue. 4 Pursuant to Article 159a of the Rules of Procedure, where a request or an application referred to in Chapter 9 of Title IV of those rules – which includes Article 154 thereof – is, in whole or in part, manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] may, having heard the Judge-Rapporteur and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], at any time decide to dismiss it, in whole or in part, by reasoned order. 5 It is appropriate to apply Article 159a of the Rules of Procedure in the present cases. 6 In support of their respective requests for rectification of paragraph 127 of the judgment at issue, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Spain claim, in essence, that that paragraph is vitiated by an inaccuracy, inasmuch as it cannot be held that it was ‘without being contradicted in that regard’ that the representative of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] populaire pour la libération de la Saguia-el-Hamra et du Rio de oro ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) indicated, during the hearing before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], that, ‘to date, of a total of around 500000 Sahrawi, approximately 250000 are living in refugee camps in Algeria, another quarter are living in the area of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] which is under Moroccan control, and the remaining quarter are living in other parts of the world’. 7 In that regard, they maintain that it is apparent from the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s report of 11 June 2018 on the benefits for the population of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the extension of tariff preferences to products originating in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and on the consultation of that population on the said extension (SWD(2018) 346 final), to which reference is made in, inter alia, paragraph 337 of the judgment of 29 September 2021, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v Council ( T‑279/19 , EU:T:2021:639 ), which is the judgment under appeal in the cases giving rise to the judgment at issue, as well as in paragraph 38 of the judgment at issue, that, ‘while a sizeable portion of the Sahrawi population lives outside the territory of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], a major portion does live in the territory’. Moreover, according to footnote 19 to that report, although, as no census has been taken of the members of the people of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] living outside the territory of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], it has not been possible to quantify those members, they represent – according to the source under consideration – between 20% and 50% of the people of [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] states that it was also apparent from its report of 22 December 2021 on the benefits for the population of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the extension of tariff preferences to products originating in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (SWD(2021) 431 final), appended by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to its response before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is not in a position to carry out such a census. According to the information available to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], such a census has, to date, never been carried out. In addition, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Spain argue that it was apparent from the written pleadings of the Council of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], both in connection with the case which gave rise to the judgment of 29 September 2021, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v Council ( T‑279/19 , EU:T:2021:639 ), and in connection with those giving rise to the judgment at issue, that carrying out a census of the members of the people of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and, a fortiori, identifying the proportion of those members which lives in the territory of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the proportion which lives outside that territory are part of a complex problem which, to date, remains unresolved and which is currently the subject of work being conducted by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] for the Referendum in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Minurso). [OSCURATO:PERSONA] states that it referred to those elements during the hearing before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 8 In support of its request for rectification of paragraph 128 of the judgment at issue, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] submits (i) that it cannot be inferred from the remarks made by its agents during that hearing that, ‘according to [its] estimates …, only 25% [of the population of [OSCURATO:PERSONA]] is of Sahrawi origin’, (ii) that it is apparent from the reports referred to in the preceding paragraph that there is no precise census of the population of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and that that institution is not in a position to carry out such a census, and (iii) that, following a question which was put to it during the hearing, it explicitly contested the assertion that the members of the population residing in the territory of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] which are of Sahrawi origin represent 25% of that population. 9 As a preliminary point, it should be borne in mind that, under Article 154(1) of the Rules of Procedure, obvious inaccuracies in a judgment may be rectified by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], inter alia, at the request of a party. 10 In the first place, as regards paragraph 127 of the judgment at issue, it is common ground that, during the hearing before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] representative provided a rough estimate of the number of persons comprising the people of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and of how those persons are distributed geographically across the world. As the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Spain notes in its request for rectification, neither its representative nor the representative of another party has disputed the figures put forward as estimates by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] representative at that hearing and reproduced in paragraph 127 of the judgment at issue. 11 In any event, it must be pointed out that the statements set out in that paragraph are not at odds with the report of 11 June 2018 or the report of 22 December 2021 referred to in paragraph 7 of the present order; nor, more generally, are they at odds with the Council’s written pleadings. Indeed, paragraph 127 of the judgment at issue, which expressly emphasises the fact that the estimates presented by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] representative at that hearing are approximate in nature, does not in any way appear to be irreconcilable with (i) the statement that a major portion of the people of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] lives in that territory, (ii) the statement that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] was not in a position to carry out a census of the members of that people who live outside that territory and that different estimates coexist in that regard, and (iii) the Council’s statement that carrying out a precise census of the members of that people is part of a complex problem currently forming the subject of work conducted by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 12 In the second place, regarding paragraph 128 of the judgment at issue, it must be observed that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] itself acknowledges, in its request for rectification, that it stated during the hearing before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] that ‘a quarter of the inhabitants [of [OSCURATO:PERSONA]] “could” be of Sahrawi origin’, without however indicating the exact number of persons who could be regarded as being members of that people. 13 First, that paragraph faithfully reflects that statement by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], because, in that paragraph, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] uses the conditional form and refers only to estimates. In that context, the clarification given by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] at the hearing before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], in response to a question which had been put to it, that it did not intend to make a political statement in that regard cannot be understood as meaning that it intended to retract that statement. Second, in its request for rectification, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] gives an incorrect reading of paragraph 128 of the judgment at issue. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] claims that it did not state at any time during the hearing that, ‘according to [its] estimates …, only 25% [of the population of [OSCURATO:PERSONA]] is of Sahrawi origin’. According to that institution, the use of such wording could – incorrectly – suggest that those estimates were made by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] itself. However, it is expressly stated in paragraph 128 of the judgment at issue that it is ‘according to the estimates provided by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] at the hearing before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’, and not according to the estimates made by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] itself, that only 25% of the population of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is of Sahrawi origin. Accordingly, that paragraph indicates only that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] referred to the estimates in question at that hearing; by contrast, it is not possible to infer from this that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] suggested in that paragraph that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] itself was the person who had made those estimates. 14 Consequently, it cannot be held that paragraphs 127 and 128 of the judgment at issue are vitiated by ‘obvious inaccuracies’ for the purposes of Article 154 of the Rules of Procedure. 15 It follows from all of the foregoing that, pursuant to Article 159a of the Rules of Procedure, the requests for rectification of paragraphs 127 and 128 of the judgment at issue must be dismissed as manifestly unfounded. On those grounds, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) hereby orders: 1. The requests of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Spain for rectification of paragraph 127 of the judgment of 4 October 2024, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Council v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ( C‑779/21 P and C‑799/21 P , EU:C:2024:835 ), are dismissed as manifestly unfounded. 2. The request of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] for rectification of paragraph 128 of the judgment of 4 October 2024, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Council v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ( C‑779/21 P and C‑799/21 P , EU:C:2024:835 ), is dismissed as manifestly unfounded. [Signatures] ( *1 ) Language of the case: [OSCURATO:PERSONA].