Key legal question
Whether the request for revision met the requirements for new facts under Art. 123(2)(a) and 124(1)(d) LTF
Extracted holding
The asserted new facts were plainly insufficient and did not justify revision; the request was inadmissible.
Extracted reasoning
The Court had already expressly considered the Russian decision of 4 September 2012 and the later decision of 21 September 2012, but held they did not amount to a particularly important reason under Art. 84(2) LTF. Revision cannot be used to relitigate the merits.