Key legal question
Whether the request for interpretation of the term 'financial independence' in the reasons of the prior Federal Supreme Court judgment is admissible under Art. 129 LTF.
Extracted holding
No. Interpretation may concern only the operative part or, exceptionally, reasons needed to understand it; the applicant sought a substantive extension of the judgment to a new question.
Extracted reasoning
The operative part of the prior judgment was clear and unambiguous. The requested clarification concerned wording appearing only in the reasons and would effectively modify the decision rather than interpret it.