65. The Court reiterates that for a decision to be reviewed, it must be established that at the time of rendering the decision, new facts have come to light of which the Court and the parties were unaware and which are of such a nature as to have a decisive influence on the decision already rendered. In the present case, the Applicant does not provide proof of any fact of which he was unaware and which would have been decisive in determining the amount of reparation for nonmaterial damage suffered. 66. Furthermore, the Court notes that in the present Application for review, the Applicant, by virtue of all the particulars he relies on, is challenging the findings and orders of the Court in the Judgment entered on 2 December 2021. These particulars are therefore neither new facts nor new evidence within the meaning of Article 28(3) of the Protocol and Rule 78(2) of the Rules. The Court considers that the Applicant’s comparison of the amounts awarded him to those awarded by the Court in another case does not constitute a new fact. 67. Accordingly, the Court declares inadmissible the Application for review. VIII. COSTS 68. The Respondent State submits that the present Application for review, which was filed after the effective date of the withdrawal of its Declaration under Article 34(6) of the Protocol, constitutes abuse of process by the Applicant and requests the Court to order the Applicant to pay the costs of the proceedings. 69. The Applicant does not make any submission in respect of costs. 70. Under Rule 32(2) of the Rules, “Unless otherwise decided by the Court, each party shall bear its own costs, if any”. 19