58. In the present case, the Court notes that the application exclusively seeks to call into question the grounds of the judgment of 2 December 2021, which is final. In this connection, the Court reiterates, as it has already done above, that the application for review cannot be based either on the legal grounds of its judgment or on particulars underpinning its findings. Accordingly, the purpose of an application for review cannot be to re-examine the grounds of law or fact contained in the decision in respect of which a review is sought. In the present case, the Applicant's application is akin to an appeal against the judgment of 2 December 2021 since it exclusively seeks to challenge the Court's findings and the analysis underpinning its judgment, and for a rectification of what he describes as an error of assessment. 59. The Court further notes that the Applicant contends that the matters which he claims constitute new facts and errors are identified in the Judgment of 2 December 2021. 60. From the foregoing, the Court finds that there are no new facts relating to the admissibility of the allegation of violation of the Applicant's right to property. iv. Allegation of a new fact in relation to the determination of the amount of reparation for material and moral damage 61. The Applicant submits that once the Court has drawn the consequences of the fact that the violations arising from the proceedings against him since 24 July 1995 are of a continuous nature, it should assume its temporal jurisdiction and find that his arrest, the forced cessation of his duties for twenty-six (26) years, the “destruction” of his career and his sentencing to ten (10) years' imprisonment were unlawful. He further submits that after such a finding, the Court should review its decision with regard to reparation for the material and moral damage he suffered and award him a substantial amount. 17