Withdrawal of Request for Interpretation and Rectification

Cited in the considerations as the justification for striking the case from the roll following the withdrawal of the request.

Impliedly cited by the second order stating that no judicial costs are to be charged (Art. 66 is the general rule for costs, and the specific decision not to charge costs relates to this framework, even though the number itself is not explicitly repeated in the dispositive, the concept of 'sans frais' in relation to the withdrawal is often linked to procedural provisions that avoid cost imposition, however, based strictly on the instruction to only include what is *explicitly cited*, and seeing that only Art. 32 al. 2 LTF is explicitly mentioned as the basis for striking the case, and point 2 states 'Il n'est pas perçu de frais judiciaires' without citing an article, I must re-evaluate. The instruction states: 'If the dispositive does not explicitly cite any substantive article, then you must output only the cost and/or legal aid provisions cited there.' Since the dispositive *only* explicitly cites a consequence related to Art. 32 al. 2 LTF (point 1) and mentions no cost article in point 2 (only stating 'no costs'), I must adhere strictly to explicit citation in the dispositive. Since no provision is cited in point 2, only point 1 is relevant based on the explicit citation rule.