Facts
The applicant, [A.] , born in 1962, had been employed since 1 October 2012 by [B. SA] as an administrative case manager. She was insured for occupational pension benefits with the Fondation collective OPA Swiss Life (hereinafter: the foundation), the respondent.
On 31 October 2012, during the probationary period, the applicant fell on the stairs. The employer dismissed her the same day with effect from 7 November 2012. The Swiss National Accident Insurance Fund (CNA) terminated her benefits as of 31 August 2014 by decision on objection of 30 September 2014.
By decision of 23 November 2016, the Geneva Cantonal Disability Insurance Office granted the applicant a full disability pension from 1 July 2014. A first somatic condition had caused total incapacity for work from 31 October 2012 to 31 August 2014. A second psychiatric condition, which appeared in March 2013, had caused total incapacity from March to November 2013, then from 4 June 2014. The date on which the pension entitlement began was set at 1 July 2014 because of the lateness of the application.
On 14 November 2017, the applicant brought an action for payment against the foundation before the Social Insurance Chamber of the Geneva Court of Justice, seeking payment of disability benefits, at least CHF 2,513.35 per month from 1 August 2015, with interest at 5% per year. By judgment of 25 October 2018, the cantonal court dismissed the action.
The public law appeal against that judgment was dismissed by judgment of the Federal Supreme Court of 19 February 2019 (9C_841/2018). The request for revision lodged against that judgment was dismissed by judgment of 5 November 2019 (9F_8/2019).
In the present request for revision, interpretation and rectification, the applicant seeks annulment of judgments 9C_841/2018 and 9F_8/2019 and, principally, payment of a full disability pension under mandatory and supplementary occupational pension benefits from 1 August 2014, and, in the alternative, remittal of the case to the cantonal court.
Considerations
As regards the request for interpretation and rectification, the applicant argues that the operative part of judgment 9F_8/2019 is unclear and contradicts the considerations (Art. 129 FSCA). The Federal Supreme Court notes that the applicant does not explain in what way the alleged contradiction consists. Paragraph 1 of the operative part, according to which the request for revision is dismissed, is clear, and the grounds emerge explicitly from the considerations and are consistent with the operative part. The conditions for interpretation or rectification are therefore not met.
As regards the complaint of a violation of Art. 121 let. c FSCA, the Federal Supreme Court finds it manifestly unfounded, the applicant's formal requests having been dismissed. If the applicant in reality criticises the failure to examine the interruption of temporal causation due to a temporary remission of psychiatric disorders, this is not an omission to rule on requests but a criticism of the reasoning of judgment 9F_8/2019, which cannot justify a revision.
As regards the ground for revision under Art. 121 let. d FSCA (oversight), it…