Corte di giustizia UE/2017

62016CO0180 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) 12 July 2017 ( *1 ) (Rectification of judgment) [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑180/16 P-REC, APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], brought on 29 March 2016, [OSCURATO:PERSONA]., established in Tokyo (Japan), represented by J.F. MacLennan, Solicitor, S. Sakellariou, dikigoros, A. Schulz, Rechtsanwalt, and J. Jourdan, avocat, appellant, the other party to the proceedings being: [OSCURATO:PERSONA], represented by N. Khan, acting as Agent, defendant at first instance, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), composed of A. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Rapporteur), [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], A. Rosas and C. Toader, Judges, [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: E. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: A. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], having regard to the written procedure, after hearing the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], makes the following [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1 On 6 July 2017 the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) delivered the judgment in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ( C‑180/16 P , EU:C:2017:520 ). 2 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] version of that judgment contains clerical errors which it is appropriate for the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to rectify of its own motion in accordance with Article 154(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], which applies to the procedure on an appeal pursuant to Article 190(1) of those rules. On those grounds, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) hereby orders: 1) Paragraph 81 of the judgment of 6 July 2017, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ( C‑180/16 P , EU:C:2017:520 ) shall be rectified as follows: ‘In paragraphs 141 and 142 of the judgment under appeal, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] held, without erring in law, that, given that the participation of the Japanese undertakings in the common understanding was a “prerequisite” for the effective implementation of the EQ Agreement in which only the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] undertakings participated and that the Japanese undertakings’ honouring of their commitments therefore made a “necessary contribution” to the functioning of the infringement, it had to be concluded that [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s contribution to the infringement was comparable to that of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] undertakings.’ 2) Paragraph 82 of the judgment shall be rectified as follows: ‘Furthermore, in paragraph 141 of the judgment under appeal, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] referred to paragraph 261 of the judgment of 12 July 2011, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ( T‑113/07 , EU:T:2011:343 ), in which the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] also rightly held that, since [OSCURATO:PERSONA] undertook under the common understanding not to operate on the EEA market, its participation also in the EQ Agreement — whose purpose was the sharing of GIS projects on the EEA market — was unnecessary. The fact that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] did not participate in the EQ Agreement was irrelevant and not the result of its choice.’ 3) Paragraph 83 of the judgment shall be rectified as follows: ‘In other words, as the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] noted in point 134 of his Opinion, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] correctly held that the fact that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] did not participate in the EQ Agreement was a mere consequence of its participation in the common understanding and thus does not mean that its conduct was less serious than that of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] producers.’ 4) Paragraph 84 of the judgment shall be rectified as follows: ‘In those conditions, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] could not criticise the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] for not granting it a reduction in the amount of its fine on account of the fact that it did not participate in the EQ Agreement.’ 5) The original of this order shall be annexed to the original of the rectified judgment. A note of this order shall be made in the margin of the original of the rectified judgment. Done at Luxembourg, 12 July 2017. A. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] A. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ( *1 ) [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the case: [OSCURATO:PERSONA].