Corte di giustizia UE/2017

62014CO0413 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) 19 September 2017 ( *1 ) (Rectification of judgment) [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑413/14 P-REC, APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], brought on 26 August 2014, [OSCURATO:PERSONA]., established in Wilmington ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), represented by D.M. Beard QC, and by A. Parr and R. Mackenzie, Solicitors, appellant, the other parties to the proceedings being: [OSCURATO:PERSONA], represented by T. Christoforou, V. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], M. Kellerbauer and N. Khan, acting as Agents, defendant at first instance, Association for [OSCURATO:PERSONA]., established in Washington ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), represented by J.-F. Bellis, avocat, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] fédérale des consommateurs — Que choisir (UFC — Que choisir), interveners at first instance, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), composed of K. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], A. Tizzano, Vice-[OSCURATO:PERSONA], R. Silva de Lapuerta, M. Ilešič, J. L. da [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Rapporteur), E. Juhász, M. Berger, M. Vilaras and E. Regan, Presidents of Chambers, A. Rosas, J. Malenovský, E. Levits, F. Biltgen, K. Jürimäe and C. Lycourgos, Judges, [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: N. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: A. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], after hearing the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], makes the following [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1 On 6 September 2017, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) delivered the judgment in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ( C 413/14 P , EU:C:2017:632 ). 2 That judgment contains, in the version in the language of the case, clerical errors which it is appropriate for the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to rectify of its own motion in accordance with Article 154(1) of its Rules of Procedure, which applies to the procedure on appeal pursuant to Article 190(1) of those rules. On those grounds, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) hereby orders: 1. Paragraph 139 of the judgment of 6 September 2017, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ( C‑413/14 P , EU:C:2017:632 ), in the version in the language of the case, shall be rectified as follows: ‘In that case, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is not only required to analyse, first, the extent of the undertaking’s dominant position on the relevant market and, secondly, the share of the market covered by the challenged practice, as well as the conditions and arrangements for granting the rebates in question, their duration and their amount; it is also required to assess the possible existence of a strategy aiming to exclude competitors that are at least as efficient as the dominant undertaking from the market (see, by analogy, judgment of 27 March 2012, [OSCURATO:PERSONA], C‑209/10 , EU:C:2012:172 , paragraph 29 ).’ 2. Paragraph 140 of that judgment, in the version in the language of the case, shall be rectified as follows: ‘The analysis of the capacity to foreclose is also relevant in assessing whether a system of rebates which, in principle, falls within the scope of the prohibition laid down in Article 102 TFEU, may be objectively justified. In addition, it has to be determined whether the exclusionary effect arising from such a system, which is disadvantageous for competition, may be counterbalanced, or outweighed, by advantages in terms of efficiency which also benefit the consumer (judgment of 15 March 2007, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA], C‑95/04 P , EU:C:2007:166 , paragraph 86 ). That balancing of the favourable and unfavourable effects of the practice in question on competition can be carried out in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s decision only after an analysis of the intrinsic capacity of that practice to foreclose competitors which are at least as efficient as the dominant undertaking.’ 3. 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. Luxembourg, 19 September 2017. A. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] K. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ( *1 ) Language of the case: English.