Fons Iuris
Torna alla ricerca
Corte di giustizia UEsentenza

Corte di giustizia UE/2019

ECLI:EU:T:2019:400
Testo integrale del provvedimento

Testo integrale del provvedimento

[OSCURATO:PERSONA] [OSCURATO:PERSONA]

7 June 2019 ( * ) (Procedure — Rectification of judgment)

[OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑545/11 RENV-REC,

[OSCURATO:PERSONA],

established in Amsterdam (Netherlands),

[OSCURATO:PERSONA] (PAN [OSCURATO:PERSONA]),

established in Brussels (Belgium), represented by B. Kloostra and A. van den Biesen, lawyers, applicants, supported by Kingdom of Sweden, represented by A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, H. Shev, L. Swedenborg and F. Bergius, acting as Agents, intervener, v

[OSCURATO:PERSONA],

represented initially by A. Buchet, P. Ondrůšek and L. Pignataro-Nolin, and subsequently by A. Buchet and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents, defendant, supported by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Germany, represented initially by T. Henze and D. Klebs, acting as Agents, and subsequently by D. Klebs, acting as Agent, by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Cefic), established in Brussels, by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] européenne pour la protection des cultures (ECPA), established in Brussels, represented by

I. Antypas and D. Waelbroeck, lawyers, by CropLife International AISBL (CLI), established in Brussels, represented by R. Cana, E. Mullier and D. Abrahams, lawyers, by CropLife [OSCURATO:PERSONA]., established in Washington, DC ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Manufacturers of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (NAM), established in Washington, and

[OSCURATO:PERSONA]. (ACC),

established in Washington, represented by K. Nordlander, Y.-A. Benizri, lawyers, and M. Zdzieborska, Solicitor, and by

[OSCURATO:PERSONA] (ECCA),

established in Brussels, represented by S. Pappas, lawyer, interveners, APPLICATION under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] decision of 10 August 2011 refusing access to volume 4 of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] issued by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Germany, as rapporteur [OSCURATO:PERSONA] for the active substance ‘glyphosate’, under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1),

[OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]),

composed of H. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], J. Schwarcz (Rapporteur) and C. Iliopoulos, Judges, [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: E. Coulon, makes the following

[OSCURATO:PERSONA]

1 On 21 November 2018 the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] gave judgment in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and PAN [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v

[OSCURATO:PERSONA]

(T‑545/11 RENV, ‘the judgment at issue’, EU:T:2018:817). 2 By letter lodged at the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 5 December 2018, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (ECCA) applied to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to rectify paragraph 118 of the judgment at issue because it considered that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] had failed to mention it among the parties applying for costs. 3 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 164(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] may, of its own motion or on application by a party, rectify clerical mistakes, errors in calculation or obvious inaccuracies. 4 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 164(3) of the Rules of Procedure, where the rectification concerns the operative part or one of the grounds constituting the necessary support for the operative part, the parties may submit written observations within the time limit prescribed by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 5 By letter lodged at the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 7 January 2019, the applicants, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (PAN [OSCURATO:PERSONA]), contested the application for rectification of paragraph 118 of the judgment at issue, submitting that that paragraph does not contain any clerical mistakes, errors in calculation or obvious inaccuracies. 6 In substance, the applicants claim that the application for rectification must be rejected on the ground that ECCA did not lodge written observations within two months of service of the judgment of 23 November 2016,

[OSCURATO:PERSONA]

v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and PAN [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (C‑673/13 P, EU:C:2016:889), in accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 217(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

The applicants add that, by letter of 27 January 2017, ECCA stated that it did not ‘intend to further pursue the case’. 7 The interveners, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Cefic) and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] européenne pour la protection des cultures (ECPA), raised no objections.

The other parties did not submit observations within the prescribed time limit. 8 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] considers it appropriate to respond as follows. 9 The applicants correctly observe that ECCA stated, by letter of 27 January 2017, that it did not intend to pursue the case further and would not lodge written observations pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 217(1) of the Rules of Procedure. 10 However, it must be noted that, as is apparent from paragraphs 27 and 29 of the judgment at issue, ECCA lodged written observations on 3 May 2017 in accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 217(3) of the Rules of Procedure, in which it contended that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] should dismiss the action and order the applicants to pay the costs. 11 In the light of the foregoing considerations, it must be held that ECCA is justified in submitting that paragraph 118 of the judgment at issue contains an inaccuracy and must be rectified in so far as it fails to mention ECCA among the parties applying for costs. 12 Accordingly, in paragraph 118 of the judgment at issue, the wording ‘in accordance with the form of order sought by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], CropLife [OSCURATO:PERSONA], NAM, ACC, CLI, Cefic and ECPA’ is to be read as ‘in accordance with the form of order sought by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], CropLife [OSCURATO:PERSONA], NAM, ACC, CLI, Cefic, ECPA and ECCA’.

On those grounds,

[OSCURATO:PERSONA] [OSCURATO:PERSONA]

hereby orders: In paragraph 118 of the judgment of 21 November 2018, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and PAN [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v

[OSCURATO:PERSONA]

(T ‑ 545/11 RENV, EU:T:2018:817), the wording ‘in accordance with the form of order sought by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], CropLife [OSCURATO:PERSONA], NAM, ACC, CLI, Cefic and ECPA’ is to be read as ‘in accordance with the form of order sought by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], CropLife [OSCURATO:PERSONA], NAM, ACC, CLI, Cefic, ECPA and ECCA’.

Luxembourg, 7 June 2019.

E. Coulon

H. [OSCURATO:PERSONA]

* Language of the case: English.

Anonimizzato ex art. 52 D.Lgs. 196/2003
[OSCURATO:PERSONA] [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 7 June 2019 ( * ) (Procedure — Rectification of judgment) [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑545/11 RENV-REC, [OSCURATO:PERSONA], established in Amsterdam (Netherlands), [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (PAN [OSCURATO:PERSONA]), established in Brussels (Belgium), represented by B. Kloostra and A. van den Biesen, lawyers, applicants, supported by Kingdom of Sweden, represented by A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, H. Shev, L. Swedenborg and F. Bergius, acting as Agents, intervener, v [OSCURATO:PERSONA], represented initially by A. Buchet, P. Ondrůšek and L. Pignataro-Nolin, and subsequently by A. Buchet and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents, defendant, supported by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Germany, represented initially by T. Henze and D. Klebs, acting as Agents, and subsequently by D. Klebs, acting as Agent, by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Cefic), established in Brussels, by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] européenne pour la protection des cultures (ECPA), established in Brussels, represented by I. Antypas and D. Waelbroeck, lawyers, by CropLife International AISBL (CLI), established in Brussels, represented by R. Cana, E. Mullier and D. Abrahams, lawyers, by CropLife [OSCURATO:PERSONA]., established in Washington, DC ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Manufacturers of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (NAM), established in Washington, and [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. (ACC), established in Washington, represented by K. Nordlander, Y.-A. Benizri, lawyers, and M. Zdzieborska, Solicitor, and by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (ECCA), established in Brussels, represented by S. Pappas, lawyer, interveners, APPLICATION under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] decision of 10 August 2011 refusing access to volume 4 of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] issued by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Germany, as rapporteur [OSCURATO:PERSONA] for the active substance ‘glyphosate’, under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1), [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), composed of H. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], J. Schwarcz (Rapporteur) and C. Iliopoulos, Judges, [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: E. Coulon, makes the following [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1 On 21 November 2018 the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] gave judgment in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and PAN [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (T‑545/11 RENV, ‘the judgment at issue’, EU:T:2018:817). 2 By letter lodged at the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 5 December 2018, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (ECCA) applied to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to rectify paragraph 118 of the judgment at issue because it considered that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] had failed to mention it among the parties applying for costs. 3 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 164(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] may, of its own motion or on application by a party, rectify clerical mistakes, errors in calculation or obvious inaccuracies. 4 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 164(3) of the Rules of Procedure, where the rectification concerns the operative part or one of the grounds constituting the necessary support for the operative part, the parties may submit written observations within the time limit prescribed by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 5 By letter lodged at the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 7 January 2019, the applicants, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (PAN [OSCURATO:PERSONA]), contested the application for rectification of paragraph 118 of the judgment at issue, submitting that that paragraph does not contain any clerical mistakes, errors in calculation or obvious inaccuracies. 6 In substance, the applicants claim that the application for rectification must be rejected on the ground that ECCA did not lodge written observations within two months of service of the judgment of 23 November 2016, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and PAN [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (C‑673/13 P, EU:C:2016:889), in accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 217(1) of the Rules of Procedure. The applicants add that, by letter of 27 January 2017, ECCA stated that it did not ‘intend to further pursue the case’. 7 The interveners, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Cefic) and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] européenne pour la protection des cultures (ECPA), raised no objections. The other parties did not submit observations within the prescribed time limit. 8 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] considers it appropriate to respond as follows. 9 The applicants correctly observe that ECCA stated, by letter of 27 January 2017, that it did not intend to pursue the case further and would not lodge written observations pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 217(1) of the Rules of Procedure. 10 However, it must be noted that, as is apparent from paragraphs 27 and 29 of the judgment at issue, ECCA lodged written observations on 3 May 2017 in accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 217(3) of the Rules of Procedure, in which it contended that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] should dismiss the action and order the applicants to pay the costs. 11 In the light of the foregoing considerations, it must be held that ECCA is justified in submitting that paragraph 118 of the judgment at issue contains an inaccuracy and must be rectified in so far as it fails to mention ECCA among the parties applying for costs. 12 Accordingly, in paragraph 118 of the judgment at issue, the wording ‘in accordance with the form of order sought by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], CropLife [OSCURATO:PERSONA], NAM, ACC, CLI, Cefic and ECPA’ is to be read as ‘in accordance with the form of order sought by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], CropLife [OSCURATO:PERSONA], NAM, ACC, CLI, Cefic, ECPA and ECCA’. On those grounds, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] [OSCURATO:PERSONA] hereby orders: In paragraph 118 of the judgment of 21 November 2018, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and PAN [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (T ‑ 545/11 RENV, EU:T:2018:817), the wording ‘in accordance with the form of order sought by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], CropLife [OSCURATO:PERSONA], NAM, ACC, CLI, Cefic and ECPA’ is to be read as ‘in accordance with the form of order sought by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], CropLife [OSCURATO:PERSONA], NAM, ACC, CLI, Cefic, ECPA and ECCA’. Luxembourg, 7 June 2019. E. Coulon H. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] * Language of the case: English.
Sentenza Corte di giustizia UE/2019 — Fons Iuris — Fons Iuris