Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)

ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition)

18 March 2019 (*)

(Procedure — Rectification of judgment)

In Case T‑851/14 REC,

Slovak Telekom, a.s., established in Bratislava (Slovakia), represented by D. Geradin, lawyer,

applicant,

v

European Commission, represented by M. Farley, M. Kellerbauer, L. Malferrari and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents,

defendant,

supported by

Slovanet, a.s., established in Bratislava, represented by P. Tisaj, lawyer,

intervener,

ACTION under Article 263 TFEU seeking, primarily, the annulment, in so far as it concerns the applicant, of Commission Decision C(2014) 7465 final of 15 October 2014 relating to proceedings under Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39523 — Slovak Telekom), as rectified by Commission Decision C(2014) 10119 final of 16 December 2014 and by Commission Decision C(2015) 2484 final of 17 April 2015, and, in the alternative, the reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant,

THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition),

composed of M. van der Woude, President, S. Gervasoni, L. Madise, R. da Silva Passos (Rapporteur) and K. Kowalik-Bańczyk, Judges,

Registrar: E. Coulon,

makes the following

Order

1        On 13 December 2018, the General Court delivered the judgment Slovak Telekom v Commission (T‑851/14, EU:T:2018:929) (‘the judgment at issue’), following the submission of the application under Article 263 TFEU. That application sought, primarily, the annulment, in so far as it concerned the applicant, of Commission Decision C(2014) 7465 final of 15 October 2014 relating to proceedings under Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39523 — Slovak Telekom), as rectified by Commission Decision C(2014) 10119 final of 16 December 2014 and by Commission Decision C(2015) 2484 final of 17 April 2015 (‘the contested decision’), and, in the alternative, the reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

2        By letter lodged at the General Court Registry on 26 December 2018, Slovak Telekom, a.s., requested the General Court to rectify paragraph 299 of the judgment at issue.

3        The Commission and Slovanet, a.s., lodged their observations on that request on 15 and 17 February 2019, respectively.

4        According to Article 164(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the General Court may, of its own motion or on application by a party, rectify clerical mistakes, errors in calculation and obvious inaccuracies.

5        In this case, it must be pointed out that paragraph 299 of the judgment at issue is not vitiated by clerical mistakes, errors in calculation and obvious inaccuracies in so far as it states that the Commission inferred the actual exercise of decisive influence by Deutsche Telekom over Slovak Telekom, in particular from ‘instructions provided by the applicant’ and, more specifically, ‘from concrete illustrations of cases in which decisions of the applicant’s Board of Directors were compatible with instructions provided by Deutsche Telekom to the members of that board appointed by Deutsche Telekom (recitals 1288 to 1294 of the contested decision)’. The wording of paragraph 299 of the judgment at issue is the summary of recitals 1288 to 1294 of the contested decision. In those recitals, the Commission mentioned the evidence from which it is apparent that Deutsche Telekom made recommendations to its representatives within Slovak Telekom’s Board of Directors or made its approval of certain items on the agenda of Slovak Telekom’s Board of Directors subject to conditions, in order to indicate to its representatives the position to be adopted during the meetings of that Board of Directors.

6        It follows from the foregoing that the request for rectification made by Slovak Telekom must be rejected.

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition)

hereby orders:

The request for rectification is rejected.

Luxembourg, 18 March 2019.

*      Language of the case: English.

© European Union
The source of this judgment is the Europa web site. The information on this site is subject to a information found here: Important legal notice. This electronic version is not authentic and is subject to amendment.