3 October 2013 (*1)

(Rectification of a judgment)

In Case C‑444/11 P-REC,

APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 26 August 2011,

Team Relocations NV, established in Zaventem (Belgium), represented by H. Gilliams, J. Bocken and L. Gyselen, advocaten,

Amertranseuro International Holdings Ltd, established in London (United Kingdom),

Trans Euro Ltd, established in London,

Team Relocations Ltd, established in London,

represented by L. Gyselen, advocaat,

appellants,

the other party to the proceedings being:

European Commission, represented by A. Bouquet and N. von Lingen and by A. Antoniadis, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

defendant at first instance,

THE COURT (Third Chamber),

composed of M. Ilešič, President of Chamber, E. Jarašiūnas (Rapporteur), A. Ó Caoimh, C. Toader and C.G. Fernlund, Judges,

Advocate General: J. Kokott,

Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,

after hearing the Advocate General,

makes the following

On 11 July 2013, the Court (Third Chamber) gave judgment in Case C‑444/11 P Team Relocations and Others v Commission.

The English-language version of that judgment contains errors which it is appropriate for the Court to rectify of its own motion in accordance with Article 154(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, which applies to the procedure on appeal under Article 190(1) of those Rules.

On those grounds, the Court (Third Chamber) hereby orders that the English‑language version of the judgment in Case C‑444/11 P Team Relocations and Others v Commission, cited above, be rectified as follows:

1) In paragraph 81, second sentence, the grounds of the English-language version of the judgment of 11 July 2013 in Case C‑444/11 P Team Relocations and Others v Commission, are to be read as ‘even assuming that the other language versions of point 6 would not make it possible to justify clearly that literal interpretation’, replacing the wording ‘although the other language versions of point 6 do not make it possible to justify clearly that literal interpretation’.

2) In paragraph 82, second sentence, the grounds of the above judgment are to be read as ‘even on the assumption that the General Court erred in holding’, replacing the wording ‘although the General Court erroneously held’.

3) In paragraph 116, first sentence, the grounds of the above judgment are to be read as ‘even on the assumption that the General Court erred in holding’, replacing the wording ‘even though the General Court wrongly held’ and as ‘that would have no bearing on the analysis’, replacing the wording ‘that has no bearing on the analysis’.

4) 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 that judgment.

[Signatures]

* Language of the case: English.