- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Rectification order of 7 March 2024.#Clariant AG and Clariant International AG v European Commission.#Rectification.#Case T-590/20.
ECLI:EU:T:2024:158
62020TO0590
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Third Chamber, Extended Composition)
7 March 2024 (*1)
(Rectification)
In Case T-590/20,
Clariant AG, established in Muttenz (Switzerland),
Clariant International AG, established in Muttenz,
represented by F. Montag and M. Dreher, lawyers,
applicants,
European Commission, represented by A. Boitos, I. Rogalski and J. Szczodrowski, acting as Agents,
defendant,
THE GENERAL COURT (Third Chamber, Extended Composition),
composed, at the time of the deliberations, of M. van der Woude, President, G. De Baere (Rapporteur), G. Steinfatt, K. Kecsmár and S. Kingston, Judges,
Registrar: V. Di Bucci,
having regard to the judgment of 18 October 2023, (T‑590/20, EU:T:2023:650),
makes the following
1On 18 October 2023, the General Court delivered a judgment in the Case Clariant and Clariant International v Commission (T‑590/20, EU:T:2023:650).
2In accordance with Article 164(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, it is necessary to rectify an obvious inaccuracy found in paragraph 120 of that judgment.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Third Chamber, Extended Composition)
hereby orders:
Paragraph 120 of the judgment must be read as
‘In the present case, in recitals 116 to 118 of the contested decision, the Commission found that, given that the infringement relating to ethylene amounted to a purchase cartel and that not all participants were present on the same downstream market(s), in its view it was appropriate to calculate the basic amount of the fine on the basis of the value of purchases rather than on the basis of the value of sales of products sold on the downstream market.’
instead of
‘In the present case, in recitals 116 to 118 of the contested decision, the Commission found that, given that the infringement relating to ethylene amounted to a purchase cartel and that not all participants were present on the same downstream market(s), in its view it was appropriate to calculate the basic amount of the fine on the basis of the value of sales rather than on the basis of the value of sales of products sold on the downstream market.’.
Luxembourg, 7 March 2024.
Registrar
President
*1 Language of the case: English.