ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber)
18 September 2014 (*)
(Rectification of the judgment — Article 84(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Error in calculation — Inadmissibility)
In Case T‑541/08 REC,
Sasol, established in Rosebank (South Africa),
Sasol Holding in Germany GmbH, established in Hamburg (Germany),
Sasol Wax International AG, established in Hamburg,
Sasol Wax GmbH, established in Hamburg,
represented by W. Bosch, U. Denzel and C. von Köckritz, lawyers,
applicants,
v
European Commission, represented by F. Castillo de la Torre and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by M. Gray, Barrister,
defendant,
APPLICATION, primarily, for annulment in part of the Commission’s decision C(2008) 5476 final of 1 October 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.181 — Candle waxes) and, in the alternative, for annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants,
THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber),
composed of G. Berardis, President, O. Czúcz (Rapporteur) and A. Popescu, Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
1 On 11 July 2014 the General Court delivered the judgment in Case T‑541/08 Sasol and Others v Commission (‘the judgment at issue’).
2 By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 17 July 2014, the Commission requested the Court to make a rectification concerning paragraphs 458 and 464 of the judgment at issue and the operative part. It submits that the Court made an error in calculation so far as concerns the amount of the fine set by the Court in respect of the applicants. It presents an alternative calculation, based on the Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2; ‘the 2006 Guidelines’), which results in an increase in the amount of the fine compared with the amount set in the judgment at issue.
3 By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 5 August 2014, the applicants submitted their observations on the application for rectification. They request the Court to reject the application. In the alternative, they request the Court to correct the amount of the fine set in the judgment at issue. They also present an alternative calculation based on the 2006 Guidelines, which results in a reduction in the amount of the fine compared with the amount set in the judgment at issue.
4 Under Article 84(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the General Court may, of its own motion or on application by a party made within two weeks after the delivery of a judgment, rectify clerical mistakes, errors in calculation and obvious slips in it.
5 In this instance, the difference between the amounts proposed by the Commission and by the applicants and the amount set in the judgment at issue results not from an error in calculation but from the Court’s choice of a methodology that diverges on purpose from the methodology laid down in the 2006 Guidelines.
6 Accordingly, given that the difference between the amounts set in paragraphs 458 and 464 and the operative part of the judgment at issue, on the one hand, and the amounts calculated by the parties, on the other, does not result from an error in calculation, the judgment at issue cannot be altered in a judgment rectification procedure provided for in Article 84(1) of the Rules of Procedure.
7 It follows that the application for rectification made by the Commission must be dismissed as inadmissible. There is accordingly no need to rule on the request made by the applicants in the alternative.
Costs
8 Under Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.
9 In their written submissions the parties have not requested the Court to make an order as to costs. Therefore, the Court considers it appropriate to order each of the parties to bear its own costs.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber)
hereby orders:
1. The application for rectification made by the European Commission is dismissed as inadmissible.
2. Each of the parties shall bear its own costs.
Luxembourg, 18 September 2014.