ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber)
10 May 2011 (*)
(Rectification of a judgment)
In Case T‑55/08,
Union des associations européennes de football (UEFA), established in Nyon (Switzerland), represented by A. Bell, K. Learoyd, Solicitors, D. Anderson QC and B. Keane, Solicitor,
applicant,
v
European Commission, represented by F. Benyon and E. Montaguti, acting as Agents, assisted by J. Flynn QC and M. Lester, Barrister,
defendant,
supported by
Kingdom of Belgium, represented by C. Pochet, acting as Agent, assisted by J. Stuyck, lawyer,
and by
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented initially by S. Behzadi-Spencer and V. Jackson, and subsequently by S. Behzadi-Spencer and L. Seeboruth, acting as Agents, assisted by T. de la Mare and B. Kennelly, Barristers,
interveners,
APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2007/730/EC of 16 October 2007 on the compatibility with Community law of measures taken by the United Kingdom pursuant to Article 3a(1) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 2007 L 295, p. 12),
THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber),
composed of N.J. Forwood (Rapporteur), President, L. Truchot and J. Schwarcz, Judges,
Registrar : E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
1 On 17 February 2011 the Court (Seventh Chamber) gave judgment in Case T‑55/08.
2 In accordance with Article 84(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the parties having been given an opportunity to lodge their written observations pursuant to Article 84(2) of those rules, it is necessary to rectify the clerical mistakes found in a number of paragraphs of that judgment.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber)
hereby orders:
1. In paragraph 7 of the judgment the words ‘of a list contained’ should read ‘of a list of criteria contained’ and the words ‘the Secretary of State uses’ should read ‘the Secretary of State was to apply’.
2. In paragraph 45 of the judgment the words ‘Even though measures’ should read ‘Even if measures’.
3. In paragraph 62 of the judgment the words ‘the competent Community Court’ should read ‘the competent Court’.
4. In paragraph 66 of the judgment the words ‘are contained in the contested decision’ should read ‘are annexed to the contested decision’.
5. In paragraph 77 of the judgment the words ‘although the inclusion’ should read ‘if the inclusion’ and the words ‘being compatible as well’ should read ‘being equally compatible with Community law’.
6. In paragraph 84 of the judgment the words ‘dos not seem’ should read ‘does not seem’.
7. In paragraph 97 of the judgment the sentence ‘Lastly, under Article 3a(2) of that same directive, the compatibility of that legal framework with Community law falls to be assessed by the Commission’ should read ‘Lastly, the compatibility of that legal framework with Community law falls to be assessed by the Commission under Article 3a(2) of that same directive’.
8. In paragraph 118 of the judgment the words ‘cannot validly’ should read ‘did not validly’.
9. In paragraph 120 of the judgment the words ‘specific evidence’ should read ‘specific factors’.
10. In paragraph 135 of the judgment the words ‘drew between 18.2 million viewers’ should read ‘drew 18.2 million viewers’.
11. In paragraph 148 of the judgment the words ‘event on an almost exclusive basis’ should read ‘event in practice on an exclusive basis’.
12. In paragraph 149 of the judgment the words ‘and on freedom of establishment’ are deleted.
13. In paragraph 150 of the judgment the words ‘and freedom of establishment’ and ‘and on freedom of establishment’ are deleted.
14. In paragraph 151 of the judgment the words ‘which is the first condition the event must fulfil and is’ should read ‘which is the first condition to be met and which is’.
15. In paragraph 152 of the judgment the words ‘was proportionate’ should read ‘was appropriate and proportionate’.
16. In paragraph 169 of the judgment the sentence ‘That is not the case, however.’ is deleted.
17. In paragraph 171 of the judgment the words ‘the fact that, with the authorisation’ should read ‘the result that, with the authorisation’.
18. In paragraph 191 of the judgment the words ‘as part of the present plea’ should read ‘within the framework of the present plea’.
19. 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 the rectified judgment.
Luxembourg, 10 May 2011.