ORDER OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber)
24 October 2017 (*)
(Rectification of judgment)
In Case C-413/14 P-REC,
APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 26 August 2014,
Intel Corporation Inc., established in Wilmington (United States), represented by D.M. Beard QC and by A. Parr and R. Mackenzie, Solicitors,
appellant,
the other parties to the proceedings being:
European Commission, represented by T. Christoforou, V. Di Bucci, M. Kellerbauer and N. Khan, acting as Agents,
defendant at first instance,
Association for Competitive Technology Inc., established in Washington (United States), represented by J.-F. Bellis, avocat,
Union fédérale des consommateurs — Que choisir (UFC — Que choisir),
interveners at first instance,
THE COURT (Grand Chamber),
composed of K. Lenaerts, President, A. Tizzano, Vice-President, R. Silva de Lapuerta, M. Ilešič, J.L. da Cruz Vilaça (Rapporteur), A. Rosas, J. Malenovský and E. Levits, Presidents of Chambers, E. Juhász, M. Berger, F. Biltgen, K. Jürimäe, C. Lycourgos, M. Vilaras and E. Regan, Judges,
Advocate General: N. Wahl,
Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,
after hearing the Advocate General,
makes the following
Order
1 On 6 September 2017, the Court (Grand Chamber) delivered the judgment in Intel v Commission (C‑413/14 P, EU:C:2017:632).
2 That judgment contains, in the version in the language of the case, a clerical error which it is appropriate for the Court to rectify of its own motion in accordance with Article 154(1) of its Rules of Procedure, which applies to the procedure on appeal pursuant to Article 190(1) of those rules.
On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby orders:
1. Paragraph 140 of the judgment of 6 September 2017, Intel v Commission (C‑413/14 P, EU:C:2017:632), in the version in the language of the case, shall be rectified as follows:
‘The analysis of the capacity to foreclose is also relevant in assessing whether a system of rebates which, in principle, falls within the scope of the prohibition laid down in Article 102 TFEU, may be objectively justified. In addition, the exclusionary effect arising from such a system, which is disadvantageous for competition, may be counterbalanced, or outweighed, by advantages in terms of efficiency which also benefit the consumer (judgment of 15 March 2007, British Airways v Commission, C‑95/04 P, EU:C:2007:166, paragraph 86). That balancing of the favourable and unfavourable effects of the practice in question on competition can be carried out in the Commission’s decision only after an analysis of the intrinsic capacity of that practice to foreclose competitors which are at least as efficient as the dominant undertaking.’
2. 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, 24 October 2017.
A. Calot Escobar | | K. Lenaerts |