ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber)
1 September 2010 (1)
(Rectification of a judgment)
In Case T-127/04,
KME Germany AG, formerly KM Europa Metal AG, established in Osnabruck (Germany),
KME France SAS, formerly Tréfimétaux SA, established in Courbevoie (France),
KME Italy SpA, formerly Europa Metalli SpA, established in Florence (Italy),
represented by M. Siragusa, A. Winckler, G.C. Rizza, T. Graf and M. Piergiovanni, lawyers,
applicants,
v
European Commission, represented by É. Gippini Fournier, acting as Agent, and assisted by C. Thomas, Solicitor,
defendant,
CONCERNING: (1) an application for the annulment of, or reduction in the amount of the fines imposed on the applicants under Article 2(c), (d) and (e) of Commission Decision C(2003) 4820 final of 16 December 2003 relating to a proceeding under Article 81[EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/38.240 - Industrial tubes); and (2) a counter-claim by the Commission that the amount of that fine be increased,
THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber),
composed of M. E. Martins Ribeiro, President, S. Papasavvas and N. Wahl (Rapporteur), Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
1 On 6 May 2009, the Court gave judgment in Case T-127/04.
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 mistake found in paragraph 100 of that judgment.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber)
hereby orders:
In paragraph 100 of the judgment ‘It should be noted that an increase in the amount of the fine by reference to duration is not limited to the hypothesis in which there is a direct relation between the duration and acute damage to the Community objectives pursued by the competition rules (see, to that effect, Case T-203/01 Michelin v Commission [2003] ECR II-4071, paragraph 278 and case–law cited)’ should be read instead of ‘It should be noted that an increase in the amount of the fine by reference to duration is limited to the hypothesis in which there is a direct relation between the duration and acute damage to the Community objectives pursued by the competition rules (see, to that effect, Case T-203/01 Michelin v Commission [2003] ECR-II 4071, paragraph 278 and case–law cited)’.
Luxembourg, 1 September 2010.
E. Coulon | | M. E. Martins Ribeiro |