ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition)
20 October 2021 (*)
(Rectification)
In Case T-93/18,
International Skating Union, established in Lausanne (Switzerland), represented by J.-F. Bellis, lawyer,
applicant,
v
European Commission, represented by H. van Vliet, G. Meessen and F. van Schaik, acting as Agents,
defendant,
supported by
Mark Jan Hendrik Tuitert, residing in Hoogmade (Netherlands),
Niels Kerstholt, residing in Zeist (Netherlands),
and
European Elite Athletes Association, established in Amsterdam (Netherlands), represented by B. Braeken and J. Versteeg, lawyers,
interveners,
APPLICATION under Article 263 TFUE for annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 8230 final, adopted on 8 December 2017 relating to proceedings under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT/40208 – International Skating Union’s eligibility rules),
THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition),
composed of S. Gervasoni, President, L. Madise, P. Nihoul, R. Frendo (Rapporteur) and J. Martín y Pérez de Nanclares, Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
1 The Court delivered a judgment on 16 December 2020, International Skating Union v Commission (T-93/18, EU:T:2020:610).
2 In accordance with Article 164(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the parties having been given an opportunity to submit their written observations pursuant to Article 164(3) of those rules, it is necessary to rectify, in the version in the language of the case, a clerical mistake found in paragraph 173 of that judgment.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition)
hereby orders:
Paragraph 173 of the judgment, in the version in the language of the case, must be read as
‘It follows from the foregoing that the Commission was wrong to require the applicant to amend the arbitration rules, which did not reinforce the severity of the infringement found and were not, moreover, an integral part of it.’
instead of as
‘It follows from the foregoing that the Commission was wrong to require the applicant to amend the arbitration rules, which did not reinforce the severity of the infringement found and were not, moreover, an integral part of them.’.
Luxembourg, 20 October 2021.