ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber)
17 September 2018 (*)
(Procedure — Rectification of judgment)
In Joined Cases T‑429/13 REC and T‑451/13 REC,
Bayer CropScience AG, established in Monheim am Rhein (Germany), represented by K. Nordlander, lawyer, and by P. Harrison, Solicitor,
applicant in Case T‑429/13,
Syngenta Crop Protection AG, established in Basel (Switzerland), and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex, (1) represented initially by D. Waelbroek, I. Antypas, lawyers, and D. Slater, Solicitor, and subsequently by D. Waelbroek and I. Antypas,
applicants in Case T‑451/13,
supported by
Association générale des producteurs de maïs et autres céréales cultivées de la sous-famille des panicoïdées (AGPM), established in Montardon (France), represented by L. Verdier and B. Trouvé, lawyers,
by
The National Farmers’ Union (NFU), established in Stoneleigh (United Kingdom), represented by H. Mercer QC, and N. Winter, Solicitor,
by
Association européenne pour la protection des cultures (ECPA), established in Brussels (Belgium), represented by D. Abrahams, Barrister, I. de Seze and É. Mullier, lawyers,
by
Rapool-Ring GmbH Qualitätsraps deutscher Züchter, established in Isernhagen (Germany), represented initially by C. Stallberg and U. Reese, and subsequently by U. Reese and J. Szemjonneck, lawyers,
by
European Seed Association (ESA), established in Brussels, represented initially by P. de Jong, P. Vlaemminck and B. van Vooren, and subsequently by P. de Jong, K. Claeyé and E. Bertolotto, lawyers,
and by
Agricultural Industries Confederation Ltd, established in Peterborough (United Kingdom), represented initially by P. de Jong, P. Vlaemminck and B. van Vooren, and subsequently by P. de Jong, K. Claeyé and E. Bertolotto, lawyers,
interveners in Cases T‑429/13 and T‑451/13,
v
European Commission, represented by P. Ondrůšek and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents,
defendant in Cases T‑429/13 and T‑451/13,
supported by
Kingdom of Sweden, represented by A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, U. Persson, E. Karlsson, L. Swedenborg and C. Hagerman, acting as Agents,
by
Union nationale de l’apiculture française (UNAF), established in Paris (France), represented, in Case T‑429/13, by B. Fau and J.-F. Funke, lawyers, and, in Case T‑451/13, by B. Fau,
by
Deutscher Berufs- und Erwerbsimkerbund eV, established in Soltau (Germany),
and
Österreichischer Erwerbsimkerbund, established in Großebersdorf (Austria),
represented by A. Willand and B. Tschida, lawyers,
by
Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe), established in Brussels,
Bee Life European Beekeeping Coordination (Bee Life), established in Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgium),
and
Buglife — The Invertebrate Conservation Trust, established in Peterborough,
represented by B. Kloostra, lawyer,
and by
Stichting Greenpeace Council, established in Amsterdam (Netherlands), represented by B. Kloostra,
interveners in Cases T‑429/13 and T‑451/13,
APPLICATION for rectification of the judgment of 17 May 2018, Bayer CropScience and Others v Commission (T‑429/13 and T‑451/13, EU:T:2018:280),
THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber, Extended Composition),
composed of H. Kanninen, President, I. Pelikánová (Rapporteur), E. Buttigieg, S. Gervasoni and L. Calvo-Sotelo Ibáñez-Martín, Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
1 On 17 May 2018, the General Court delivered its judgment in Bayer CropScience and Others v Commission (T‑429/13 and T‑451/13, EU:T:2018:280, ‘the judgment at issue’).
2 By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 25 May 2018, Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe), Bee Life European Beekeeping Coordination (Bee Life), Buglife — The Invertebrate Conservation Trust and Stichting Greenpeace Council (together, ‘the parties seeking rectification’) asked the Court, first, to rectify the judgment at issue in so far as it determined that the parties seeking rectification should bear their own costs, and, second, to order the applicants to pay the costs incurred by the parties seeking rectification.
3 Under Article 164(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the General Court may, of its own motion or on application by a party, rectify clerical mistakes, errors in calculation and obvious inaccuracies.
4 In the present case, it must be held that paragraph 623 of the grounds of the judgment at issue, in which the Court finds that the parties seeking rectification made no application for costs and that they are therefore to bear their own costs, and point 5 of the operative part of the judgment at issue, in which they are ordered to bear their own costs, are not vitiated by a clerical mistake or an error in calculation or obvious inaccuracy.
5 While it is true that, as the parties seeking rectification submit, they stated, in their applications for leave to intervene, their intention to seek an order that the applicants pay the costs incurred by them, no such head of claim was included in their statements in intervention.
6 Article 115(2)(e) of the Rules of Procedure of 2 May 1991, applicable in the present case, provides, with regard to the form of order sought by applicants for leave to intervene, that the application to intervene is to contain ‘the form of order sought, by one or more of the parties, in support of which the intervener is applying for leave to intervene’, while, according to point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 116(4) of those rules of procedure, the statement in intervention is to contain ‘a statement of the form of order sought by the intervener in support of or opposing, in whole or in part, the form of order sought by one of the parties’. It follows that the form of order sought that is contained in the application to intervene is not that of the intervener, and that, for the purposes of the decision closing the main proceedings, it is necessary to take account only of the form of order sought that is submitted in the statement in intervention, as the Court did in the judgment at issue.
7 Accordingly, the application for rectification made by the parties seeking rectification must be refused.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber, Extended Composition)
hereby orders:
The application for rectification is refused.
Luxembourg, 17 September 2018.