ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber)
10 May 2011 (*)
(Rectification of a judgment)
In Case T‑385/07,
Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), established in Zurich (Switzerland), represented initially by R. Denton, E. Batchelor and F. Young, Solicitors, and A. Barav, lawyer, and subsequently by E. Batchelor, A. Barav, D. Reymond, lawyer, and F. Carlin, Barrister,
applicant,
v
European Commission, represented by E. Montaguti and N. Yerrell, acting as Agents, assisted by J. Flynn QC and L. Maya, Barrister,
defendant,
supported by
Kingdom of Belgium, represented by L. Van den Broeck and C. Pochet, acting as Agents, assisted by J. Stuyck, A. Berenboom and A. Joachimowicz, lawyers,
by
Federal Republic of Germany, represented by M. Lumma and J. Möller, acting as Agents,
and by
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by S. Behzadi-Spencer, E. Jenkinson and L. Seeboruth, acting as Agents, assisted initially by T. de la Mare, and subsequently by B. Kennelly, Barristers,
interveners,
APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2007/479/EC of 25 June 2007 on the compatibility with Community law of measures taken by Belgium 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 180, p. 24),
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‑385/07.
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 53 of the judgment the words ‘Even though measures’ should read ‘Even if measures’.
2. In paragraph 92 of the judgment the words ‘demonstrate that, in its view,’ should read ‘demonstrate, in its view, that’.
3. In paragraph 101 of the judgment the words ‘as part of the present plea’ should read ‘within the framework of the present plea’.
4. In paragraph 111 of the judgment the words ‘the decision not to require’ should read ‘the choice not to require’.
5. In paragraphs 113 and 116 of the judgment the words ‘as contemplated in recital 21’ should read ‘within the meaning of recital 21’.
6. In paragraph 123 of the judgment the words ‘As part of its plea’ should read ‘Within the framework of its plea’.
7. 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.