ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber, Extended Composition)
24 October 2023 (*)
(Rectification)
In Case T-172/21,
Valve Corporation, established in Bellevue, Washington (United States), represented by L. Kjølbye, S. Völcker and G. Caldini, lawyers,
applicant,
v
European Commission, represented by M. Farley, C. Sjödin, J. Szczodrowski and L. Wildpanner, acting as Agents,
defendant,
THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber, Extended Composition),
composed of S. Papasavvas, President, A. Marcoulli, J. Schwarcz, V. Tomljenović (Rapporteur) and W. Valasidis, Judges,
Registrar: V. Di Bucci,
makes the following
Order
1 On 27 September 2023, the General Court delivered a judgment in the Case Valve Corporation v Commission (T‑172/21, EU:T:2023:587).
2 In accordance with Article 164(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, it is necessary to rectify clerical mistakes found in paragraphs 89, 105, 120, 131, 143, 144, 152, 204, 221 and 231 of that judgment.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber, Extended Composition)
hereby orders:
1. In paragraph 89 of the judgment, ‘as is apparent from paragraph 79 above’ must be read instead of ‘as is apparent from paragraph 77 above’.
2. In paragraph 105 of the judgment, ‘for the reasons set out in paragraph 89 above’ must be read instead of ‘for the reasons set out in paragraph 88 above’.
3. In paragraph 120 of the judgment, ‘for the reasons set out in paragraph 89 above’ must be read instead of ‘for the reasons set out in paragraph 88 above’.
4. In paragraph 131 of the judgment, ‘for the reasons set out in paragraph 89 above’ must be read instead of ‘for the reasons set out in paragraph 88 above’.
5. In paragraph 143 of the judgment, ‘for the reasons set out in paragraph 89 above’ must be read instead of ‘for the reasons set out in paragraph 88 above’.
6. In paragraph 144 of the judgment, ‘As stated in paragraph 61 above’ must be read instead of ‘As stated in paragraph 59 above’.
7. In paragraph 152 of the judgment, ‘as held in paragraph 61 above’ must be read instead of ‘as held in paragraph 59 above’.
8. In paragraph 204 of the judgment, ‘As stated in paragraph 202 above’ must be read instead of ‘As stated in paragraph 196 above’.
9. In paragraph 221 of the judgment, ‘as held in paragraph 78 above’ must be read instead of ‘as held in paragraph 77 above’.
10. In paragraph 231 of the judgment, ‘in the light of the requirements set out in paragraphs 225 and 226 above’ must be read instead of ‘in the light of the requirements set out in paragraphs 220 and 226 above’.
Luxembourg, 24 October 2023.
V. Di Bucci | | S. Papasavvas |