C-164/15

PostanowienieTSUE2017-02-16CELEX: 62015CO0164ECLI:EU:C:2017:137

Analiza orzeczenia

Sekcja wygenerowana przez AI na podstawie treści orzeczenia — nie stanowi cytatu.

Zagadnienie prawne

Czy i w jaki sposób Trybunał Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej może sprostować błąd pisarski w wydanym wcześniej wyroku, w szczególności w postępowaniu odwoławczym?

Ratio decidendi

Trybunał stwierdził, że błąd pisarski w angielskiej wersji językowej akapitu 122 wyroku z dnia 21 grudnia 2016 r. w sprawach połączonych C-164/15 P i C-165/15 P powinien zostać sprostowany. Podstawą prawną sprostowania jest art. 154 ust. 1 Regulaminu postępowania Trybunału, mający zastosowanie do postępowania odwoławczego na mocy art. 190 ust. 1 tego regulaminu. Sprostowanie miało na celu poprawienie sformułowania dotyczącego obowiązku Komisji w zakresie stwierdzania istnienia pomocy państwa i nakazywania jej odzyskania.

Rozstrzygnięcie

1. Akapit 122 wyroku z dnia 21 grudnia 2016 r., Commission v Aer Lingus and Ryanair Designated Activity (C‑164/15 P i C‑165/15 P, EU:C:2016:990), w jego angielskiej wersji językowej, zostaje sprostowany w następujący sposób: „That said, it should be observed that, as is apparent from paragraphs 78 and 79 above, in circumstances such as those of the present cases, the Commission cannot refrain from finding that a case involves State aid on the sole ground that it is possible that the national courts with jurisdiction may order the repayment of the excess ATT to the airlines which did not have the benefit of the lower rate of ATT. As it was under a duty to establish the existence of State aid, the Commission was also under a duty to order the recovery of that aid.” 2. Oryginał niniejszego postanowienia zostaje załączony do oryginału sprostowanego wyroku. Adnotacja o niniejszym postanowieniu zostaje umieszczona na marginesie oryginału sprostowanego wyroku.

Pełny tekst orzeczenia

ORDER OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 16 February 2017 ( *1 ) ‛Rectification of judgment’ In Joined Cases C‑164/15 P-REC and C‑165/15 P-REC, TWO APPEALS under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, lodged on 9 April 2015, European Commission, represented by L. Flynn, D. Grespan, T. Maxian Rusche and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg, appellant, the other parties to the proceedings being: Aer Lingus Ltd, established in Dublin (Ireland), represented by K. Bacon and A. Robertson, QC, and by D. Bailey, Barrister, instructed by A. Burnside, Solicitor, applicant at first instance (C‑164/15 P) and intervener at first instance (C‑165/15 P), Ryanair Designated Activity Company, formerly Ryanair Ltd, established in Dublin (Ireland), represented by B. Kennelly, QC, I.-G. Metaxas-Maragkidis, dikigoros, and E. Vahida, avocat, applicant at first instance (C‑165/15 P), Ireland, represented by E. Creedon, J. Quaney and A. Joyce, acting as Agents, and by E. Regan, SC, and B. Doherty, BL, intervener at first instance (C‑164/15 P and C‑165/15 P), THE COURT (Third Chamber), composed of L. Bay Larsen, President of the Chamber, M. Vilaras (Rapporteur), J. Malenovský, M. Safjan and D. Šváby, Judges, Advocate General: P. Mengozzi, Registrar: A. Calot Escobar, after hearing the Advocate General, makes the following Order On 21 December 2016 the Court (Third Chamber) delivered its judgment in Commission v Aer Lingus and Ryanair Designated Activity (C‑164/15 P and C‑165/15 P, EU:C:2016:990). That judgment contains, in its English-language version, a clerical error which it is appropriate to rectify, in accordance with Article 154(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, applicable to the procedure on appeal pursuant to Article 190(1) of those rules. On those grounds, the Court (Third Chamber) hereby orders: 1. Paragraph 122 of the judgment of 21 December 2016, Commission v Aer Lingus and Ryanair Designated Activity (C‑164/15 P and C‑165/15 P, EU:C:2016:990), in its English-language version, must be rectified as follows: ‘That said, it should be observed that, as is apparent from paragraphs 78 and 79 above, in circumstances such as those of the present cases, the Commission cannot refrain from finding that a case involves State aid on the sole ground that it is possible that the national courts with jurisdiction may order the repayment of the excess ATT to the airlines which did not have the benefit of the lower rate of ATT. As it was under a duty to establish the existence of State aid, the Commission was also under a duty to order the recovery of that aid.’ 2. 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, 16 February 2017. A. Calot Escobar Registrar L. Bay Larsen President of the Third Chamber ( *1 ) Language of the case: English.