T-590/20

PostanowienieTSUE2024-03-07CELEX: 62020TO0590ECLI:EU:T:2024:158

Analiza orzeczenia

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

Zagadnienie prawne

Czy i w jaki sposób należy skorygować oczywistą niedokładność w treści wyroku Sądu, dotyczącą opisu podstawy obliczania kary pieniężnej w sprawie kartelowej?

Ratio decidendi

Sąd uznał, że zgodnie z art. 164 ust. 1 Regulaminu postępowania przed Sądem, konieczne jest sprostowanie oczywistej niedokładności w paragrafie 120 wyroku z dnia 18 października 2023 r. Niedokładność ta polegała na błędnym wskazaniu, że Komisja obliczyła podstawową kwotę kary pieniężnej na podstawie „wartości sprzedaży”, podczas gdy prawidłowo powinno być „wartości zakupów” w kontekście kartelu zakupowego. Sprostowanie ma na celu zapewnienie zgodności treści wyroku z rzeczywistymi ustaleniami Komisji.

Stan faktyczny

Sąd wydał postanowienie w celu sprostowania wyroku z dnia 18 października 2023 r. w sprawie T-590/20, Clariant i Clariant International przeciwko Komisji. Stwierdzono oczywistą niedokładność w paragrafie 120 tego wyroku, która dotyczyła opisu podstawy obliczania kary pieniężnej przez Komisję w kontekście kartelu zakupowego dotyczącego etylenu.

Rozstrzygnięcie

Paragraph 120 of the judgment must be read as ‘In the present case, in recitals 116 to 118 of the contested decision, the Commission found that, given that the infringement relating to ethylene amounted to a purchase cartel and that not all participants were present on the same downstream market(s), in its view it was appropriate to calculate the basic amount of the fine on the basis of the value of purchases rather than on the basis of the value of sales of products sold on the downstream market.’ instead of ‘In the present case, in recitals 116 to 118 of the contested decision, the Commission found that, given that the infringement relating to ethylene amounted to a purchase cartel and that not all participants were present on the same downstream market(s), in its view it was appropriate to calculate the basic amount of the fine on the basis of the value of sales rather than on the basis of the value of sales of products sold on the downstream market.’.

Pełny tekst orzeczenia

ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) 7 March 2024 ( *1 ) (Rectification) In Case T-590/20, Clariant AG, established in Muttenz (Switzerland), Clariant International AG, established in Muttenz, represented by F. Montag and M. Dreher, lawyers, applicants, v European Commission, represented by A. Boitos, I. Rogalski and J. Szczodrowski, acting as Agents, defendant, THE GENERAL COURT (Third Chamber, Extended Composition), composed, at the time of the deliberations, of M. van der Woude, President, G. De Baere (Rapporteur), G. Steinfatt, K. Kecsmár and S. Kingston, Judges, Registrar: V. Di Bucci, having regard to the judgment of 18 October 2023, (T‑590/20, EU:T:2023:650), makes the following Order On 18 October 2023, the General Court delivered a judgment in the Case Clariant and Clariant International v Commission (T‑590/20, EU:T:2023:650). In accordance with Article 164(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, it is necessary to rectify an obvious inaccuracy found in paragraph 120 of that judgment. On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) hereby orders: Paragraph 120 of the judgment must be read as ‘In the present case, in recitals 116 to 118 of the contested decision, the Commission found that, given that the infringement relating to ethylene amounted to a purchase cartel and that not all participants were present on the same downstream market(s), in its view it was appropriate to calculate the basic amount of the fine on the basis of the value of purchases rather than on the basis of the value of sales of products sold on the downstream market.’ instead of ‘In the present case, in recitals 116 to 118 of the contested decision, the Commission found that, given that the infringement relating to ethylene amounted to a purchase cartel and that not all participants were present on the same downstream market(s), in its view it was appropriate to calculate the basic amount of the fine on the basis of the value of sales rather than on the basis of the value of sales of products sold on the downstream market.’. Luxembourg, 7 March 2024. V. Di Bucci Registrar M. van der Woude President ( *1 ) Language of the case: English.