Order of the Court - 12 September 2016#SolarWorld v Commission#Case C-142/15 P

Parties

In Case C‑142/15 P-REC,

APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 24 March 2015,

SolarWorld AG, established in Bonn (Germany), represented by L. Ruessmann, avocat, and J. Beck, Solicitor,

appellant,

the other parties to the proceedings being:

Brandoni solare SpA, established in Castelfidardo (Italy),

Global Sun Ltd, established in Sliema (Malta),

Silicio Solar, SAU, established in Madrid (Spain),

Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente, SA, established in Puertollano (Spain),

represented by L. Ruessmann, avocat, and J. Beck, Solicitor,

applicants at first instance,

European Commission, represented by J.-F. Brakeland, T. Maxian Rusche and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents,

defendant at first instance,

THE COURT (Ninth Chamber),

composed of C. Lycourgos, President of the Chamber, C. Vajda and K. Jürimäe (Rapporteur), Judges,

Advocate General: P. Mengozzi,

Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,

after hearing the Advocate General,

makes the following

Grounds

Order

1. On 10 March 2016, the Court (Ninth Chamber) made the order in Solar World v Commission (C‑142/15 P, not published, EU:C:2016:163).

2. The English version of that order contains a clerical mistake which it is appropriate for the Court to rectify of its own motion pursuant to Article 154(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, which applies to the appeal procedure pursuant to Article 190(1) of those rules.

Operative part

On those grounds, the Court (Ninth Chamber) hereby orders:

1. Paragraph 31 of the order of 10 March 2016, SolarWorld v Commission (C‑142/15 P, not published, EU:C:2016:163), shall be rectified as follows:

‘The decision at issue and Regulation No 748/2013 are two measures of a fundamentally different nature. As appears from Article 1 of the decision at issue, that decision concerns companies that offered an undertaking, on the basis of Article 8 of Regulation No 1225/2009, and is intended to accept such an offer. By contrast, Regulation No 748/2013 is a measure of general application which is intended to amend the provisional regulation in order to exempt imports of the product concerned where those imports concern products invoiced by the companies from which undertakings have been accepted by the Commission. Regulation No 748/2013 cannot therefore be regarded as containing no new factor as compared with the decision at issue, as required by the case-law set out in paragraph 30 above.’

2. The original of the present order shall be annexed to the original of the rectified order. A note of that order shall be made in the margin of the original of the rectified order.