<number>1</number>

ORDER OF THE COURT (Seventh Chamber) 12 July 2017 * Language of the case: English. ( Rectification of judgment ) In Case C‑180/16 P-REC, APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 29 March 2016, Toshiba Corp., established in Tokyo (Japan), represented by J.F. MacLennan, Solicitor, S. Sakellariou, dikigoros, A. Schulz, Rechtsanwalt, and J. Jourdan, avocat, appellant, the other party to the proceedings being: European Commission, represented by N. Khan, acting as Agent, defendant at first instance, THE COURT (Seventh Chamber), composed of A. Prechal (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, A. Rosas and C. Toader, Judges, Advocate General: E. Tanchev, Registrar: A. Calot Escobar, having regard to the written procedure, after hearing the Advocate General, makes the following

Order

<number>1</number> On 6 July 2017 the Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered the judgment in Toshiba v Commission (C‑180/16 P, EU:C:2017:520).

<number>2</number> The English-language version of that judgment contains clerical errors which it is appropriate for the Court to rectify of its own motion in accordance with Article 154(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, which applies to the procedure on an appeal pursuant to Article 190(1) of those rules.

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

<number>1)</number> Paragraph 81 of the judgment of 6 July 2017, Toshiba v Commission (C‑180/16 P, EU:C:2017:520) shall be rectified as follows:

‘In paragraphs 141 and 142 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court held, without erring in law, that, given that the participation of the Japanese undertakings in the common understanding was a “prerequisite” for the effective implementation of the EQ Agreement in which only the European undertakings participated and that the Japanese undertakings’ honouring of their commitments therefore made a “necessary contribution” to the functioning of the infringement, it had to be concluded that Toshiba’s contribution to the infringement was comparable to that of the European undertakings.’

<number>2)</number> Paragraph 82 of the judgment shall be rectified as follows:

‘Furthermore, in paragraph 141 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court referred to paragraph 261 of the judgment of 12 July 2011, Toshiba v Commission (T‑113/07, EU:T:2011:343), in which the General Court also rightly held that, since Toshiba undertook under the common understanding not to operate on the EEA market, its participation also in the EQ Agreement — whose purpose was the sharing of GIS projects on the EEA market — was unnecessary. The fact that Toshiba did not participate in the EQ Agreement was irrelevant and not the result of its choice.’

<number>3)</number> Paragraph 83 of the judgment shall be rectified as follows:

‘In other words, as the Advocate General noted in point 134 of his Opinion, the General Court correctly held that the fact that Toshiba did not participate in the EQ Agreement was a mere consequence of its participation in the common understanding and thus does not mean that its conduct was less serious than that of the European producers.’

<number>4)</number> Paragraph 84 of the judgment shall be rectified as follows:

‘In those conditions, Toshiba could not criticise the Commission for not granting it a reduction in the amount of its fine on account of the fact that it did not participate in the EQ Agreement.’

<number>5)</number> 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.

Done at Luxembourg, 12 July 2017.

A. Calot EscobarA. Prechal RegistrarPresident of the Seventh Chamber