ORDER OF THE COURT (Ninth Chamber)

3 October 2023 (*)

(Rectification of judgment)

In Case C‑757/21 P-REC,

APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 9 December 2021,

Nichicon Corporation, established in Kyoto (Japan), represented by A. Ablasser-Neuhuber, G. Fussenegger, H. Kühnert and F. Neumayr, Rechtsanwälte,

appellant,

the other party to the proceedings being:

European Commission, represented by B. Ernst, T. Franchoo, C. Sjödin and F. van Schaik, acting as Agents,

defendant at first instance,

THE COURT (Ninth Chamber),

composed of L.S. Rossi (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J.-C. Bonichot and S. Rodin, Judges,

Advocate General: A. Rantos,

Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,

after hearing the Advocate General,

makes the following

Order

1        On 13 July 2023, the Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered the judgment in Nichicon Corporation v Commission (C‑757/21 P, EU:C:2023:575).

2        That judgment contains, in the version in the language of the case, errors, 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 of Justice, which applies to the procedure on appeal under Article 190(1) of those rules.

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

1.      Paragraph 72 of the judgment of 13 July 2023, Nichicon Corporation v Commission (C‑757/21 P, EU:C:2023:575), in its version in the language of the case, shall be rectified as follows:

‘However, first, Nichicon Corporation does not dispute the case-law, referred to in paragraphs 99 to 102 of the judgment under appeal, to which paragraph 195 of that judgment refers, according to which the Commission is entitled to rely on such a single statement provided that it is particularly reliable.’

2.      Paragraph 128 of that judgment shall be rectified as follows:

‘In those circumstances, first of all, the General Court was entitled to consider that, by the very fact of having had bilateral or trilateral contacts with other participants in multilateral meetings, Nichicon Corporation could not have been unaware, or at least could not have failed to foresee, that other participants in those meetings had also had bilateral or trilateral contacts between them.’

3.      Paragraph 148 of that judgment shall be rectified as follows:

‘In order to ascertain whether the time that elapsed between two meetings is sufficiently long to constitute an interruption of participation in the cartel, the duration of that cartel is a relevant factor.’

4.      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, 3 October 2023.

*      Language of the case: English.