ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber)
4 September 2020 (*)
(Rectification)
In Case T‑483/16 RENV,
Maria Concetta Cerafogli, residing in Rome (Italy), represented by L. Levi, lawyer,
applicant,
v
European Central Bank (ECB), represented by F. Feyerbacher and B. Ehlers, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer,
defendant,
ACTION under Article 270 TFEU and under Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union seeking, first, the annulment of the decision of the ECB of 24 November 2009 concluding the internal administrative inquiry opened following the applicant’s complaint of discrimination and an attack on her dignity constituting psychological harassment and an infringement of the ECB Dignity at Work policy and, if necessary, of the decision of the ECB of 24 March 2010 rejecting her special appeal and, second, an order requiring the ECB to pay her compensation,
THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber),
composed, at the time of the deliberation, of H. Kanninen, President, J. Schwarcz and C. Iliopoulos (Rapporteur), Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
1        The Court delivered a judgment on 28 May 2020 in Case T‑483/16 RENV Cerafogli v ECB (EU:T:2020:225).
2        In accordance with Article 164(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, it is necessary to rectify, in the version in the language of the case, clerical mistakes found in paragraph 344 of that judgment.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber)
hereby orders:
Paragraph 344 of the judgment, in the version in the language of the case, is to be read as
‘Furthermore, even if the panel had erred in finding that it was established, on the basis of the testimony of the applicant’s line managers and colleagues, that she had a certain reputation associated with her absences, her lateness in performing her work and the fact that she was a difficult person to work with, that error could not have defamed the applicant, because the inquiry report also makes a point of noting that a number of colleagues acknowledged that she had a good reputation’
instead of
‘Furthermore, even if the panel erred in finding that it was established, on the basis of the testimony of the applicant’s line managers and colleagues, that she had a certain reputation associated with her absences, her lateness in performing her work and the fact that she was a difficult person to work with, that error cannot defame the applicant, because the inquiry report also makes a point of noting that a number of colleagues acknowledged that she had a good reputation’.
Luxembourg, 4 September 2020.
E. Coulon
H. Kanninen
Registrar
President
* Language of the case: English.