CELEX: 62008TA0001(01)
Language: en
Date: 2015-09-18 00:00:00
Title: Case T-1/08 INTP: Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2015 — Buczek Automotive v Commission (Procedure — Interpretation of a judgment)

18.1.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 16/27
            
         Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2015 — Buczek Automotive v Commission
   (Case T-1/08 INTP) (1)
   
   ((Procedure - Interpretation of a judgment))
   (2016/C 016/32)
   Language of the case: Polish
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Buczek Automotive sp. z o.o. (Sosnowiec, Poland) (represented by: J. Jurczyk, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann, A. Stobiecka-Kuik and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)
   
      Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: A. Jasser, acting as Agent)
   
      Re:
   
   Application for interpretation of the judgment of 17 May 2011 in Buczek Automotive v Commission (T-1/08, ECR, EU:T:2011:216).
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   The Court:
   
               1.
            
            
               Declares that point 1 of the operative part of the judgment of 17 May 2011 in Buczek Automotive v Commission (T-1/08, ECR, EU:T:2011:216) is to be interpreted as meaning that Article 1 of Commission Decision 2008/344/EC of 23 October 2007 on State Aid C 23/06 (ex NN 35/06) which Poland has implemented for steel producer Technologie Buczek Group (OJ 2008 L 116, p. 20) is annulled with erga omnes effect;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Orders that the original of this judgment be appended to the original of the judgment interpreted, in the margin of which reference shall be made to this judgment.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.