ORDER OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber)
30 January 2009 (*)
(Rectification of a judgment)
In Case C‑288/07,
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales (United Kingdom), made by decision of 6 March 2007, received at the Court on 14 June 2007, in the proceedings
Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
v
Isle of Wight Council,
Mid-Suffolk District Council,
South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council,
West Berkshire District Council,
THE COURT (Grand Chamber),
composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, K. Lenaerts, M. Ilešič, A. Ó Caoimh, Presidents of Chambers, G. Arestis, A. Borg Barthet, J. Malenovský, U. Lõhmus, E. Levits and A. Arabadjiev (Rapporteur), Judges,
Advocate General: M. Poiares Maduro,
Registrar: R. Grass,
after hearing the Advocate General,
makes the following
Order
1On 16 September 2008, the Court (Grand Chamber) gave judgment in Case C‑288/07 Isle of Wight Council and Others, not yet published in the ECR.
2The English-language version of that judgment contains two mistakes which it is appropriate for the Court to rectify of its own motion in accordance with Article 66(1) of the Rules of Procedure.
On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby orders that the English-language version of the judgment in Isle of Wight Council and Others, cited above, be rectified as follows:
1.Paragraph 53 of the grounds of that judgment must read as follows:
‘Accordingly, the reply to the first question must be that the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive is to be interpreted as meaning that the significant distortions of competition, to which the treatment as non-taxable persons of bodies governed by public law acting as public authorities would lead, must be evaluated by reference to the activity in question, as such, without such evaluation relating to any local market in particular.’
2.Point 1 of the operative part of that judgment must read as follows:
‘The second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment is to be interpreted as meaning that the significant distortions of competition, to which the treatment as non-taxable persons of bodies governed by public law acting as public authorities would lead, must be evaluated by reference to the activity in question, as such, without such evaluation relating to any local market in particular.’
3.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 that judgment.
[Signatures]
* Language of the case: English.