69However, it is apparent from paragraphs 5 and 6 above that the General Court was correct to hold, in paragraph 353 of the judgment under appeal, that the claim for compensation for the loss of opportunity constituted a new head of damage, which had not been raised in the application. Since the damage linked to the loss of the opportunity to implement the proposed concentration is fundamentally distinct from the damage linked to the loss of profit resulting from the prohibition of that concentration, the first head of damage cannot be regarded as constituting a minus in relation to the second. The General Court therefore did not err in law in finding that the head of damage linked to the loss of opportunity, which had been raised in the proceedings before the General Court only in response to questions put by that court, was pleaded out of time and was, accordingly, inadmissible (see, to that effect, judgments of 27 January 2000, Mulder and Others v Council and Commission, C‑104/89 and C‑37/90, EU:C:2000:38, paragraph 47, and of 7 November 2019, Rose Vision v Commission, C‑346/18 P, EU:C:2019:939, paragraph 43).