Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 26 January 2022

Intel Corporation Inc. v European Commission

Competition – Abuse of dominant position – Microprocessors market – Decision finding an infringement of Article 102 TFEU and of Article 54 of the EEA Agreement – Loyalty rebates – ‘Naked’ restrictions – Characterisation as abuse – As-efficient-competitor analysis – Overall strategy – Single and continuous infringement

Case T-286/09 RENV



Top of the page Documents in the Case
Document Date Name of the parties Subject-matter Curia EUR-Lex Autres Liens
Order
ECLI:EU:T:2022:150		 10/03/2022 Intel Corporation v Commission
Competition
- Dominant position
  • Competition
  • - Dominant position
Available in :
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Judgment (OJ)
04/03/2022 Intel Corporation v Commission
Competition
- Dominant position
  • Competition
  • - Dominant position
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Judgment
ECLI:EU:T:2022:19		 26/01/2022 Intel Corporation v Commission
Competition
- Dominant position
  • Competition
  • - Dominant position
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Abstract
ECLI:EU:T:2022:19		 26/01/2022 Intel Corporation v Commission
Competition
- Dominant position
  • Competition
  • - Dominant position
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Top of the page Legal analysis of the decision or of the case

Reports of Cases

not yet published (Court Reports - general)

Subject-matter

Information not available

Systematic classification scheme

1.
-
3 Legal proceedings
  3.08 Procedural rules
    3.08.08 Judgments and orders
      3.08.08.02 Res judicata
-
3 Legal proceedings
  3.08 Procedural rules
    3.08.04 Subject-matter, form of order sought and pleas in law
      3.08.04.03 New pleas in law
-
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.08 Competition
    4.08.02 Dominant position
      4.08.02.04 Abuse of a dominant position
        4.08.02.04.02 Examples of abuse
-
3 Legal proceedings
  3.02 Actions for annulment
    3.02.04 Pleas in law
      3.02.04.05 Scope and limits of review by the Courts
-
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.08 Competition
    4.08.03 Implementation of the competition rules
      4.08.03.02 Procedure for the application of the competition rules by the Commission
        4.08.03.02.08 Decision of the Commission
-
1 The legal order of the European Union
  1.04 Fundamental rights
    1.04.03 The fundamental rights
      1.04.03.48 Presumption of innocence and right of defence
-
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.08 Competition
    4.08.03 Implementation of the competition rules
      4.08.03.02 Procedure for the application of the competition rules by the Commission
        4.08.03.02.08 Decision of the Commission
-
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.08 Competition
    4.08.03 Implementation of the competition rules
      4.08.03.02 Procedure for the application of the competition rules by the Commission
        4.08.03.02.08 Decision of the Commission
-
1 The legal order of the European Union
  1.01 Sources of EU law
    1.01.02 General principles of law
      1.01.02.04 Legal certainty
-
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.08 Competition
    4.08.02 Dominant position
      4.08.02.04 Abuse of a dominant position
        4.08.02.04.01 Definition of abuse
-
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.08 Competition
    4.08.03 Implementation of the competition rules
      4.08.03.02 Procedure for the application of the competition rules by the Commission
        4.08.03.02.08 Decision of the Commission
-
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.08 Competition
    4.08.02 Dominant position
      4.08.02.04 Abuse of a dominant position
        4.08.02.04.02 Examples of abuse
-
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.08 Competition
    4.08.02 Dominant position
      4.08.02.04 Abuse of a dominant position
        4.08.02.04.02 Examples of abuse
-
3 Legal proceedings
  3.02 Actions for annulment
    3.02.06 Effects of a declaration that a measure is void
-
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.08 Competition
    4.08.03 Implementation of the competition rules
      4.08.03.03 Fines imposed by the Commission
        4.08.03.03.08 Judicial review
          4.08.03.03.08.02 Review of lawfulness


Citations of case-law or legislation

References in grounds of judgment

Operative part

Information not available

Opinion

Information not available


Dates

Date of the lodging of the application initiating proceedings

  • 06/09/2017

Date of the Opinion

Information not available

Date of the hearing

Information not available

Date of delivery

26/01/2022


References

Publication in the Official Journal

Information not available

Name of the parties

Intel Corporation v Commission

Notes on Academic Writings

  1. Haus, Florian C.: Intel-Saga : KOM hat wettbewerbswidrige Wirkung der Rabatte nicht hinreichend nachgewiesen : Urteil vom 26.01.2022 : T-286/09 RENV, Intel, Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb 2022 p. 148-154 (DE)
  2. Idot, Laurence: Concurrence - Abus de position dominante et remises, Europe 2022, n° 3 Mars, comm. 83 (FR)
  3. Burholt, Christian ; Kurz, Katrin: Das Ende des „as efficient competitor“-Tests? : die jüngste Entscheidung des EuG im Fall Intel : T-286/09, Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb 2022 p. 182-184 (DE)
  4. Ginneken, Pepijn P.J. van: De herkansing van Intel : gerecht 26 januari 2022, T-286/09 RENV, (Intel/Commissie), Markt & Mededinging 2022 p. 74-78 (NL)
  5. Bär-Boussière, Bertold ; Pavelka, Tomáš: EU General Court`s Intel judgment : the latest development in the judicial rebate saga, Competition Law Insight 2022 Vol. 21 Issue 1 p. 2-5 (EN)
  6. Zimmer, Daniel ; Rottmann, Johannes: Mehr Konvergenz im Kartellrechtssystem? : die Bedeutung der Intel-Entscheidungen aus Anlass von EuG, Urt. v. 26.01.2022 : T-286/09 RENV, Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb 2022 p. 370-377 (DE)
  7. Díez Estella, Fernando: La Sentencia INTEL (As. T-286/09) reenv. del Tribunal General de la Unión Europea, del 26 de enero de 2022: ¿una nueva era en la aplicación del artículo 102 TFUE?, Revista de Derecho de la Competencia y la Distribución 2022, nº 30, p. 1-29 (ES)
  8. Idot, Laurence: L'article 102 TFUE et les suites de l'arrêt Intel, Revue trimestrielle de droit européen 2022, n° 4, p. 766-774 (FR)
  9. Veer, Jan Peter van der ; Dijk, Theon W.P. van: Google, Intel en de AEC-test : verwarring ontrafeld : T-612/17 (Google Shoping), T-286/09 RENV, INTEL, Markt & Mededinging 2022 p. 123-129 (NL)
  10. Marty, Frédéric: Rabais de fidélité : Le Tribunal de l’Union européenne annule la décision de la Commission européenne sur le caractère anticoncurrentiel de rabais de fidélité dans le domaine des microprocesseurs sur la base d’erreurs dans la démonstration de la capacité de ces derniers à produire un effet d’éviction anticoncurrentiel (Intel), Concurrences : revue des droits de la concurrence 2022, nº 2, p. 100-105 (FR)
  11. Monti, Giorgio: Rebates after the General Court’s 2022 Intel judgment : T-286/09 RENV, Common Market Law Review 2023, Volume 60, Issue 1, p. 107-140 (EN)
  12. Auer, Dirk ; Radic, Lazare: The Growing Legacy of Intel, Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 2023, Volume 14, Issue 1, p. 15-23 (EN)
  13. Cole, Matthew: No data, no abuse: the lesson from Intel's "more economic approach", European Competition Law Review 2023, Volume 44, Issue 10, p. 419-428 (EN)
  14. Lauer, Robert: The Intel saga: what went wrong with the Commission’s AEC test (in the General Court’s view)?, European Competition Journal 2024, Vol. 20, Issue 1, p. 45-77 (EN)



Procedural Analysis Information

Source of the question referred for a preliminary ruling

Information not available

Subject-matter

  • Competition
  • - Dominant position

Provisions of national law referred to

Information not available

Provisions of international law referred to

Information not available

Procedure and result

  • Actions for annulment : application granted
  • Actions for annulment : dismissal on substantive grounds
  • Judgment delivered after setting aside and referral back

Formation of the Court

quatrième chambre élargie (Tribunal)

Judge-Rapporteur

Schwarcz

Advocate General

Information not available

Language(s) of the Case

  • English

Language(s) of the Opinion

    Information not available