Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 January 2021

Qualcomm, Inc. and Qualcomm Europe, Inc. v European Commission

Appeal – Competition – Abuse of dominant position – Market for UMTS-compliant baseband chipsets – Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 – Article 18(3) – Decision to request information – Necessity of the information requested – Proportionality – Burden of proof – Self-incrimination

Case C-466/19 P



Top of the page Documents in the Case
Document Date Name of the parties Subject-matter Curia EUR-Lex Autres Liens
Judgment (OJ)
26/02/2021 Qualcomm and Qualcomm Europe v Commission
Competition
- Dominant position
  • Competition
  • - Dominant position
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Judgment
ECLI:EU:C:2021:76		 28/01/2021 Qualcomm and Qualcomm Europe v Commission
Competition
- Dominant position
  • Competition
  • - Dominant position
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Judgment (Summary)
ECLI:EU:C:2021:76		 28/01/2021 Qualcomm and Qualcomm Europe v Commission
Competition
- Dominant position
  • Competition
  • - Dominant position
Available in :
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Application (OJ)
19/07/2019 Qualcomm and Qualcomm Europe 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

published in the electronic Reports of Cases (Court Reports - general)

Subject-matter

Information not available

Systematic classification scheme

1.
-
3 Legal proceedings
  3.10 Appeals
    3.10.02 Jurisdiction over the appeal
      3.10.02.01 Exclusion of questions of fact
        3.10.02.01.01 Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence
          3.10.02.01.01.00 General
-
3 Legal proceedings
  3.10 Appeals
    3.10.03 Grounds of appeal
      3.10.03.02 Issues relating to the admissibility of the pleas
        3.10.03.02.03 Repetition of pleas in law and arguments put forward at first instance
-
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
        4.08.03.02.04 Requests for information
-
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
        4.08.03.02.04 Requests for information
-
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
        4.08.03.02.04 Requests for information
-
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
        4.08.03.02.04 Requests for information


Citations of case-law or legislation

References in grounds of judgment

Operative part

Opinion

Information not available


Dates

Date of the lodging of the application initiating proceedings

Information not available

Date of the Opinion

Information not available

Date of the hearing

Information not available

Date of delivery

28/01/2021


References

Publication in the Official Journal

Information not available

Name of the parties

Qualcomm and Qualcomm Europe v Commission

Notes on Academic Writings

  1. Veenbrink, Marc: The freedom from self-incrimination : a Strasbourg-proof approach? : cases C-466/19 P Qualcomm and C-481/19 P DB v Consob, Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 2021 Vol. 12 nº 10 p. 750-752 (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
  • Appeals : dismissal on substantive grounds
  • Appeals : dismissal on grounds of inadmissibility

Formation of the Court

Huitième chambre (Cour)

Judge-Rapporteur

Rossi

Advocate General

Bobek

Language(s) of the Case

  • English

Language(s) of the Opinion

    Information not available