Short Reads

Court of Justice landmark judgment: Intel's EUR 1.06 billion fine is sent back to the General Court

Court of Justice landmark judgment: Intel's EUR 1.06 billion fine is

Court of Justice landmark judgment: Intel's EUR 1.06 billion fine is sent back to the General Court

02.10.2017 NL law

On 6 September 2017, the European Court of Justice rendered its landmark judgment in the Intel case. The outcome of this judgment was eagerly awaited, as it had the potential to revolutionize how EU competition law assesses the business practices of undertakings with a dominant position. The Court has clearly moved away from a form-based analysis, towards a more effects-based approach.

It made clear that authorities will need to carry out a detailed economic examination of the alleged negative effects on competition and of the possible procompetitive justifications of a particular practice before an infringement of Article 102 TFEU can be established.

In 2009, the European Commission fined Intel EUR 1.06 billion because it had allegedly abused its dominant position on the market for computer processors. Central to the Commission's allegations was that Intel granted rebates to buyers if they purchased all or almost all of their demand for processors from Intel. According to the Commission and the General Court (GC), these "exclusivity rebates" could be considered abusive on account of their form, i.e. without requiring an examination of all of the circumstances of the case [see our July 2014 Newsletter]. On appeal before the Court of Justice, Intel argued that this legal test was flawed and that the Commission and the GC should have taken into account evidence submitted by Intel showing that its conduct was not capable of producing anticompetitive effects. The Court agreed with Intel. It ruled that the Commission is required to analyse, first, the extent of Intel's dominant position and, second, the share of the market covered by the challenged practices, as well as the conditions for granting the rebates in question, their duration and their amount. The Commission is also required to assess the possible existence of a strategy aimed at excluding "as efficient competitors" from the market. Last, if this analysis shows that the practices at issue are indeed capable of foreclosing as efficient competitors from the market, the Commission has to determine whether there are objective justifications for those practices. In other words, the Commission has to balance the favourable and unfavourable effects of the practice.

In the Intel case, the Court of Justice found that the GC had not (i) examined all of Intel's arguments and (ii) carried out a detailed assessment of the alleged foreclosure effects. Therefore, the Court referred the case back to the GC in order for it to examine on the basis of all available factual and economic evidence whether the rebates at issue were capable of restricting competition.

The Intel judgment makes it clear that dominant companies have slightly more leeway in adopting and implementing rebate schemes than was considered to be the case before this ruling. It also makes clear that the actual economic effects of a particular rebate scheme play a crucial role in determining whether they infringe Article 102 TFEU. However, more guidance on the nature and degree of that leeway is needed and is likely to follow from the ongoing Intel litigation.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of October 2017. Other articles in this newsletter:

  1. Court of Justice upholds fine imposed on Philips and LG in the cathode ray tubes cartel
  2. Court of Justice clarifies that a change from sole to joint control requires EU clearance only if the joint venture is "full-function"
  3. Court of Justice provides guidance on examining excessive prices as abuse of a dominant position
  4. Curaçao Competition Act entered into force on 1 September 2017
  5. District Court of Rotterdam dismisses Vodafone claims of abuse of dominance by KPN

Team

Related news

09.04.2020 LU law
Luxembourg introduces new State aid scheme for businesses affected by Covid-19

Short Reads - Following the Luxembourg government’s declaration of a state emergency on 28 March 2020 and as part of the new measures implemented in response to the unprecedented and unforeseeable consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic, the country has adopted a new law in an effort to support businesses suffering financial consequences.

Read more

02.04.2020 NL law
Claims assigned to a litigation vehicle: who needs to prove what?

Short Reads - Two recent decisions from the Amsterdam Court of Appeal have confirmed that litigation vehicles cannot come empty-handed to the court, and should provide documentation regarding the assignments of claims they submit. The Dutch legal system allows companies and individuals to assign their claims to a “litigation vehicle” or “claims vehicle” that bundles those claims into a single action. In its decisions of 10 March 2020, the Court of Appeal ruled that it is up to litigation vehicles to prove that the assignments can be invoked against the debtor. 

Read more

02.04.2020 NL law
EU competition policy agenda: full to the brim

Short Reads - The European Commission’s competition policy agenda stretches to 2024 and contains plans for many new or revised rules and guidelines. Recent publications, such as the New Industrial Strategy for Europe, shed more light on the Commission’s initiatives and their possible impact on parties from both inside and outside the European Union (EU). These new initiatives include temporary state aid rules to address the effects of the Corona crisis, consultations on the Block Exemption Regulations, and new measures in respect of (primarily) third-country companies.

Read more

02.04.2020 NL law
ACM played high stakes and lost: no more fixed network access regulation

Short Reads - The ACM’s failure to meet the requisite standard of proof has led to the fixed networks of Dutch telecom providers KPN and VodafoneZiggo being free from access regulation. The Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal ruled that the ACM had failed to demonstrate the existence of collective dominance, and that KPN and VodafoneZiggo would tacitly coordinate their behaviour absent regulation.

Read more

26.03.2020 BE law
​I am suffering significant financial losses as a result of the spread of the corona virus. Is there a possibility of State aid?

Short Reads - COVID-19 brings certain questions to centre stage regarding State aid. In this short read, Peter Wytinck, Sophie Van Besien and Michèle de Clerck discuss the possibility of State aid in case of significant financial losses as a result of the spread of the corona virus.

Read more

This website uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential for the technical functioning of our website and you cannot disable these cookies if you want to read our website. We also use functional cookies to ensure the website functions properly and analytical cookies to personalise content and to analyse our traffic. You can either accept or refuse these functional and analytical cookies.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring