Skip to content

GlobalLawDBby GenieAI

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Search the text of the law

Log in Get an API key

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Log in Get an API key

The Global Law Database. Free to read, built for people and AI agents.

Explore

All laws
Search the text
Sanctions
Map of connections
Compare UK and EU

Developers

AI agents (MCP)
REST API
Bulk data
API keys

Coverage

United Kingdom
European Union
United States
Canada
Australia
France
Germany
Netherlands
Spain
Austria
Norway
Finland
Switzerland
Ireland

GlobalLawDB is made by GenieAI, London. It is not legal advice: check the official text before relying on it. Text comes from official publishers under their licences, listed on the Data page.

ThemeMatch my systemLightDark

European Union
Intel Corp. v European Commission (C-413/14 P)
Judgment
The appeal
The first ground of appeal, alleging t…
Findings of the Court
141

Intel Corp. v European Commission (C-413/14 P)

Judgment of 6 Sept 2017law://eu/cjeu/2014/c-413-14/para_141@2026-11-10

141If, in a decision finding a rebate scheme abusive, the Commission carries out such an analysis, the General Court must examine all of the applicant’s arguments seeking to call into question the validity of the Commission’s findings concerning the foreclosure capability of the rebate concerned.

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Grand Chamber
Case: C-413/14 P · ECLI:EU:C:2017:632
Decided: 6 Sept 2017
Procedure: Action for annulment
Ruled invalid: 62009TJ0286
Applicant: Intel Corporation Inc
Defendant: European Commission
Rapporteur: J.L. da Cruz Vilaça
Advocate General: N. Wahl
Bench: 15 judges
K. Lenaerts, A. Tizzano, R. Silva de Lapuerta, M. Ilešič, J.L. da Cruz Vilaça, E. Juhász, M. Berger, M. Vilaras, E. Regan, A. Rosas, J. Malenovský, E. Levits, F. Biltgen, K. Jürimäe, C. Lycourgos
Language: English
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62014CJ0413

Topics

Dominant position

History · 1 version

6 Sept 2017Reading

Connections

Interprets 1: (publication by extracts) Intel Corp. v European Commission (T-286/09)
Cited by 7: Google LLC and Alphabet Inc. v European Commission (C-738/22 P); Cargolux Airlines International SA v European Commission (C-401/22 P)8 provisions; Martinair Holland NV v European Commission (C-386/22 P)4 provisions; Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV v European Commission (C-385/22 P)4 provisions; Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd v European Commission (C-382/22 P)2 provisions; Japan Airlines Co. Ltd v European Commission (C-381/22 P)3 provisions; SAS Cargo Group A/S and Others v European Commission (C-403/22 P)3 provisions
Cites 19: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016)2 provisions; Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (Text with EEA relevance); European Commission and Others v Yassin Abdullah Kadi (C-584/10 P, C-593/10 P, C-595/10 P); A. Ahlström Osakeyhtiö and others v Commission of the European Communities (89/85, 104/85, 114/85, 116/85, 117/85, 125/85, 126/85, 127/85, 128/85, 129/85); French Republic v People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (C-27/09 P); Solvay SA v European Commission (C-109/10 P); Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (Text with EEA relevance); NV Nederlandsche Banden Industrie Michelin v Commission of the European Communities (322/81); Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. AG v Commission of the European Communities (C-85/76); (publication by extracts) Intel Corp. v European Commission (T-286/09); Comitato «Venezia vuole vivere», Hotel Cipriani Srl and Società Italiana per il gas SpA (Italgas) v European Commission (C-71/09 P, C-73/09 P, C-76/09 P); Post Danmark A/S v Konkurrencerådet (C-209/10); InnoLux Corp. v European Commission (T-91/11); European Commission v IPK International - World Tourism Marketing Consultants GmbH (C-336/13 P); Tomra Systems ASA and Others v European Commission (C-549/10 P); Béguelin Import Co. v S.A.G.L. Import Export (C-22/71); British Airways plc v Commission of the European Communities (C-95/04 P); Van den Bergh Foods Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (T-65/98); Knauf Gips KG v European Commission (C-407/08 P)