

 
Communications Directorate 
Press and Information Unit curia.europa.eu 
 
 
 
PRESS RELEASE No 13/24 
Luxembourg, 18 January 2024 
Advocate General’s Opinion in Case C-240/22 P | Commission / Intel Corporation 
Advocate General Medina: the Court should confirm that the Commission 
erred in applying the AEC test with respect to HP and Lenovo 
At the Court’s request, today’s Opinion focuses exclusively upon two of the six grounds of appeal relied upon by 
the Commission.  
In May 2009, the Commission imposed 
1
 a fine of €1.06 billion on Intel, a US-based microchip manufacturer, for 
having abused its dominant position on the market for x86 central processing units (CPUs), in infringement of the 
EU competition rules. In 2014, the General Court dismissed in its entirety Intel’s action against the Commission 
decision 
2
. Following an appeal by Intel, the Court of Justice 
3
 set aside that judgment and referred the case back to 
the General Court for re-examination.  
The present case concerns the Commission’s appeal of the General Court’s 2022 judgment 
4
 following such a re-
examination that partially annulled the Commission decision and entirely annulled the €1.06 billion fine.  
By two of the grounds of appeal, the Commission alleges that the General Court committed a number of errors of 
law and infringed the Commission’s right of defence in the context of the examination of the as-efficient-competitor 
(AEC) test with regard to Hewlett-Packard Company (HP) and Lenovo Group Ltd (Lenovo). Advocate General Laila 
Medina proposes that the Court dismiss both grounds of the Commission’s appeal against the General Court’s 
judgment relating to Intel’s alleged abuse of its dominant position on the x86 central processing units market. 
With respect to the ground of appeal concerning HP, AG Medina examines four claims made by the Commission. 
These are as follows: first, the General Court failed to have due regard to the Commission’s margin of discretion in 
complex economic matters. Second, it failed to take into account Intel’s implicit acknowledgment of the reference 
period during the administrative proceedings. Third, it infringed the Commission’s right of defence. Fourth, the 
General Court erred in relation to the appropriate conclusion to be drawn in respect of the entire period of the 
practice at issue. In her view, none of the Commission submissions in support of these claims is capable of 
calling into question the conclusion of the General Court that the contested decision failed to demonstrate 
the foreclosure effect of the rebates granted by Intel to HP for the entire period between November 2002 to 
May 2005.  
By the other ground of appeal under examination, the Commission criticises the assessment made by the General 
Court regarding the quantification of two non-cash advantages awarded by Intel in exchange of Lenovo’s exclusivity 
obligation – namely the extension of Intel’s standard one-year warranty and the improved use of a hub facility 
situated in Shenzhen (China). Advocate General Medina finds that the General Court did not commit any error 
by concluding that the Commission, when assessing the non-cash advantages granted by Intel to Lenovo, 
had proceeded on the basis of an assumption which was contrary to the foundation of the AEC test set out 
in the contested decision. The Advocate General therefore concludes that this ground of appeal is not well 
founded and ought to be rejected.  

 
Communications Directorate 
Press and Information Unit curia.europa.eu 
Stay Connected! 
NOTE: The Advocate General’s Opinion is not binding on the Court of Justice. It is the role of the Advocates General 
to propose to the Court, in complete independence, a legal solution to the cases for which they are responsible. The 
Judges of the Court are now beginning their deliberations in this case. Judgment will be given at a later date. 
NOTE: An appeal, on a point or points of law only, may be brought before the Court of Justice against a judgment or 
order of the General Court. In principle, the appeal does not have suspensive effect. If the appeal is admissible and 
well founded, the Court of Justice sets aside the judgment of the General Court. Where the state of the proceedings 
so permits, the Court of Justice may itself give final judgment in the case; otherwise, it refers the case back to the 
General Court, which is bound by the decision given by the Court of Justice on the appeal. 
Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the Court of Justice. 
The full text of the Opinion is published on the CURIA website on the day of delivery.  
Press contact: Jacques René Zammit ✆  (+352) 4303 3355. 
Pictures of the delivery of the Opinion are available from ‘Europe by Satellite’ ✆  (+32) 2 2964106. 
 
 
 
 
1
 Commission Decision C(2009) 3726 final of 13 May 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article [102 TFEU] and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case 
COMP/C-3/37.990 – Intel). 
2
 Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2014, Intel v Commission, T-286/09 (see also Press Release No 82/14). 
3
 Judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 September 2017, Intel v Commission, C-413/14 P (see also Press Release No 90/17). 
4
 Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2022, Intel v Commission, T-286/09 RENV (see also Press Release No 16/22). 

Advocate General's Opinion in Commission v. Intel Corporation

The Advocate General's Opinion in Case C-240/22 P focuses on two grounds of appeal brought by the Commission against the General Court's judgment in the case of Intel's abuse of its dominant position in the market for x86 central processing units (CPUs). The Commission alleges that the General Court committed errors of law and infringed its right of defense in relation to the examination of the as-efficient-competitor (AEC) test with regard to Hewlett-Packard Company (HP) and Lenovo Group Ltd (Lenovo). The Advocate General recommends that the Court dismiss both grounds of appeal. The Opinion also addresses the Commission's criticism of the General Court's assessment of non-cash advantages awarded by Intel to Lenovo. The Advocate General finds that the General Court did not commit any error in this regard and recommends rejecting the Commission's ground of appeal.

The case stems from the Commission's imposition of a €1.06 billion fine on Intel in 2009 for abusing its dominant position in the market for x86 CPUs. The General Court initially dismissed Intel's action against the Commission's decision, but the Court of Justice set aside that judgment and referred the case back to the General Court for re-examination. The General Court's 2022 judgment partially annulled the Commission's decision and entirely annulled the fine. The Commission appealed this judgment, leading to the Advocate General's Opinion.

The Advocate General's Opinion specifically addresses the Commission's appeal regarding HP and Lenovo. With respect to HP, the Advocate General finds that the General Court did not err in its conclusion that the contested decision failed to demonstrate the foreclosure effect of the rebates granted by Intel to HP for the entire period between November 2002 and May 2005. Regarding Lenovo, the Advocate General agrees with the General Court's assessment of the non-cash advantages granted by Intel and finds that the Commission's criticism of the General Court's quantification of these advantages is not well-founded.

The Advocate General's Opinion is not binding on the Court of Justice, and the judges will now begin their deliberations in the case.

Advocate General's Opinion in Commission v. Intel Corporation

Advocate General Medina recommends that the Court dismiss the Commission's appeal against the General Court's judgment in the case of Intel's alleged abuse of its dominant position.