At the highest level, the Court of Justice of the European Union rejected the Commission’s appeal in the European Commission v. Intel case, which thus ended with the final annulment of the EUR 1.06 billion fine imposed on the processor manufacturer in the original competition law decision made in 2009.
Almost fifteen years ago, the European Commission hit Intel, the veteran of the processor market, with unprecedented severity, and the office headed by Commissioner Neelie Kroes imposed a record fine on its neck due to its anti-competitive behavior.
The proceedings against Intel were based on the fact that the processor manufacturer had for years offered various discounts to major PC manufacturers in exchange for them not building configurations on rival AMD’s processors, or only in smaller volumes.
Collective mud bath in a leaked bounty hunter db
A story about a bounty hunter company commissioned from Temu and its elite suicide squad that steps down from the moral pedestal of domestic IT.
In the extremely long and complicated legal procedure (the fact that Intel originally committed the acts accused of it between 2002 and 2005 reveals a lot), the General Court upheld the provisions of the Commission’s decision unchanged in 2014, but in 2017 the Court ordered a retrial of the case.
In this case, a verdict was reached in January 2022, while the executive body of the European Union in the meantime fined the processor manufacturer in a new procedure a much more modest amount, 376.3 million euros, for essentially the same thing.
This is primarily based on the fact that, although the Court annulled the original fine, it maintained that Intel had seriously distorted the market and exhibited anti-competitive behavior during the period under review, but did not impose a new fine due to lack of jurisdiction.
In the highest appeal stage of the 2022 judgment – this January – bad news arrived for the Commission, as one of the councilors in the case stated publicly that, in his opinion, the board imposed the original penalty based on a wrong market analysis, thus confirming the original judgment of the Tribunal.
Source: www.hwsw.hu
