ON-TOPIC: EUROPEAN UNION – UNILATERAL PRACTICES – EXCLUSIONARY PRACTICES – REBATES - OPINION

Intel: Analysing the Advocate General’s opinion

The 2009 decision of the EU Commission imposing a €1.06 billion fine on Intel, and the subsequent judgment of the General Court (GC) upholding the decision have sparked an intense debate as to the way Article 102 TFEU should be applied. This On-Topic adds to the fervent discussion with contributions from Professors Sandra Marco Colino, Pablo Ibáñez Colomo, Damien J. Neven and Nicolas Petit. The authors focus mainly on the recent opinion of Advocate General (AG) Nils Wahl, which proposed setting aside the judgment of the GC in order to develop a coherent legal framework for the analysis of rebates under the law of abuse of dominance. They assess the impact of the opinion from different perspectives, and discuss the merits of the ’effects-based approach’ to Article 102 TFEU.

All eyes on Intel: A stepping stone to a fresh legal framework for the analysis of rebates under EU competition law Sandra Marco Colino Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, Chinese University of Hong Kong, and Director, Centre for Financial Regulation and Economic Development (CFRED) I. Introduction 1. Regardless of what the Court of Justice rules in its impending Intel judgment, [1] the stir generated by the case has left a trail of extraordinary analysis of the treatment of rebates under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The 2009 decision of the EU Commission imposing a €1.06 billion fine on the company, [2] and the subsequent judgment of the General Court (GC) upholding the decision on appeal do little other than corroborate 40 years of

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Authors

  • The Graduate Institute for International and Development Studies (Geneva)
  • The Chinese University of Hong Kong
  • London School of Economics
  • University of South Australia

Quotation

Pablo Ibáñez Colomo, Nicolas Petit, Damien Neven, Sandra Marco Colino, Intel: Analysing the Advocate General’s opinion, February 2017, Concurrences Review N° 1-2017, Art. N° 83450, pp. 16-35

Visites 723

All reviews