*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. The length of the judgment of the Court of First Instance delivered on 12 June 2014 is due not only to the complexity of the Intel case but also to the systematic over-abundance of its grounds. This choice, which is legitimate, may contribute to the proper understanding of the judgment by the parties. It is also, for the court, a way of dodging the cassation proceedings, or even deterring the appeal. In the final analysis, only law professors could deplore it, since overabundance "would attenuate the clarity or rigour of the solution of the dispute" (A. Perdriau, La pratique des arrêts civils de la Cour de Cassation, Paris, Litec 1993, p. 982). The
PROCEDURES: EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION – ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS – ACCESS TO THE FILE
Extraterritorial jurisdiction : The General Court of the European Union upholds the Commission’s findings and dismisses procedural breach claims (Intel)
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.