European Union: Intel Judgment: Clarity From The ECJ On Exclusivity Rebates As An Abuse

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) yesterday delivered its judgment in relation to Intel's appeal from the General Court, and has set aside the General Court's judgment on the basis that it failed to consider certain arguments advanced by Intel.

The General Court had previously upheld the €1.06 billion fine imposed upon Intel by the European Commission (the "Commission") for abuses of dominance, including in relation to Intel's use of exclusivity or 'fidelity' rebates.

In setting aside the General Court's judgment, the ECJ has clarified that:

  • during the course of an investigation, a dominant firm is able to present evidence that its use of exclusivity rebates is not capable of foreclosing competitors;
  • where such evidence is presented, the Commission is required to undertake an analysis of the firm's capacity to foreclose; and
  • even if the use of exclusivity rebates does give rise to foreclosure concerns, a dominant firm remains able to present evidence that its conduct is capable of objective justification.

In addition, the ECJ has confirmed the existence of a broad approach to the extraterritoriality of EU completion law.

This alert explores these aspects in more detail, and considers the possible implications of the judgment for competition law enforcement in the EU.

The Commission decision

Intel is a US-based company that supplies a range of technology products, including certain microprocessors (CPUs).

In May 2004, the Commission opened an investigation into Intel, focussing on suspected abuses of dominance following complaints made by Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), a direct competitor of Intel in relation to the supply of CPUs.

In May 2009, the Commission closed its investigation, and found that Intel had abused its dominant position. The Commission imposed a (then) record fine of €1.06 billion upon Intel for its abusive conduct.

In relation to dominance, the Commission considered that, from 2001 to 2007, Intel held a share of around 70% of the market for the worldwide supply of x86 CPUs (the "x86 CPU market"). During this time, the only meaningful competitor Intel faced was AMD.

In view of Intel's high market shares, and the high barriers to entry and expansion, the Commission concluded that Intel enjoyed a dominant position in the x86 CPU market from at least October 2002 to December 2007.

The Commission held that Intel had abused this dominant position through its use of:

  • Conditional rebates: the Commission found that Intel had awarded rebates to four strategically important original equipment manufacturers ("OEMs"). These rebates were de facto conditional upon the OEMs purchasing all (or almost all) of their requirements for x86 CPUs from Intel. The Commission also found that Intel had made payments to a European retailer, with the payments conditional upon the retailer exclusively selling computers containing Intel's x86 CPUs. The Commission held that the conditional OEM rebates were 'fidelity rebates'1 (with the conditional payments to the retailer having the equivalent effect of 'fidelity rebates'), and were not capable of being objectively justified. This was on the basis that the rebates restricted the choices of the OEMs and the retailer.
  • In view of the existing EU case law, given the absence of objective justification, these 'fidelity rebates' in themselves constituted an abuse of dominance.2 However, in view of Intel's submissions, the Commission undertook a specific analysis of the effects of the rebates in question. For these purposes, the Commission applied the 'As Efficient Competitor' test detailed in its guidance on enforcement priorities3 (the 'AEC Methodology') this sought to ascertain whether a competitor that was 'as efficient' as Intel (i.e. in terms of supplying x86 CPUs) would be foreclosed from the market.
  • Using the AEC Methodology, the Commission held that Intel's 'fidelity rebates' were capable of causing foreclosure, leading to consumer harm.
  • 'Naked' restrictions: the Commission found that Intel had made payments to three OEMs which were conditional upon the OEMs restricting the commercialisation of specific products that utilised AMD CPUs. As a consequence, these OEMs ceased the commercialisation of the products, resulting in less choice for consumers, and competitive harm. The Commission held that these restrictions were incapable of objective justification.

Moreover, the Commission held that, while the each of the arrangements constituted an abuse in and of itself, the arrangements formed part of an overall strategy, which had the goal of foreclosing AMD from the x86 CPU market.

Accordingly, the Commission concluded that the arrangements formed part of a single continuous infringement of EU competition law, and took the length of this infringement into account when calculating the level of the fine imposed upon Intel.

The General Court judgment

Intel subsequently challenged the Commission's decision before the General Court on several grounds, including that the Commission:

  • failed to analyse whether Intel's arrangements were implemented in the EU and/or had an immediate, substantial and foreseeable effect within the EU;
  • erred in law by finding that the conditional rebates were abusive per se, and that there was no need to establish an actual capability to foreclose competitors;
  • made numerous errors in applying the AEC Methodology, and failed to address evidence relevant to the effects of Intel's discounts; and
  • failed to prove that Intel had engaged in a long-term strategy to foreclose competitors.

The General Court dismissed the appeal, and upheld the Commission's decision.

Extraterritoriality of EU competition law

In challenging the Commission's jurisdiction to investigate certain arrangements involving entities located outside of the European Economic Area (the 'EEA'), Intel argued that to be able to assert jurisdiction over conduct involving trade with non-EEA countries, the Commission was required to establish:

  • that implementation of the arrangements had taken place within the EEA (the 'Implementation Test'4); and
  • that it is foreseeable that the effects of the arrangements will have an immediate and substantial effect in the EEA (the 'Qualified Effects Test'5).

The General Court rejected this argument, and held that the Implementation Test and the Qualified Effects Test were alternative - rather than cumulative bases upon which the Commission was able to establish jurisdiction6.

In any event, the General Court noted that it considered that Intel's conduct satisfied both tests.

Rebates as an abuse of dominance

The General Court also agreed with the Commission's legal analysis in respect of conditional rebates. In so doing, the General Court distinguished three categories of rebates, namely:

  • Quantity rebates: being rebates linked solely to the volume of purchases made from the dominant firm, which are generally considered not to have a foreclosure effect7.
  • Exclusivity rebates: being rebates which are conditional on customers obtaining all or most of their requirements from the dominant firm. The General Court noted that such rebates would infringe EU competition law, unless it could be shown that there was an objective justification for their use.
  • Third category rebates: being rebates where the incentive is not directly linked to a condition of (near) exclusive supply by the dominant firm, but where the mechanism for granting the rebate may nevertheless have a 'fidelity-building effect'. The General Court considered that such rebate systems would need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, having regard to all the circumstances.

Having regard to these categories, the General Court found that Intel's conditional rebates (and payments) were examples of (or equivalent to) exclusivity rebates.

The General Court found that exclusivity rebates granted by a dominant firm are, by their very nature, capable of distorting competition and foreclosing competitors.

Accordingly, when applying EU competition law to exclusivity rebates, the General Court held that there was no need to assess all of the circumstances, nor to review the Commission's application of the AEC Methodology.

Instead, the General Court held that there effectively existed a rebuttable presumption that the grant of exclusivity rebates by a dominant player is abusive. This presumption is capable of rebuttal where it can be demonstrated that the rebate scheme in question is objectively justified.

However, the General Court held that Intel had not presented any arguments in relation to objective justification8.

Long-term strategy to foreclose competitors

In rejecting Intel's challenge, the General Court held that, in seeking to establish the existence of an overall plan, the Commission was not required to produce direct evidence of a coherent anti-competitive plan.

Instead, it was possible for the Commission to demonstrate the existence of such a plan by reference to a body of evidence9.

In this context, the General Court placed particular weight upon the complementarity of the rebates and the naked restrictions, and the fact that Intel had implicitly sought to conceal the majority of these arrangements, including by using "unwritten anti-competitive clauses which did not appear in the written contracts", and "written terms which indicated the opposite of what was actually agreed".

The ECJ judgment

In appealing the General Court judgment, Intel advanced several grounds of appeal, including that the General Court:

  • applied the wrong legal standard to assess the legality of Intel's conduct;
  • erred in law in its legal characterisation of Intel's rebates as 'exclusivity rebates'; and
  • incorrectly established the Commission's jurisdiction to apply EU competition law to Intel's arrangements with Lenovo, a company based in China, in 2006 and 2007.

Extraterritoriality of EU competition law

In relation to Intel's arguments in respect of the Commission's jurisdiction, the ECJ observed that the Implementation Test and the Qualified Effects Test pursued the same objective the prevention of conduct which, while not adopted within the EU, has anti-competitive effects within the EU.

Accordingly, the ECJ confirmed that the Commission was able to establish jurisdiction on the basis of either test being satisfied, and dismissed Intel's arguments on jurisdiction.

Rebates as an abuse of dominance

The ECJ reiterated that, while a dominant firm has a special responsibility not to allow its conduct to impair competition, EU competition does not prevent a dominant firm from competing 'on the merits'. Such competition may result in less efficient competitors being marginalised, or exiting the market, on the basis that these competitors' offerings are less attractive to consumers.

Accordingly, the ECJ confirmed that "not every exclusionary effect is necessarily detrimental to competition"10.

Having regard to previous EU case law, the ECJ provided an additional clarification that, while the grant of exclusivity rebates by a dominant firm gives rise to a presumption of an abuse, it remains open to the dominant firm to submit, on the basis of supporting evidence, that its conduct was "not capable of restricting competition and, in particular, of producing the alleged foreclosure effects"11.

In such circumstances, the Commission is then required to undertake an analysis of the firm's capacity to foreclose, having regard to:

  • the extent of the firm's dominant position (e.g., 'merely' dominant, or supra-dominant);
  • the share of the market covered by the arrangements in question, as well as the conditions and arrangements for granting the rebates, their duration, and their amount; and
  • the possible existence of a strategy aimed at excluding competitors that are at least as efficient as the dominant firm.

In addition, the ECJ confirmed that if the rebates do give rise to concerns in relation to foreclosure effects, it remains open for a dominant firm to submit that its conduct is objectively justified. The ECJ noted that this assessment can only be conducted following an analysis of whether the conduct has the capacity to foreclose competitors that are at least as efficient as the dominant firm.

Against this background, the ECJ noted that the Commission had carried out an in-depth analysis using the AEC Methodology, and found that, by doing so, Intel's conduct was capable of having a foreclosure effect.

On this basis, the ECJ concluded that the AEC Methodology 'played an important role in the Commission's assessment of whether the rebate scheme... was capable of having foreclosure effects on as efficient competitors'12.

In the circumstances, the ECJ held that the General Court was required to examine all of Intel's arguments concerning the AEC Methodology, and that it had failed to consider the arguments alleging errors in relation to this aspect of the Commission's decision.

In view of this failure, the ECJ concluded that the General Court judgment should be set aside, with the case referred back to the General Court.

What now for the assessment of exclusivity rebates under EU competition law?

While the ECJ's judgment provides welcome guidance, Intel will still be required to persuade the General Court that its conduct did not constitute an abuse of dominance in the circumstances.

In this context, the ECJ's judgment serves to highlight the error of the General Court's previous analysis in relation to rebates; the fact that the General Court's judgment insofar as it relates to the 'naked restrictions' was not subject to appeal suggests that these aspects could still prove problematic for Intel.

More broadly, the ECJ's judgment serves to clarify, and arguably, unify, previous aspects of EU case law in relation to the use of exclusivity rebates. In so doing, it is notable that the ECJ has not sought to prescribe the nature of the analysis to be undertaken by the Commission in relation to assessing whether a competitor is 'as efficient'.

The ECJ's clarifications may also be expected to be carefully considered by the Commission case teams currently investigating various alleged abuses in relation to the use of exclusivity rebates, so as to seek to ensure that any subsequent infringement decisions adopted by the Commission are robustly reasoned and evidenced, having regard to firm's capacity to foreclose, as may be required.


1 Case 85/76 Hoffmann-La Roche v Commission EU:C:1979:36.

2 Case 85/76 Hoffmann-La Roche v Commission EU:C:1979:36.

3 Communication from the Commission - Guidance on the Commission's enforcement priorities in applying Article 82 of the EC Treaty to abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings.

4 Case C-89/95 Ahlström Osakeytiö and Others v Commission ECLI:EU:C:1988:447.

5 Case T-102/96 Gencor v Commission ECLI:EU:T:1999:65.

6 Case T-286/09 Intel v Commission ECLI:EU:T:2014:54, paragraph 236.

7 Case T-286/09 Intel v Commission ECLI:EU:T:2014:54, paragraph 75.

8 Case T-286/09 Intel v Commission ECLI:EU:T:2014:54, paragraph 94.

9 Case T-286/09 Intel v Commission ECLI:EU:T:2014:54, paragraph 1525.

10 Case C-413/14 Intel Corporation Inc. v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2017:632, paragraph 134.

11 Case C-413/14 Intel Corporation Inc. v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2017:632, paragraph 138.

12 Case C-413/14 Intel Corporation Inc. v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2017:632, paragraph 143.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Events from this Firm
3 Oct 2017, Seminar, London, UK

Join us over breakfast for our third retail-focused seminar.

10 Oct 2017, Other, London, UK

Join us for our Real Estate Sector Next Generation networking drinks evening.

12 Oct 2017, Webinar, Birmingham, UK

Join us for an interactive evening exploring the possibilities of implementing digital construction in real life projects.

In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.