7.6.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/21

—

(Case C-240/22 P)

(2022/C 222/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, N. Khan, M. Kellerbauer and C. Sjödin, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Intel Corporation Inc., Association for Competitive Technology, Inc., Union fédérale des consommateurs — Que choisir (UFC — Que choisir)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—set aside the judgment under appeal, save for paragraph 3 of its operative part;

—refer the proceedings back to the General Court;

—reserve the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant raises six grounds of appeal.

First ground of appeal: The review by the judgment under appeal of the extent of the Decision’s analysis of the criteria of coverage and duration is ultra petita. Furthermore, the judgment under appeal errs in law in denying any overall assessment of the capability of Intel’s practices to foreclose competition in the light of all the relevant circumstances of the case and in misinterpreting the guidance given in that respect in the judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 September 2017, Intel v Commission, C-413/14 P, EU:C:2017:632.

Second ground of appeal: The judgment’s under appeal review of the as-efficient-competitor test (the AEC test) carried out in the Decision infringes the Commission’s rights of defence.

Third ground of appeal: The judgment’s under appeal review of the Decision’s AEC test in relation to Dell errs with respect to the standard of proof, distorts the clear meaning of the evidence, applies contradictory reasoning and infringes the Commission’s rights of defence.

Fourth ground of appeal: The judgment’s under appeal review of the Decision’s AEC test in relation to Hewlett-Packard Company errs with respect to the standard of proof, infringes the Commission’s rights of defence and contains several other errors of law.

Fifth ground of appeal: The judgment’s under appeal review of the Decision’s AEC test in relation to Lenovo errs in its interpretation of the AEC test and of Article 102 TFEU, distorts the evidence and infringes the Commission’s rights of defence.

Sixth ground of appeal: Insofar as the judgment under appeal relies on its review of the Decision’s AEC test for the purposes of partly annulling the Decision, it fails to consider properly the implications of its findings on the AEC test.

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).

—