EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/46

(Case T-417/22)

(2022/C 318/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Intel Corporation Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: D. Beard, J. Williams, Barristers-at-Law, B. Meyring, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

a.order the Commission to pay compensation of EUR 593 177 661,75, corresponding to: default interest on the principal amount of EUR 1 060 000 000 at the ECB refinancing rate on the first calendar day of the month in which the Commission Decision C(2009) 3726 final of 13 May 2009 in Case COMP/C-3/37.990 Intel (the ‘Decision’) was adopted (namely 1,25 %) increased by 3,5 percentage points (or failing that at an interest rate deemed appropriate by the Court), for the period from 13 August 2009 (the date of provisional payment of the fine by Intel) to 25 February 2022 (the date of repayment of the principal amount of the fine by the European Commission), minus the interest amount already paid to Intel by the Commission of EUR 38 059 598,52;

b.order the Commission to pay interest on the amount requested at paragraph (a) above for the period from 25 February 2022 (the date of repayment of the principal amount of the fine by the Commission), or alternatively from 28 April 2022 (the date of Intel’s First Interest Application), or from 6 July 2022 (the date of the present action) or, in the further alternative, from the date of judgment in the present action, up to the date on which the Commission actually pays the amount in pursuance of a judgment upholding the present action, at the interest rate applied by the ECB to refinancing operations increased by 3,5 percentage points or, failing that, at an interest rate deemed appropriate by the Court;

c.further or alternatively:

i.annul any decision of the Commission refusing the reimbursement of the default interest and order it to do so in the same amounts as sought in paragraphs (a) and (b) above; or

ii.alternatively, declare that the Commission has acted unlawfully by failing to pay Intel the default interest on the principal amount of a fine reimbursed following the annulment of the Decision, and order it to do so in the same amounts as sought in paragraphs (a) and (b) above;

d.in any event, order the Commission to pay Intel’s costs and expenses in connection with these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By application dated 28 April 2022 in Case T-236/22 (‘Intel’s First Interest Application’), Intel sought the payment of the default interest (and the interest on that default interest) arising from the annulment of Article 2 of the Decision, which the applicant claims that the Commission has not paid. The Commission has still not paid that interest. It has, however, since further communicated with Intel following Intel’s First Interest Application, proffering new reasons for its refusal to do so. By the present action, which is brought on a precautionary basis in light of the uncertainty generated by the Commission’s correspondence, Intel challenges that correspondence. In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

1.First, pursuant to Article 268 TFEU, in conjunction with Article 340(2) TFEU, and Article 41(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the applicant seeks payment of compensation and consequential interest for the damage sustained because of the Commission’s refusal to pay Intel the default interest on the principal amount of a fine reimbursed following the annulment, by judgment T-286/09 RENV, ECLI:EU:T:2022:19, of Article 2 of the Commission Decision C(2009) 3726 final of 13 May 2009 in Case COMP/C-3/37.990 Intel. In this regard, the applicant relies upon the requirement to take necessary measures to comply with the annulment of a fine pursuant to Article 266 TFEU, which includes the payment of the default interest. The Commission is wrong to claim that time starts running for any non-contractual liability claim from the date of provisional payment of a fine.

2.Second, further or in the alternative, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU the applicant seeks the annulment of any decision of the Commission refusing the reimbursement of the default interest, at the rate referred to above, on the basis that it is (i) contrary to Article 266 TFEU and (ii) misstates the proper date from which time starts running for any non-contractual liability claim.

3.Third, pursuant to Article 265 TFEU in the further alternative, to the extent the Commission has not adopted a final position (despite requests from the applicant), the applicant seeks a declaration that the Commission has acted unlawfully by failing to pay Intel the said default interest pursuant to Article 266 TFEU, and an order that the Commission pay that default interest at the rate referred to above.

4.Strictly in the alternative, the applicant avers that any contrary interpretation of the 2002, 2012 and/or 2018 Regulation(s) that would exclude the payment of the default interest in accordance with Article 266 TFEU, as interpreted by the CJEU and GC, would have the consequence that the relevant provisions would be in breach of primary EU law. In those circumstances, the applicant raises an alternative plea of illegality under Article 266 TFEU and Article 277 TFEU on an alternative, contingent basis.

JUDGMENT OF 6. 3. 2025 – CASE C-41/24 WALTHAM ABBEY RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION

must be interpreted as meaning that where, in the context of a screening procedure carried out under that provision, a third party has provided the competent authority with objective evidence as regards the potential significant effects of that project on the environment, in particular on a species protected under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, as amended by Council Directive 2013/17/EU of 13 May 2013, that authority must ask the developer to provide it with additional information and take that information into account before deciding whether or not an environmental impact assessment is necessary for that project. However, where, despite the observations submitted to that authority by a third party, the competent authority is able to rule out, on the basis of objective evidence, the possibility that the project in question is likely to have significant effects on the environment, that authority may decide that an environmental impact assessment is not necessary, without being required to ask the developer to provide it with additional information.

Gratsias

Passer

Smulders

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 6 March 2025.

D. Gratsias

Registrar

President of the Chamber

ECLI:EU:C:2025:140

15