(AGENPARL) – Wed 10 December 2025 PRESS RELEASE No 153/25
Luxembourg, 10 December 2025
Judgment of the General Court in Case T-1129/23 | Intel Corporation v Commission
Microprocessors market: the General Court upholds the Commission’s
2023 decision against Intel but reduces the fine by approximately € 140
million
This case is a continuation of the dispute between Intel and the European Commission concerning EU competition
rules. The dispute stems from a Commission decision dating from 2009. By that decision, the Commission found
that Intel had abused its dominant position by seeking to exclude its competitor AMD from the x86 microprocessor
market. It therefore imposed a fine of € 1.06 billion on Intel. In proceedings following a referral-back, that decision
was annulled in part by the General Court of the European Union, which was subsequently upheld by the Court of
Justice. 1
On 22 September 2023, the Commission adopted a new decision (‘the 2023 decision’), limited to the practices not
annulled by the General Court, namely the so-called ‘naked’ restrictions imposed on HP, Acer and Lenovo
concerning the use of AMD processors. It thereby set a new fine of € 376,358,000 as regards Intel. Intel then sought
to have that decision annulled in full or in part and to have the fine cancelled or reduced, whereas t he Commission
sought to have the action dismissed.
The General Court of the European Union, in essence, upholds the 2023 de cision, while reducing the fine
The General Court first rules that the Commission remained competent to impose penalties in respect of the so called ‘naked’ restrictions imposed on certain computer manufacturers, in particular Acer and Lenovo. As the
existence of those anticompetitive restrictions had already been definitively upheld by the EU Courts, the
Commission was not required to demonstrate once more that it had jurisdiction or to redefine a new i nfringement.
It was required only to enforce the previous judgments by recalculating the fine on the basis solely of the conduct
still at issue.
The General Court also rejects Intel’s arguments that the reasoning in the 2023 decision was insufficient, that a new
statement of objections ought to have been sent to it and that its rights of defence had been infringed. The Court
states that the Commission’s decision formed part a procedural backdrop which was perfectly well -known to the
company and that the Commission clearly explained the method used to calculate the fine and the reasons why it
took the ‘naked’ restrictions as the basis for it.
As regards the amount of the fine, the General Court considers that the Commission correctly applied the criteria
concerning the gravity and duration of the infringement, taking into account the openly anticompetitive nature of
the ‘naked’ restrictions and Intel’s dominant position on the market concerned, as well as the fact that those
practices formed part of an overall strategy aimed at excluding its competitor AMD.
The General Court finds, however, and without calling into question the lawfulness of the 2023 decision, that the
assessment of the amount of the fine ought to be refined, by taking greater account of (i ) the relatively limited
Communications Directorate
Press and Information Unit
curia.europa.eu
number of computers concerned by those restrictions and (ii) the 12-month gap separating some of those anticompetitive practices. Accordingly, in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction, the General Court finds that an
issue.
NOTE: An action for annulment seeks the annulment of acts of the institutions of the European Union that are
contrary to EU law. The Member States, the European institutions and individuals may, under certain conditions,
bring an action for annulment before the Court of Justice or the General Court. If the action is well founded, the act
is annulled. The institution concerned must fill any legal vacuum created by the annulment of the act.
NOTE: An appeal, limited to points of law only, may be brought before the Court of Justice against the decision of
the General Court within two months and ten days of notification of the decision.
Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the General Court.
The full text and, as the case may be, an abstract of the judgment is published on the CURIA website on the day of
delivery.
Stay Connected!
Intel’s appeal against the 2009 decision was dismissed in its entirety by the General Court in its judgment of 12 June 2014, Intel Corporation v
Commission, T-286/09 (see also press release No 82/14). By judgment of 6 September 2017, Intel v Commission, C-413/14 P (see also press release
No 90/17), delivered following Intel’s appeal, the Court of Justice annulled that judgment and referred the case back to th e General Court. By its
judgment of 26 January 2022, Intel Corporation v Commission, T-286/09 RENV (see also press release No 16/22), the General Court annulled a
substantial part of the 2009 decision, finding that certain conduct on which the penalty was based had not been established sufficiently, which lead to
the annulment in part of the 2009 decision. The Court of Justice subsequently dismissed the appeal brought by the Commission against that
annulment (judgment of 24 October 2024, Commission v Intel Corporation, C-240/22 P (See also press release No 185/24).
Communications Directorate