Intel’s (NASDAQ:INTC) ongoing battle against a hefty €1.06B EU antitrust fine has been bolstered by the opinion of an adviser to Europe’s top court, who maintains that the regulators made errors in their examination.

Sweeping Changes Proposed

Advocate General Laila Medina at the Court of Justice of the European Union, or CJEU, proposed that the Court of Justice should confirm that the European Commission, or EC, erred in applying the as-efficient-competitor, or AEC, test with respect to Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) and Lenovo (OTCPK:LNVGY) (OTCPK:LNVGF).

The Court of Justice comprises two courts — the Court of Justice and the General Court.

Historical Context

The current case pertains to the Commission’s appeal of the General Court’s 2022 judgment, which partially annulled the EC’s decision and entirely revoked the €1.06B fine.

The Court of Justice highlighted that, at its behest, Medina’s opinion focuses exclusively on two of the six grounds of appeal raised by the Commission.

Grounds for Rejection

Medina suggested that the Court dismiss both grounds of the Commission’s appeal against the General Court’s judgment related to Intel’s alleged abuse of its dominant position in the x86 central processing units market.

One of the grounds of appeal pertains to the Commission’s allegations regarding errors of law made by the General Court and infringement of the Commission’s right of defense in the context of examining the AEC test concerning Hewlett-Packard and Lenovo Group.

In respect to the ground of appeal concerning Hewlett Packard, Medina scrutinized four claims made by the Commission.

Endorsement of General Court’s Findings

According to Medina’s perspective, none of the Commission’s submissions in support of certain claims were capable of undermining the General Court’s conclusion that the contested decision failed to demonstrate the foreclosure effect of the rebates granted by Intel to HP between November 2002 and May 2005.

With regard to the other ground of appeal under scrutiny, the EC criticized the assessment made by the General Court concerning the quantification of two non-cash advantages awarded by Intel in exchange for Lenovo’s exclusivity obligation.

Adverse Report Unsupported

Advocate General Medina found that the General Court’s conclusions were error-free in determining that, when assessing the non-cash advantages granted by Intel to Lenovo, the Commission had proceeded on the basis of an assumption contrary to the foundation of the AEC test outlined in the contested decision.

Consequently, the Advocate General concluded that this particular ground of appeal was unfounded and ought to be dismissed.

The Court of Justice emphasized that the Advocate General’s Opinion is not binding on the Court of Justice. It is the role of the Advocates General to propose to the Court. The Judges of the Court will commence their deliberations in this case, and a judgment will be rendered at a later date.