In that regard, it must be recalled that, according to settled case-law, the right to rely on the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, which is one of the fundamental principles of the European Union, extends to any individual in a situation in which it is clear that the European Union authorities, by giving him precise assurances, have caused him to entertain legitimate expectations. Second, it requires that trade between Member States be capable of being affected by the conduct in question. The fact that the Member of the Commission responsible for competition gave a speech after the adoption of the contested decision, in which that member stated that the Commission had carried out an AEC test in the Intel case, without specifying in that regard that that test had been carried out for the sake of completeness, is not such as to alter the interpretation to be given to the contested decision. This approach operated to its detriment, as each of the infringements in relation to the OEMs was of significantly shorter duration than the overall infringement period. With respect to the probative force of the evidence used by the Commission, a distinction should be drawn between two situations. In that regard, it should be recalled that the applicant did not request an oral hearing on the Supplementary Statement of Objections of in good time. Jika Anda memerlukan jawaban, hubungi bagian dukungan.
|Date Added:||8 December 2004|
|File Size:||44.75 Mb|
|Operating Systems:||Windows NT/2000/XP/2003/2003/7/8/10 MacOS 10/X|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The applicant states that, in the fourth quarter ofonly CPUs of that type were available worldwide. In the present case, the applicant does not contest the findings made in the contested decision that its position on inteo market during the period of the infringement found in this case was that of an unavoidable trading partner.
The Windows 7 installer doesn’t have a built-in driver for USB 3. The Commission is not therefore required to demonstrate the foreclosure capability of exclusivity rebates on a case-by-case basis.
Mouse and Keyboard Don’t Work During Windows 7* Setup
The b323 submits, in essence, that the Commission was wrong not to establish that the MCP rebates would actually have been reduced disproportionately had Dell decided to switch part of its supplies to AMD. Consequently, it is not necessary to adjudicate on the question whether the market on which MSH operated was defined correctly. Intel did not reply to the Supplementary Statement inyel Objections of within the prescribed period. By giving MSH an incentive to sell exclusively Intel-based computers, the applicant implemented an additional anti-competitive device which was capable of restricting also the commercial freedom of the OEMs to which it did not grant exclusivity rebates, by depriving them of a sales channel for their AMD-based computers.
The applicant complied with that request within the prescribed period and the Court gave the Commission an opportunity to submit its observations on those documents in writing. The Commission is entitled to weigh the volume of documents requested and the delay that obtaining and studying those documents might cause for the investigation of the case, on the one hand, against the degree of potential relevance for the defence of the undertaking, on the other. The applicant did not reply to the Supplementary Statement of Objections of by that latter time-limit, and at the same time omitted to request a second oral hearing.
The Court was entitled to confine itself to setting out a single condition relating in that instance to the existence of an express request to that effect during the administrative procedure, that condition in any case not having been fulfilled in the case concerned.
In the present case, the expert report that intep applicant provided as an annex to the reply and which bears the reference C.
EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
It follows from the foregoing that it is not necessary to consider whether the Commission carried out the AEC test in accordance with the applicable rules and that it is also not necessary to examine the question whether the alternative calculations proposed by the applicant were carried out correctly.
However, a customer of an undertaking in a dominant position does not normally have an interest in accusing such an undertaking wrongly of anti-competitive conduct. It is sufficient, in that regard, that the dominant undertaking gives the impression to the customer that that would be the case. For the sake of completeness, the Court makes the following observations regarding the content of those documents.
Documents demonstrating that funding agreements are common in the industry would not therefore have been exculpatory for the applicant. Consequently, in the contested decision, the Commission correctly concluded that the whole of the EEA was covered by the infringement.
The individual practices alleged against the applicant pursued an identical object since they were all aimed at foreclosing AMD from the worldwide market for x86 CPUs. If the Commission decides, with the consent of the person interviewed, to carry out such an interview, it cannot opt to omit certain aspects from the record. The applicant claims that it did not act negligently. In the first place, the Commission was entitled to rely on the fact that the infringements were consistent over time.
They arise from sunk investments in research and development, intellectual property and the production facilities that are necessary to produce x86 CPUs. On the contrary, it is a matter of defining the scope of a possible right of the applicant to have the Commission undertake specific measures of inquiry by obtaining certain documents.
However, it should be noted that, in principle, it is for the Commission to decide how it wishes to conduct the investigation in a competition case and to decide what documents it must collect in order to have a sufficiently complete picture of the case.
The situation is different with respect to the statements of a third-party undertaking such as HP which is, in essence, a witness. In so far as the applicant submits that the Commission infringed its rights of defence in failing to communicate to it the passages of the note to the file deemed to be confidential during the administrative stage, that case-law is directly applicable to the present case.
AMD was bound just like the applicant by the Protective Order and was unable to provide the Commission with the documents submitted by Intel in the proceedings in the State of Delaware unless the confidentiality designation of those documents was removed.
That is sufficient for a finding that there were at least potential effects in the Inttel, in the absence of any specific indicia which might suggest that all the planned sales concerned parts of the EMEA region outside the EEA.
It is not appropriate to impose on the Commission an obligation to obtain as many documents as possible in order to ensure that it obtain all potentially exculpatory evidence.
In that regard, the Commission correctly states that the anti-competitive incentive of exclusivity rebates results not from the imposition of a formal obligation to buy exclusively or almost exclusively from the dominant company but from the financial advantages obtained or the financial disadvantages avoided by making such purchases.
However, the Commission may rely on information obtained during an informal interview, in particular to obtain more solid evidence, while not making the information obtained during an informal interview accessible to the undertaking in question. Accordingly, the view cannot be taken that the Commission is required to confine itself to pursuing and punishing abuse which achieved the intended result inel in respect of which the threat to the functioning of competition materialised.
The fine was not imposed by an independent authority. Those matters suffice to show that the exclusivity rebates at issue in the contested decision were capable of inducing the OEMs to purchase exclusively. It should be noted that, according to the contested decision, Dell and HP in particular can be distinguished from other OEMs by their high market shares, their strong presence in the more profitable segment of the market and their ability to legitimise a new x86 CPU in the market.