Appeal brought on 26 February 2026 by Intel Corporation Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 10 December 2025 in Case T-1129/23, Intel Corporation v Commission

(Case C-143/26 P)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Intel Corporation Inc. (represented by: D. Beard, Barrister-at-Law, J. Williams, Barrister-at-Law, B. Meyring, Rechtsanwalt, J.-F. Bellis, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

set aside the judgment under appeal;

annul Commission Decision C(2023) 5914 final of 22 September 2023 relating to a proceeding under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (AT.37990 – Intel) (‘the contested decision’);

annul or substantially reduce the fine imposed by the judgment under appeal and the contested decision;

in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice;

in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings and the proceedings before the General Cour.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on two grounds of appeal.

By the first ground of appeal, which is divided into three parts, the appellant claims that the judgment under appeal erred in law by its mischaracterization and treatment of the relevant infringement.

In the first part of the first ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the judgment under appeal erred in law by rejecting the second part of the first plea of Intel’s application to the General Court in Case T-1129/23.

In the second part of the first ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the judgment under appeal erred in law by rejecting the first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and eight parts of the first plea of Intel’s application to the General Court in Case T-1129/23.

In the third part of the first ground of appeal, the appellant claims that, in consequence of its errs, the General Court erred in law in not annulling the contested decision and in its setting of a disproportionate fine.

By the second ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the judgment under appeal erred in law by not respecting Intel’s rights of defence or complying with the principles of procedural fairness.

____________