AEC meaning

Commission v Intel Corporation Case C-240/22 P What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling chiefly clarifies the function of the AEC test and identifies where the evidential burden under Article 102 TFEU sits, while also bearing on the EU’s position in its latest draft Guidelines. It further delineates the scope of review the General Court must undertake. The draft Guidelines sought to increase legal certainty in enforcing exclusionary abuses under Article 102 TFEU, regarded as crucial to competition operating effectively. They introduce a soft presumption that rebate schemes can yield exclusionary outcomes, thereby placing the onus on a dominant undertaking to disprove it. More broadly, the Guidelines point to a move away from the AEC test towards an appraisal of the potential effects of the exclusionary practice on all market players. Nonetheless, the General Court’s 2022 judgment, upheld by the Court of Justice, confirms that the burden of proof continues to rest with the Commission...

Antitrust AG proposes Court of Justice should dismiss the Commission’s appeal in Intel Advocate General Medina has delivered her opinion in Case C- 240/22 Commission v Intel, the appeal challenging the General Court’s ruling in Case T- 286/09 RENV (after a remittal from the Court of Justice), which set aside in part the Commission’s decision of 13 May 2009 that had found an infringement and levied a fine on Intel Corporation (Intel) for the alleged abuse of a dominant position tied to conditional rebates and loyalty payments (Case AT.37990). She advised that the Court of Justice should reject the Commission’s appeal. Acting on the Court of Justice’s invitation, the Advocate General concentrated principally on two of the six grounds of appeal. Those two grounds asserted that the General Court had made a series of errors and violated the Commission’s rights of defence when assessing the as-efficient-competitor (AEC) test with respect to two customer accounts, namely Hewlett-Packard Company and Lenovo Group Ltd, in particular...

In this issue: Arbitration in England & Wales International arbitration Institutional and ad hoc arbitration Other Other arbitration and ADR-related news and developments New and updated content Daily and weekly news alerts Useful information Arbitration in England & Wales Court of Appeal highlights importance of making timely objection to tribunal In Czech Republic v Diag Human SE, the Court of Appeal allowed only one of three appeals, rejecting the rest of the challenges to an investment treaty award mounted under sections 67 and 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996. The court set aside the award in favour of one party after ruling that it was not an ‘investor’ within the meaning of the relevant bilateral investment treaty. It also dismissed the respondents’ position that section 73 AA 1996 barred the appellant’s objections, and rejected the contention that, save for a single point, the issues were non‑jurisdictional under section 31 and thus not proper grounds under...

BIM (building information modelling) protocol There is no single, mandatory BIM protocol required on all UK projects using BIM—parties involved in construction projects where BIM is to be adopted are free to choose the protocol they wish to use; it is not imposed and remains a matter for agreement on a project‑by‑project basis. The parties may opt for one of the published forms already available, agree a bespoke protocol tailored to the scheme, or choose to proceed with no standalone protocol at all, instead setting out every BIM obligation within the contract conditions and associated technical documents. As the use of BIM has expanded, various protocols have been created by organisations seeking to promote efficiency, consistency and recognised good practice within such documents. None of these has yet become an ‘industry standard’, though that appears to be edging closer—having a common standard would be likely to assist with insurance considerations, and provide greater consistency and certainty around the parties’ duties and responsibilities, thereby defining more clearly the risk profile...

Updated in October 2025 Introduction Since the mid-twentieth century, Taiwan has stood among the ‘Asian Tigers’, sustaining a vibrant capitalist economy with a strong global footprint. The World Trade Statistical Review 2025 records Taiwan as the 16th largest exporter in world merchandise trade for 2024, while the IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook 2025 ranks it 6th worldwide. The government also provides a range of attractive incentives that enhance Taiwan’s business-friendly appeal. Supported by political stability and a dependable domestic market, deep expertise in both hardware and software engineering, a rich pool of high-calibre talent, mature infrastructure, and favourable investment legislation, Taiwan offers a compelling setting for enterprise. Positioned at the heart of the Asia Pacific, it serves as a strategic bridge to major economies including the US, China, Japan and Korea, along with emerging markets such as the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC). In June 2010, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and Taiwan concluded the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA), further reinforcing Taiwan’s role as an appealing economic hub...

CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment of 6 October 2015 and is not being maintained. For further details, see: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline A reference from Denmark’s Sø- og Handelsret (the national maritime and commercial court) was submitted to the Court of Justice seeking a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU. Among other matters, it asked whether, when assessing the anti-competitive character of rebate schemes under Article 102 TFEU, the law requires a price/cost evaluation comparing the dominant undertaking’s conduct with that of an equally efficient competitor (the ‘as-efficient-competitor’ test), and also whether any exclusionary effect arising from the rebate arrangement must be ‘appreciable’ in order to fall within Article 102 TFEU...