ORDER OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber)

19 September 2017 ( *1 )

(Rectification of judgment)

In Case C‑413/14 P-REC,

APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 26 August 2014,

Intel Corporation Inc., established in Wilmington (United States), represented by D.M. Beard QC, and by A. Parr and R. Mackenzie, Solicitors,

appellant,

the other parties to the proceedings being:

European Commission, represented by T. Christoforou, V. Di Bucci, M. Kellerbauer and N. Khan, acting as Agents,

defendant at first instance,

Association for Competitive Technology Inc., established in Washington (United States), represented by J.-F. Bellis, avocat,

Union fédérale des consommateurs — Que choisir (UFC — Que choisir),

interveners at first instance,

THE COURT (Grand Chamber),

composed of K. Lenaerts, President, A. Tizzano, Vice-President, R. Silva de Lapuerta, M. Ilešič, J. L. da Cruz Vilaça (Rapporteur), E. Juhász, M. Berger, M. Vilaras and E. Regan, Presidents of Chambers, A. Rosas, J. Malenovský, E. Levits, F. Biltgen, K. Jürimäe and C. Lycourgos, Judges,

Advocate General: N. Wahl,

Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,

after hearing the Advocate General,

makes the following

Order

1 On 6 September 2017, the Court (Grand Chamber) delivered the judgment in Intel v Commission (C 413/14 P, EU:C:2017:632).

2 That judgment contains, in the version in the language of the case, clerical errors which it is appropriate for the Court to rectify of its own motion in accordance with Article 154(1) of its Rules of Procedure, which applies to the procedure on appeal pursuant to Article 190(1) of those rules.

On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby orders:

1. Paragraph 139 of the judgment of 6 September 2017, Intel v Commission (C‑413/14 P, EU:C:2017:632), in the version in the language of the case, shall be rectified as follows: ‘In that case, the Commission is not only required to analyse, first, the extent of the undertaking’s dominant position on the relevant market and, secondly, the share of the market covered by the challenged practice, as well as the conditions and arrangements for granting the rebates in question, their duration and their amount; it is also required to assess the possible existence of a strategy aiming to exclude competitors that are at least as efficient as the dominant undertaking from the market (see, by analogy, judgment of 27 March 2012, Post Danmark, C‑209/10, EU:C:2012:172, paragraph 29).’

2. Paragraph 140 of that judgment, in the version in the language of the case, shall be rectified as follows: ‘The analysis of the capacity to foreclose is also relevant in assessing whether a system of rebates which, in principle, falls within the scope of the prohibition laid down in Article 102 TFEU, may be objectively justified. In addition, it has to be determined whether the exclusionary effect arising from such a system, which is disadvantageous for competition, may be counterbalanced, or outweighed, by advantages in terms of efficiency which also benefit the consumer (judgment of 15 March 2007, British Airways v Commission, C‑95/04 P, EU:C:2007:166, paragraph 86). That balancing of the favourable and unfavourable effects of the practice in question on competition can be carried out in the Commission’s decision only after an analysis of the intrinsic capacity of that practice to foreclose competitors which are at least as efficient as the dominant undertaking.’

3. The original of this order shall be annexed to the original of the rectified judgment. A note of this order shall be made in the margin of the original of the rectified judgment.

Luxembourg, 19 September 2017. A. Calot Escobar Registrar K. Lenaerts President

( *1 ) Language of the case: English.