In Case T‑286/09

62The case was allocated to the Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the General Court.

63On 14, 15 and 16November 2017 respectively, ACT, the applicant and the Commission submitted their written observations on the referral back, pursuant to Article217(1) of the Rules of Procedure (‘the main observations’).

64The applicant and the Commission requested that certain confidential matters contained in their respective main observations not be communicated to the interveners. They produced a non-confidential version of those various pleadings. The communication of those pleadings was restricted to that non-confidential version. The interveners raised no objections in that regard.

65On 20February 2018, ACT and, on 5March 2018, the applicant and the Commission, respectively, lodged supplementary written observations pursuant to Article217(3) of the Rules of Procedure (‘the supplementary observations’).

66The applicant and the Commission requested that certain confidential matters contained in their supplementary observations not be communicated to the interveners. They produced a joint non-confidential version of those various pleadings. The communication of those pleadings was restricted to that non-confidential version. The interveners raised no objections in that regard.

67In its observations, the applicant, supported by ACT, claims that the Court should:

–annul the contested decision in whole or in part;

–in the alternative, annul or reduce substantially the amount of the fine imposed;

–order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

68In its observations, the Commission contends, in essence, that the Court should dismiss the action.

69By letters of 7, 15 and 28October 2019, Intel and the Commission partially waived confidentiality for the purposes of the hearing and the decision closing the proceedings, provided that no confidential document was served on the interveners. They stated, in essence, that all of the data in the file could be discussed in open court, with two exceptions, namely that the Court refrain from disclosing details regarding server X [confidential] and that the names of the natural persons mentioned in the pleadings should not be made public.

70By letter of 27January 2020, ACT applied for leave to participate in the part of the hearing which was to be held in camera because of the confidentiality of the information to be discussed, in accordance with the General Court’s decision of 10December 2019.

71By letter of 6March 2020, UFC informed the Court that it was waiving its right to participate in the hearing scheduled from 10 to 12March 2020 (‘the 2020 hearing’).

72At the 2020 hearing, the President of the Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition), referred to the letter of 27January 2020 lodged by ACT, in which ACT requested to participate in the hearing, which was initially to be held in camera. The President of the Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition), decided to add that letter to the file. However, since the 2020 hearing took place entirely in open court, the President stated that there was no longer any need to respond to ACT’s request. In addition, the President confirmed that the names of the natural persons would not be disclosed in open court or in the decision closing the proceedings.

73Following the death of Judge Berke on 1August 2021, the three judges whose signatures feature on the present judgment continued the deliberations, in accordance with Article22 and Article24(1) of the Rules of Procedure.