Short Reads

Brush up and avoid dawn raid drama - the clock is ticking

Brush up and avoid dawn raid drama - the clock is ticking

Brush up and avoid dawn raid drama - the clock is ticking

06.12.2018 NL law

There is no time like the present for companies to give their staff an opportunity to brush up on their responsibilities so they know what to do during dawn raids. The number of dawn raids may increase once the EU's national competition authorities (NCAs) are empowered as a result of the newly adopted ECN+ Directive.

The number of fines for IT-related dawn raid obstruction may also rise, with the European Commission taking the lead. Even though the European Court of Human Rights recently confirmed that dawn raid procedures should be subject to comprehensive judicial review, there seems to be no immediate recourse available against the actual conduct of EU officials during dawn raids. All the more reason for companies to be fully prepared for what lies ahead.

Once the ECN+ Directive has been incorporated into national law, NCAs currently lacking the necessary tools to gather evidence can use their newly obtained powers to conduct dawn raids. This may also lead to more fines being imposed on companies for not cooperating, with NCAs possibly following the approach taken by the European Commission.

Companies failing to cooperate with a European Commission dawn raid may face fines of up to 1% of their total turnover. Given today's growing digital developments, it is likely there will be more fines for IT-related actions by companies. For instance, the Commission recently sent a statement of objections to Slovakian state-owned railway company ZSSK for obstructing a dawn raid. According to the press release, the Commission suspects ZSSK of (i) having provided incorrect information on the location of the laptop of one of its employees and (ii) failing to provide requested data, which was lost when the company reinstalled the laptop. Similarly, in 2014 the General Court upheld a fine of EUR 2.5 million imposed on a Czech energy company for obstructing a dawn raid by failing to block an email account and divert incoming emails [see our December 2014 Newsletter]. According to the General Court, the Commission had been right to assume that once it hands over the inspection decision and the explanatory note to a company's authorised persons, it is up to the company to take all necessary measures to ensure that the Commission's instructions are implemented. Companies should therefore make sure they have clear dawn raid instructions, preparing not only their key personnel but also their IT staff, on their responsibilities during a Commission dawn raid. They should also double-check whether their instructions follow the Commission's explanatory note.

This is particularly advisable given that immediate legal recourse to tackle EU officials' conduct during dawn raids is limited. The validity of the Commission's decision ordering the inspection can be reviewed by the EU courts. However, as recently confirmed by the General Court, allegedly unlawful conduct Commission officials during a dawn raid is usually not challengeable on a standalone basis. Companies can either have this conduct reviewed with the Commission's final infringement decision or refuse to cooperate, thus provoking a decision by the Commission to impose a fine for non-cooperation, which can be challenged before the EU courts. In such cases, as confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights last month in the context of a Slovenian competition authority's fine for dawn raid obstruction, companies should be entitled to have all evidence relating the factual aspects of that decision fully reviewed. Even so, before being confronted with these kind of options, companies should make sure their staff brush up on their responsibilities so they know what to do during a dawn raid before it's too late.

 

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of December 2018. Other articles in this newsletter:

Team

Related news

02.07.2020 NL law
European Commission to pull the strings of foreign subsidies

Short Reads - The European Commission is adding powers to its toolbox to ensure a level playing field between European and foreign(-backed) companies active on the EU market. On top of merger control and Foreign Direct Investment screening obligations, companies may also need to account for future rules allowing scrutiny of subsidies granted by non-EU governments if those subsidies might distort the EU Single Market.

Read more

04.06.2020 NL law
Please share – ACM conditionally clears shared mobility platform merger

Short Reads - There may soon be a new competition tool available to tackle structural competition concerns in dynamic tech and platform markets. Until then, competition authorities resort to existing tools to deal with these markets. The Dutch competition authority (ACM) recently subjected the merger of two emerging platforms – without significant market footprint – to behavioural remedies. On 20 May 2020, the ACM cleared the merger between the travel apps of Dutch rail operator NS and transport company Pon.

Read more

02.07.2020 NL law
New competition tool: something old, something new, something borrowed

Short Reads - Large online platforms may face more regulatory obligations, whilst non-dominant companies’ unilateral conduct may soon be curbed. The European Commission intends to tool up its kit by adding a new regulation to keep digital gatekeepers in check, as well as providing more clarity on how to define digital markets in its new Market Definition Notice.

Read more

04.06.2020 NL law
No proof of competitive disadvantage? No abusive favouritism

Short Reads - Companies claiming abuse of dominance in civil proceedings have their work cut out for them, as demonstrated by a ruling of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal. Real estate association VBO had accused dominant online platform Funda of favouritism. However, in line with the District Court’s earlier ruling, the Appeal Court dismissed the claim for insufficient evidence of negative effects on competition. The ruling confirms that the effect-based approach also applies in civil abuse claims, and that the standard of proof is high.    

Read more