Short Reads

Home, but not alone: Commission may complete dawn raids from home

Home, but not alone: Commission may complete dawn raids from home

Home, but not alone: Commission may complete dawn raids from home

03.09.2020 NL law

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has rejected Nexans’ appeal in the power cables cartel case. The Commission started the dawn raid at Nexans’ premises, but due to lack of time finished the raid at the Commission’s premises in Brussels. The ECJ found that the Commission can copy data and assess its relevance to the investigation at its own premises, while safeguarding companies’ rights of defence.

Therefore, in dawn raids where large volumes of data require processing, companies should be aware that the Commission could choose to take copies back to Brussels to continue its inspection there. The company’s counsel will need to be present during the assessment to ensure the Commission observes the rights of defence. In practice, this method may lead to longer and more exhaustive dawn raids. Additional costs resulting solely from the ‘move to Brussels’ should be reimbursed by the Commission based on a reasoned request from the company under investigation.

The dawn raid

As part of the power cables cartel investigation, the Commission conducted a dawn raid at Nexans’ premises. On the fourth and final day, the Commission made copies of an employee’s hard drive and took that data to its premises to assess its relevance to the investigation. The assessment that followed lasted for eight working days and took place in the presence of Nexans’ counsel. Nexans appealed the fining decision on a number of grounds, including that the Commission did not have the right to continue the investigation at its premises. The General Court rejected Nexans’ arguments, and consequently Nexans appealed to the ECJ.

The ECJ’s ruling

On appeal, the ECJ found that the Commission had the right to continue its dawn raid from its premises in Brussels. The ECJ considered that although not explicitly stated in law, such a right can be inferred from the Commission’s other powers of investigation. Conducting part of the inspection at the Commission premises does not infringe the company’s rights any further than continuing the dawn raid at the company’s premises.

However, the Commission’s choice to continue dawn raids at its premises is subject to limitations. The shift in premises must be justified, either by increased effectiveness of the inspection or by prevention of excessive interference in the operations of the investigated company. The Commission must agree to cover additional costs solely attributable to the shift incurred by the investigated company.

Practical implications

This alternative way of conducting dawn raids – partly at the company’s premises, partly at the Commission’s – will be relevant for cases where large volumes of data must be assessed. The prerequisite allocation of costs to the Commission should protect the investigated companies from cost increases based on the shift. However, in practice, dawn raids could become longer, giving more time to the Commission to assess the relevance of potentially incriminating documents. Additionally, counsel will need to keep a careful eye to ensure that the Commission properly observes the companies’ rights of defence in the Brussels setting.

 

This article was published in the Competition Newsletter of September 2020. Other articles in this newsletter:

Team

Related news

24.09.2020 BE law
Stibbe hosts a webinar on dawn raids organised by IBJ/IJE

Seminar - On 24 September 2020, several Stibbe lawyers ​​​​​explain the rights and obligations of companies when confronted with announced or unannounced raids. What do to when, for example, tax authorities, the competition authorities, police services or a bailiff are at your doorstep?

Read more

03.09.2020 NL law
COVID-19 impacts level and payment of antitrust fines

Short Reads - As well as granting companies leeway on certain COVID-19 initiated collaborations (see our May 2020 newsletter), the coronavirus outbreak has also led competition authorities to take a more lenient stance towards fine calculations and payments. The European Commission has extended the due date for fine payments by an additional three months in response to potential short-term liquidity issues brought about by the pandemic. Similar reasons led the Dutch Trade and Industry Appeal Tribunal to reduce a EUR 1 million cartel fine to just EUR 10,000.

Read more

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

03.09.2020 NL law
The ACM’s Green Deal: achieving sustainability via competition law?

Short Reads - The ACM has issued draft guidelines on the application of competition law to sustainability agreements. Companies entering into agreements that restrict competition but contribute to governmental sustainability objectives – i.e. lower CO2 emissions – may expect more room for collaboration. The proposed framework would allow these types of agreements if their anti-competitive effects are outweighed by their environmental benefits to society as a whole (rather than to in-market consumers only, as under the existing framework).

Read more