Short Reads

Brussels Court of Appeal declares travel sector dawn raids from 2006 illegal

Brussels Court of Appeal declares travel sector dawn raids from 2006 illegal

Brussels Court of Appeal declares travel sector dawn raids from 2006 illegal

26.02.2015 EU law

On February 18, 2015 the Brussels Court of Appeal rendered a groundbreaking judgment regarding the legality of dawn raids organized under the Belgian Competition Act of 1999. The Court of Appeal held that the dawn raids are illegal because they were not performed on the basis of a judicial warrant of a “juge d’instruction”) and because the law did not provide for any appropriate appeal possibility. As a result, all documents obtained through and as a result of the dawn raids in the case concerned may no longer be used by the authorities.

The background of the case concerns a series of dawn raids that took place in 2006 in the travel sector in Belgium. The dawn raids were based on an instruction from the Competition Prosecutor (leader of the investigating team within the competition authorities) that was provided for in the law at the time. Following the investigations, several years later, the Competition Prosecutor submitted his report to the Belgian Competition Council for its decision.

Following the entry into force of a new Competition Act in 2013 which allows for an appeal possibility against the use of documents obtained from dawn raids, the companies petitioned the Court of Appeal to strike down the use of these documents on the basis of the illegality of the dawn raids. The Court of Appeal sides with the undertakings on the basis of two reasons. First of all, the Court of Appeal considers that the instruction issued by the Competition Prosecutor is not a sufficient means of protection under Belgian constitutional law. Instead, a judicial warrant from an independent “juge d’instruction” was needed.

Secondly, the Court of Appeal considers that there was also no other appropriate appeal possibility available to the parties at that time to allow an independent judge to check and analyze the dawn raids.

The Brussels Court of Appeal indicates that the point that the protection given by the European Convention of Human Rights is possibly less far reaching is irrelevant because the Belgian Constitution offers a more far reaching protection.
The Court then continues by saying that as a result of the illegality of the dawn raids, all documents obtained during the dawn raids and as a consequence of the dawn raids must be taken out of the file and returned to the parties who were raided. The competition authorities can still appeal the judgment, but such appeal (before the Belgian supreme Court –‘Court of Cassation’) is limited to only the points of law. This judgment could therefore have very far reaching consequences for several other cases in which dawn raids took place. Stibbe represented one of the applicants in the appeal.

Related news

03.08.2022 EU law
Gotta catch ‘em all? Upward referral of ‘killer acquisitions’ upheld

Short Reads - Companies involved in intended or completed M&A transactions falling below EU and national merger notification thresholds should beware that their deals may still catch the European Commission’s eye. The General Court has upheld the Commission’s decision to accept a national referral request regarding Illumina’s acquisition of Grail: a transaction not triggering any of the notification thresholds within the EEA.

Read more

06.07.2022 NL law
Highest Dutch court: the postman may still ring twice?

Short Reads - The Dutch Minister of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy was wrong to unblock the ACM’s prohibited merger between postal operators PostNL and Sandd on grounds of public interest. According to the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb), the Minister cannot substitute the ACM’s assessment for its own when considering public interest reasons. Since the Minister did do so in this particular case, the CBb annulled the Minister’s merger clearance.

Read more

28.07.2022 NL law
Purely commercial interest also a legitimate interest? Council of State leaves the question unanswered.

Short Reads - On 27 July 2022, the Council of State confirmed that the Dutch Data Protection Authority wrongly imposed a €575,000 fine on VoetbalTV. But the Council did not answer the question whether the AP rightly or wrongly believes that a purely commercial interest cannot be a legitimate interest within the meaning of the General Data Protection Regulation.

Read more

06.07.2022 NL law
Foreign Subsidies Regulation crosses the finish line

Short Reads - On 30 June 2022, the European Parliament and the European Council reached agreement on the final text of the Foreign Subsidies Regulation. Adding to the regulatory burdens, this Regulation creates a notification obligation for companies that receive subsidies from non-EU governments in transactions or public procurement procedures. 

Read more

28.07.2022 NL law
Zuiver commercieel belang ook gerechtvaardigd belang: Raad van State laat zich er niet over uit

Short Reads - Op 27 juli 2022 heeft de Raad van State bevestigd dat de Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens onterecht een boete van € 575.000 aan VoetbalTV heeft opgelegd. De hoop bestond dat de Afdeling antwoord zou geven op de vraag of de AP terecht of onterecht meent dat een zuiver commercieel belang géén gerechtvaardigd belang kan zijn in de zin van de Algemene Verordening Gegevensbescherming. Het antwoord op deze vraag blijft echter uit.  

Read more

06.07.2022 NL law
Take note(s): Qualcomm’s EUR 1 billion dominance abuse fine quashed

Short Reads - The General Court annulled the Commission’s EUR 1 billion fine imposed on Qualcomm for abuse of dominance on the LTE chipsets market. In addition to finding fault with the Commission’s foreclosure analysis of Qualcomm’s alleged exclusivity payments, the General Court found that the Commission’s procedural irregularities alone would have sufficed to set the Commission’s decision aside.

Read more