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

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

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

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
Not so fast – General Court clarifies merger control test

Short Reads - There is no magical number when it comes to “4-to-3” telecom mergers. On 28 May 2020, the EU’s General Court (“Court”) handed down a landmark judgment annulling a 2016 decision of the European Commission (“Commission”) blocking the merger between O2 UK and Three. The judgment fine-tunes the Commission’s application of the “significant impediment to effective competition” test for horizontal mergers and raises the bar for proving the removal of an “important competitive force” as a result of the merger.  

Read more