umraniye escort pendik escort
maderba.com
implant
olabahis
canli poker siteleri meritslot oleybet giris adresi betgaranti
escort antalya
istanbul escort
sirinevler escort
antalya eskort bayan
brazzers
sikis
bodrum escort
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

01.04.2021 NL law
Slovak Telekom: ECJ on essentials of the ‘essential facilities’ doctrine

Short Reads - Only dominant companies with a “genuinely tight grip” on the market can be forced to grant rivals access to their infrastructure. According to the ECJ’s rulings in Slovak Telekom and Deutsche Telekom, it is only in this scenario that the question of indispensability of the access for rivals comes into play. In the assessment of practices other than access refusal, indispensability may be indicative of a potential abuse of a dominant position, but is not a required condition.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Collective action stopped due to lack of benefit for class members

Short Reads - On 9 December 2020, the Amsterdam District Court (the “Court”) declared a foundation inadmissible in a collective action regarding alleged manipulation of LIBOR, EURIBOR and other interest rate benchmarks. The foundation sought declaratory judgments that Rabobank, UBS, Lloyds Bank and ICAP (the “defendants”) had engaged in wrongful conduct and unjust enrichment vis-à-vis the class members.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Pay-for-delay saga ends with nothing new; but pharma quest continues

Short Reads - On 25 March 2021, the ECJ ended the Lundbeck pay-for-delay saga by dismissing the appeals from Lundbeck and five generic manufacturers against a European Commission ‘pay-for-delay’ decision. Following its recent Paroxetine judgment, the ECJ found that Lundbeck’s process patents did not preclude generic companies being viewed as potential competitors, particularly since the patents did not represent an insurmountable barrier to entry. In addition, the patent settlement agreements constituted infringements "by object".

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
ECJ in Pometon: beware of too much info in staggered hybrid proceedings

Short Reads - In hybrid cartel proceedings (in which one party opts out of settlement), settlement decisions should not pre-judge the outcome of the Commission's investigation into non-settling parties. When the Commission publishes the settlement decision before the decision imposing a fine on the non-settling party, it must be careful in its drafting, the European Court of Justice confirmed. Furthermore, differences in the fining methodology applied to (similarly placed) settling and non-settling parties will have to be objectively justified and sufficiently reasoned.

Read more

04.03.2021 NL law
Net(work) closing in on cross-border cartels?

Short Reads - A heads-up for companies with cross-border activities. The ECN+ Directive’s transposition deadline has expired and its provisions should by now have found their way into the national laws of the EU Member States. In the Netherlands, amendments to the Dutch Competition Act giving effect to the ECN+ Directive came into force recently, together with a new governmental decree on leniency.

Read more