Short Reads

District Court of The Hague rules on ACM's powers to select and inspect digital data

District Court of The Hague rules on ACM's powers to select and inspec

District Court of The Hague rules on ACM's powers to select and inspect digital data

01.08.2017 NL law

On 18 July 2017, in the context of preliminary relief proceedings, the District Court of The Hague ruled that the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) did not exceed its powers in the selection of digital data following a recent dawn raid at company whose identity was undisclosed (applicant). The judge stated that the applicant did not sufficiently substantiate its claim that certain digital documents selected by the ACM were outside the scope of the investigation. The judgment sheds new light on the application of the ACM 2014 Procedure for the inspection of digital data.

The dawn raid was part of an investigation by the ACM into the applicant for an alleged abuse of dominance. Using its investigatory powers as defined in the Dutch General Administrative Law Act, the ACM copied large amounts of digital data that were potentially relevant to the investigation. After applying search terms to these copies the ACM created a 'within-scope dataset'. The applicant claimed this dataset included data that was outside the scope of the investigation, in part as a result of the broad search terms the ACM applied. While the ACM granted the applicant's claim for many documents, it refused to exclude some of the disputed documents from its final investigation dataset. The applicant then turned to the District Court of The Hague to obtain preliminary relief.

The District Court dismissed the applicant's request to remove the documents in question from the file. First, the Court argued that the applicant could have raised its objections to the search terms used by the ACM earlier in the process but had not done so. Secondly, although the Court acknowledged the applicant's right to an effective ex-post judicial review of ACM's methods and conduct, as formulated in the European Court of Human Rights' case law, the Court held that the applicant failed to substantiate its claim for each specific document. In order to have the documents excluded, it should have done more than refer to mere categories of documents that it argued should have been excluded from the dataset.

Notwithstanding the dismissal of the claims, the District Court agreed with the applicant on certain issues. According to the Court, the ACM cannot argue that certain documents fall within the scope of the investigation merely because they were selected through the use of search terms. Instead, the deciding factor should be a sufficient connection between documents and the scope of the investigation as defined by the ACM. Moreover, the Court emphasized that companies have a right to object to the inclusion of certain documents, even after the investigation dataset has been compiled.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of August 2017. Other articles in this newsletter:

1. Court of Justice dismisses Toshiba's appeal against the gas-insulated switchgear fine
2. Recent enforcement action demonstrates an increasing focus on compliance with procedural EU merger rules
3. Trade and Industry Appeals annuls fine imposed on real estate traders
4. District Court of Rotterdam upheld ACM's decision to clear lottery merger
5. ACM closes probe into Fox over live-soccer TV rights due to lack of evidence of consumer harm

Related news

07.11.2019 NL law
Safeguarding legal privilege: better safe than sorry?

Short Reads - The European Court of Justice recently ruled that the European Commission does not have to take additional precautionary measures to respect the right of legal professional privilege when conducting a new dawn raid at the same company. Companies are well-advised to mark clearly all communications covered by legal privilege as 'privileged and confidential' and to keep all privileged communication separate from other communication.

Read more

12.11.2019 EU law
Third country bids in EU procurement: always excluded?

Articles - The European Commission recently issued guidance on the participation of third country bidders in public procurement. It clarified bids may be excluded, but remains silent on whether they may be accepted and under which conditions. The Commission is of the opinion that contracting authorities or entities can exclude bids if no access is secured. However, it does not discuss if and under which conditions contracting authorities or entities can allow foreign bids if no access is secured.

Read more

07.11.2019 NL law
Tackling Big Tech up-front? Time to stop thinking and start acting

Short Reads - Benelux competition authorities have published a joint memorandum on how best to keep up with challenges in fast-moving digital markets. As well as calling on the European Commission to issue an economic study on digital mergers, the memorandum calls for an ex ante intervention tool to fill the gap between interim measures and ex post enforcement. This tool would pre-emptively impose behavioural remedies on digital gatekeepers without first having to establish an actual competition law infringement.

Read more

08.11.2019 BE law
Interview with Wouter Ghijsels on Next Gen lawyers

Articles - Stibbe’s managing partner Wouter Ghijsels shares his insights on the next generation of lawyers and the future of the legal profession at the occasion of the Leaders Meeting Paris where Belgian business leaders, politicians and inspiring people from the cultural and academic world will discuss this year's central theme "The Next Gen".

Read more

07.11.2019 NL law
Rotterdam District Court rules that claims in elevator cartel damages proceedings need further substantiation

Short Reads - The Rotterdam District Court has ordered claimant SECC (a litigation vehicle) to substantiate its claims in proceedings against Kone and ThyssenKrupp regarding the elevator cartel. The Court also ruled that some claims have become time-barred, unless SECC can show that these were timely assigned to SECC and notified to Kone and ThyssenKrupp. The Court rejected several defences of Kone and Thyssenkrupp, including a jurisdictional challenge based on arbitration clauses between the defendants and assignors of claims to SECC.

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring