Short Reads

Brush up and avoid dawn raid drama - the clock is ticking

Brush up and avoid dawn raid drama - the clock is ticking

Brush up and avoid dawn raid drama - the clock is ticking

06.12.2018 NL law

There is no time like the present for companies to give their staff an opportunity to brush up on their responsibilities so they know what to do during dawn raids. The number of dawn raids may increase once the EU's national competition authorities (NCAs) are empowered as a result of the newly adopted ECN+ Directive.

The number of fines for IT-related dawn raid obstruction may also rise, with the European Commission taking the lead. Even though the European Court of Human Rights recently confirmed that dawn raid procedures should be subject to comprehensive judicial review, there seems to be no immediate recourse available against the actual conduct of EU officials during dawn raids. All the more reason for companies to be fully prepared for what lies ahead.

Once the ECN+ Directive has been incorporated into national law, NCAs currently lacking the necessary tools to gather evidence can use their newly obtained powers to conduct dawn raids. This may also lead to more fines being imposed on companies for not cooperating, with NCAs possibly following the approach taken by the European Commission.

Companies failing to cooperate with a European Commission dawn raid may face fines of up to 1% of their total turnover. Given today's growing digital developments, it is likely there will be more fines for IT-related actions by companies. For instance, the Commission recently sent a statement of objections to Slovakian state-owned railway company ZSSK for obstructing a dawn raid. According to the press release, the Commission suspects ZSSK of (i) having provided incorrect information on the location of the laptop of one of its employees and (ii) failing to provide requested data, which was lost when the company reinstalled the laptop. Similarly, in 2014 the General Court upheld a fine of EUR 2.5 million imposed on a Czech energy company for obstructing a dawn raid by failing to block an email account and divert incoming emails [see our December 2014 Newsletter]. According to the General Court, the Commission had been right to assume that once it hands over the inspection decision and the explanatory note to a company's authorised persons, it is up to the company to take all necessary measures to ensure that the Commission's instructions are implemented. Companies should therefore make sure they have clear dawn raid instructions, preparing not only their key personnel but also their IT staff, on their responsibilities during a Commission dawn raid. They should also double-check whether their instructions follow the Commission's explanatory note.

This is particularly advisable given that immediate legal recourse to tackle EU officials' conduct during dawn raids is limited. The validity of the Commission's decision ordering the inspection can be reviewed by the EU courts. However, as recently confirmed by the General Court, allegedly unlawful conduct Commission officials during a dawn raid is usually not challengeable on a standalone basis. Companies can either have this conduct reviewed with the Commission's final infringement decision or refuse to cooperate, thus provoking a decision by the Commission to impose a fine for non-cooperation, which can be challenged before the EU courts. In such cases, as confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights last month in the context of a Slovenian competition authority's fine for dawn raid obstruction, companies should be entitled to have all evidence relating the factual aspects of that decision fully reviewed. Even so, before being confronted with these kind of options, companies should make sure their staff brush up on their responsibilities so they know what to do during a dawn raid before it's too late.

 

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of December 2018. Other articles in this newsletter:

Team

Related news

11.09.2019 EU law
Legal trend: climate change litigation

Articles - Climate change cases can occur in many shapes and forms. One well-known example is the Urgenda case in which the The Hague Court condemned the Dutch government in 2015 for not taking adequate measures to combat the consequences of climate change. Three years later, the Court of Justice of The Hague  upheld this decision, and it is now pending before the Dutch Supreme Court. This case is expected to set a precedent for Belgium, i.a. Since both the Belgian climate case and the Urgenda case are in their final stages of proceedings, this blog provides you with an update on climate change litigation.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
No fine means no reason to appeal? Think again!

Short Reads - Whistleblowers who have had their fine reduced to zero may still have an interest in challenging an antitrust decision. The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) held two de facto managers personally liable for a cartel infringement but, instead of imposing a EUR 170,000 fine, granted one of them immunity from fines in return for blowing the whistle. The Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal found that, despite this fortuitous outcome, the whistleblower still had an interest in appealing the ACM's decision.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
ECJ answers preliminary questions on jurisdiction in cartel damage case 

Short Reads - On 29 July 2019, the ECJ handed down a preliminary ruling concerning jurisdiction in follow-on damages proceedings in what is termed the trucks cartel. The court clarified that Article 7(2) Brussels I Regulation should be interpreted in such a way as to allow an indirect purchaser to sue an alleged infringer of Article 101 TFEU before the courts of the place where the market prices were distorted and where the indirect purchaser claims to have suffered damage. In practice, this often means that indirect purchasers will be able to sue for damages in their home jurisdictions.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
Wanted: fast solutions for fast-growing platforms

Short Reads - Dominant digital companies be warned: calls for additional tools to deal with powerful platforms in online markets are increasing. Even though the need for speed is a given in these fast-moving markets, the question of which tool is best-suited for the job remains. Different countries are focusing on different areas; the Dutch ACM wants to pre-emptively strike down potential anti-competitive conduct with ex ante measures, while the UK CMA aims for greater regulation of digital markets and a quick fix through interim orders.

Read more

14.08.2019 BE law
Verklaring van openbaar nut is geen "project" in de zin van de MER-regelgeving

Articles - In een recent arrest bevestigt de Raad van State dat "verklaringen van openbaar nut", bedoeld in artikel 10 van de wet van 12 april 1965 betreffende het vervoer van gasachtige produkten en andere door middel van leidingen niet onder het begrip "project" uit de project-MER-regelgeving valt. Of hetzelfde geldt voor elk type gelijkaardige administratieve toelating, is daarmee evenwel nog niet gezegd. Niettemin geeft de Raad met zijn arrest een belangrijk signaal dat niet elke mogelijke toelating onder de project-MER-regelgeving valt.

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