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

20.09.2022 EU law
Launch of Metaverse blog series

Articles - Stibbe launches a new blog series focusing on the legal challenges of the Metaverse. In our upcoming blog posts, we will discuss the legal challenges of NFTs, crypto-assets, Metaverse platforms, crypto exchanges, DAO, and many more.

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

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

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
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