Short Reads

Qualifying dawn raid documents as 'in scope' or 'out of scope': marginal review by Belgian Court

Qualifying dawn raid documents as 'in scope' or 'out of scope': margi

Qualifying dawn raid documents as 'in scope' or 'out of scope': marginal review by Belgian Court

01.02.2018 NL law

On 13 December 2017, the Brussels Court of Appeal rendered a judgment clarifying the qualification 'in scope' and 'out of scope' of documents seized by the Belgian Competition Authority (BCA) during dawn raids at the applicants' (Distripaints NV and Novelta NV) premises. The dawn raids were launched after a complaint by SA Durieu Coatings, which accused both distributors of colluding with its competitor Akzo Nobel.

In an interim judgment of 26 November 2014, the Court imposed a 'verification trajectory' on the applicants and the BCA in respect of documents which 'in scope' character was deemed by the applicants to have been insufficiently motivated by the BCA. In a nutshell, the BCA was requested to provide an additional written statement to justify the seizure of the documents, after which Distripaints would be allowed to respond. In the absence of an agreement between the parties, the Court would decide on whether the documents were 'in scope' or not.

The applicants and the BCA could not agree on whether a number of paper and electronic documents fell within the scope of the investigation or not. Therefore, the Court was asked by the applicants to rule on this point. As revealed in the judgment of December 2017, the applicants went home empty-handed.

At the outset, the Court found that the 'internal' nature of a document was irrelevant in determining its 'in scope' or 'out of scope' character. Nor was it necessary for seized documents to contain an explicit reference to 'Akzo Nobel', or to specific brands. Documents containing information on affected markets or market shares of Durieu's competitors could, at least potentially, be 'in scope'. The Court also dismissed the suggestion that documents post-dating Durieu's complaint were necessarily 'out of scope'.

Importantly, the Court held that it could only conduct a 'marginal' review to ascertain whether the applicants were protected against arbitrary and disproportionate conduct and to guarantee their right of defence. The Court observed that the BCA had supplemented its initial decision with further arguments as to the 'in scope' character, for example, identifying specific passages explaining why a document contained relevant information on commercial strategies or on the affected markets. Since these arguments were not prima facie unacceptable, unreasonable or illegal, the Court concluded that the BCA had duly substantiated that the documents qualified as 'in scope' and dismissed the applicants' claim. The documents thus remain in the file.

In a similar case in the Netherlands, the District Court of The Hague ruled on the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Market's powers to select and inspect digital data following a dawn raid. The Court found that companies may under some circumstances successfully argue that certain documents are 'out of scope' [see our August 2017 Newsletter].

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

  1. Dissemination of misleading information on the safety of a medical product can be a "by object" infringement
  2. Highest German Court rules that ASICS's ban on using price comparison websites violates EU competition law

Team

Related news

01.08.2019 NL law
General court dismisses all five appeals in the optical disk drives cartel

Short Reads - The General Court recently upheld a Commission decision finding that suppliers of optical disk drives colluded in bids for sales to Dell and HP by engaging in a network of parallel bilateral contacts over a multi-year period. The General Court rejected applicants' arguments regarding the Commission's fining methodology, including that the Commission ought to have provided reasons for not departing from the general methodology set out in its 2006 Guidelines.

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

01.08.2019 NL law
Brand owners beware: Commission tough on cross-border sales restrictions

Short Reads - The European Commission recently imposed a EUR 6.2 million fine on Hello Kitty owner Sanrio for preventing its licensees from selling licensed merchandising products across the entire EEA. Sanrio is the second licensor (after Nike) to be fined for imposing territorial sales restrictions on its non-exclusive licensees for licensed merchandise. A third investigation into allegedly similar practices by Universal Studios is ongoing. The case confirms the Commission's determination to tackle these practices, regardless of type or form.

Read more

08.08.2019 BE law
Regulating online platforms: piece of the puzzle

Articles - The new Regulation no. 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services, applicable as of 12 July 2020, is another piece of the puzzle regulating online platforms, this time focussing on the supply side of the platforms.

Read more

01.08.2019 NL law
Call of duty: Commission must state reasons when straying from its guidelines

Short Reads - The European Commission has lost a second battle concerning its EUR 15 million fine imposed upon interdealer broker ICAP, this time before the European Court of Justice. The Court upheld the previous judgment of the General Court on the basis of the Commission's failure to state reasons concerning its fining methodology of cartel facilitator ICAP. This may lead to more reasoned Commission decisions in the future - deterrence of cartel behaviour does not justify keeping the methodology for setting the fines as a 'black box'.

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