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

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