Neodyum Miknatis
amateur porn
implant
olabahis
Casino Siteleri
Kayseri escort
canli poker siteleri kolaybet meritslot
escort antalya
istanbul escort
sirinevler escort
antalya eskort bayan
brazzers
Short Reads

Belgian Supreme Court confirms illegality of dawn raids due to the lack of a warrant

Belgian Supreme Court confirms illegality of dawn raids due to the la

Belgian Supreme Court confirms illegality of dawn raids due to the lack of a warrant

01.06.2018 NL law

On 26 April 2018, the Belgian Supreme Court held that dawn raids in the travel sector had been conducted illegally as protection offered by the Belgian Constitution is wider than Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). As a result, the information unlawfully obtained had to be removed from the case file.

In 2006, the Belgian Competition Authority (BCA) launched a series of dawn raids in the Belgian travel sector. Following the investigation, several travel agents and one association received a statement of objections. However, the Brussels Court of Appeal held on 18 February 2015 that the BCA was prohibited from using any information received during or as a result of the inspections of 2006 because it did not have a judicial warrant authorizing the dawn raids – even though it was not required under the previous Competition Act. In addition, the absence of legal means to contest the lawfulness of the inspections before an independent judge within a reasonable time was deemed to breach Article 6 ECHR. The only remedy available to the Court was to prohibit the BCA from using any information received during or as a result of the inspections.

The judgment, which will potentially affect other investigations as well, constituted a major setback for the newly transformed BCA, which challenged the judgment before the Belgian Court of Cassation. However, the recent judgment of the Supreme Court conclusively dismissed the various objections raised by the BCA. 

In particular, the Court recalled first that while under the ECHR a judicial warrant may not be required in all circumstances, the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the Belgian Constitution could offer a higher level of protection by requiring a warrant. Not surprisingly, the legislator did not wait for the outcome of the case to include the need to obtain a warrant from an independent judge in the new Competition Act of 2013.

Next, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that the consequences of breaches were irreversible and that the information unlawfully obtained had already been integrated in the statement of objections. In the end, the Court of Appeal was right to conclude that the only remedy to undo the negative implications of the breach was to remove the information unlawfully obtained from the case file. 

This judgment is likely to put an end to a saga that has been haunting both the BCA and the travel sector for many years. It also makes clear that documents that are illegally obtained during a dawn raid will have to be removed from the file and that companies must have the time to appeal against such investigation measures.

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

European Court of Justice rules EY did not violate stand-still obligation in Danish merger
European Commission must reassess Lufthansa's request to waive merger commitments
Dutch Appeal Court drastically reduces cartel fine Dutch construction company
District Court of Amsterdam declines jurisdiction in competition law damages case

Team

Related news

11.11.2020 EU law
Innovatie en staatssteun. Het CBb leidt de weg bij de belangrijke definities industrieel onderzoek en experimentele ontwikkeling

Short Reads - Het College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (“CBb”) heeft op 6 oktober 2020 in een subsidiegeschil nadere invulling gegeven aan het onderscheid tussen “industrieel onderzoek” en “experimentele ontwikkeling”. Dit onderscheid staat centraal in nationale subsidieregelingen en Europese staatssteunregels die overheidsinvesteringen in onderzoek, ontwikkeling en innovatie (“O&O&I”) mogelijk moeten maken.

Read more

05.11.2020 NL law
General Court confirms: no proof, no dawn raid

Short Reads - The Commission should think twice before conducting a dawn raid. The General Court partially annulled three Commission decisions ordering dawn raids at the premises of French supermarkets for a lack of sufficiently strong evidence with regard to one of the suspected anticompetitive practices. In addition, the General Court clarified that interviews held with suppliers prior to the issuing of a dawn raid decision can be used as evidence, even when these interviews have not been recorded.

Read more

05.11.2020 NL law
Belgian prohibition on abuse of economic dependence comes into force and new fining guidelines

Short Reads - In 2019, Belgium introduced legislation banning abuse in relationships between companies where there is no dominant position, but rather a position of economic dependence. The act entered into force on 22 August 2020. This category of restrictive practice applies alongside the existing prohibitions on cartels and abuse of a dominant position. It opens up new opportunities but also new threats for companies that are not in a dominant position.

Read more

05.11.2020 NL law
This article has FIVE stars! New Dutch consumer rules to curb fake reviews

Short Reads - Consumers often rely on online reviews to decide what bike to buy, where to eat or what article to read. But what if those reviews are fake? New Dutch rules were announced on 23 October 2020 seeking to ensure a higher level of consumer protection online. These rules mean more obligations for online traders, and potentially high fines if they get it wrong. For example, traders should implement procedures to ensure that published reviews originate from consumers who have genuinely used the product.

Read more

05.11.2020 NL law
Jurisdictional hide & seek: merger thresholds and buyer joint ventures

Short Reads - Companies beware: the turnover of a joint venture buying a target is not necessarily decisive for determining whether the EU merger thresholds are met. The General Court fully upheld the Commission’s 2017 decision prohibiting the joint acquisition of Cemex’s Hungarian and Croatian subsidiaries by cement companies HeidelbergCement and Schwen Zement through their full-function joint venture (JV).

Read more