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

04.01.2019 NL law
Partial fine reduction for Deutsche Telekom and Slovak Telekom for abuse of dominance

Short Reads - The General Court recently clarified that to establish a margin squeeze in the case of positive margins, the Commission needs to prove the exclusionary effects of the dominant company's pricing practices. It also indicated that in cases of refusal to grant access, it is not always necessary to establish the indispensability of the access.

Read more

04.01.2019 NL law
Walking the tightrope between data protection and EU investigations

Short Reads - Two recent publications confirm that it is possible for companies to cooperate with a European Commission investigation and still comply with the data protection rules. It is also possible for the Commission to deviate from certain data protection obligations in the interest of a competition law investigation. The tightrope between data protection and Commission investigations may not be as rigid as initially feared.

Read more

04.01.2019 NL law
General Court dismisses Canal+ appeal against pay-TV commitment decision

Short Reads - The General Court recently dismissed the appeal brought by Canal+ against the decision of the European Commission making the commitments of Paramount legally binding. In 2015, the Commission sent a Statement of Objections alleging that certain geo-blocking clauses in licensing agreements between film studios and pay-TV broadcasters had the object of restricting cross-border competition.

Read more

04.01.2019 NL law
Guess what, online branding restrictions are on the Commission's radar

Short Reads - Companies are probably aware of the Commission's eagerness to clamp down on online resale price maintenance and geo-blocking restrictions. The recent fine for vertical restraints by clothing company Guess marks a new dot on the Commission's radar. Restrictions on retailers using a supplier's brand names for online search advertising purposes are just as much a no-go.

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring