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

06.02.2020 NL law
Pay-for-delay: brightened lines between object and effect restrictions

Short Reads - In its first pay-for-delay case, the ECJ has clarified the criteria determining whether settlement agreements between a patent holder of a pharmaceutical product and a generic manufacturer may have as their object or effect to restrict EU competition law. The judgment confirms the General Court’s earlier rulings in Lundbeck and Servier (see our October 2016 and December 2018 newsletters) in which it was held that pay-for-delay agreements (in these cases) constituted a restriction ‘by object’.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Consumers and Sustainability: 2020 competition enforcement buzzwords

Short Reads - The ACM will include the effects of mergers on labour conditions in its review. It will also investigate excessive pricing of prescription drugs. As well as these topics, the ACM has designated the digital economy and energy transition as its 2020 focus areas. Companies can therefore expect increased enforcement to protect online consumers, and active probing of algorithms.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
The ACM may cast the net wide in cartel investigations

Short Reads - Companies beware: the ACM may not need to specify the scope of its investigation into suspected cartel infringements in as much detail as expected. On 14 January 2020, the Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal upheld the ACM’s appeal against judgments of the Rotterdam District Court, which had quashed cartel fines imposed on cold storage operators. The operators had argued that the ACM was time-barred from pursuing a case against them, because the ACM had not suspended the prescription period by beginning investigative actions specifically related to the alleged infringements.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Den Bosch Court of Appeal revives damages claims in Dutch prestressing steel litigation

Short Reads - On 28 January 2020, the Court of Appeal of Den Bosch issued a ruling in the Dutch prestressing steel litigation. In its ruling, the Court of Appeal overturned a 2016 judgment of the District Court of Limburg, in which it was held that civil damages claims brought by Deutsche Bahn were time-barred under German law (see our January 2017 newsletter).

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
CDC/Kemira: Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies European principle of effectiveness to limitation periods

Short Reads - In a private enforcement case brought by CDC against Kemira, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies the European principle of effectiveness and rules that claims are not time-barred under Spanish, Finnish and Swedish law. With reference to the Cogeco judgment of the ECJ, the Court considers that claimants must be able to await the outcome of any administrative appeal against an infringement decision, even in relation to respondents who themselves have not filed appeals against the infringement decision.

Read more

This website uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential for the technical functioning of our website and you cannot disable these cookies if you want to read our website. We also use functional cookies to ensure the website functions properly and analytical cookies to personalise content and to analyse our traffic. You can either accept or refuse these functional and analytical cookies.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring