umraniye escort pendik escort
maderba.com
implant
olabahis
canli poker siteleri meritslot oleybet giris adresi betgaranti
escort antalya
istanbul escort
sirinevler escort
antalya eskort bayan
brazzers
sikis
bodrum escort
Short Reads

Don't take the ACM's digital inspection guidelines too literally

Don't take the ACM's digital inspection guidelines too literally

Don't take the ACM's digital inspection guidelines too literally

04.04.2019 NL law

The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets' (ACM) digital inspection guidelines should be on every company's reading list. However, they should not be taken too literally; at least according to the recent ruling from the Court of Appeal in The Hague.

Even though the ACM, contrary to its own inspection guidelines, had not handed over the names of all the employees targeted for inspection, it should have been clear to the raided company that the ACM also wanted to collect and secure data from five former CEOs and CCOs. As a result, the ACM could use the data from these individuals, even though they were not explicitly mentioned, without it going against its own inspection guidelines.

The ACM's inspection guidelines provide that ACM officials should hand over the names of individuals targeted for inspection to the company subject to the dawn raid (Article 2.1(4)). Even though the ACM neglected to do this in respect of five former CEOs and CCOs, it nonetheless proceeded to collect data from these employees. The ACM claimed that it had selected the five former employees prior to the dawn raid, and that it had taken back-up tapes from the premises because the email boxes of these five individuals were no longer digitally available. Before taking these tapes, the ACM had verified with the company that the tapes did actually contain the email boxes of the five individuals.

The Court of Appeal found that the company had not sufficiently substantiated that the ACM had either taken the back-up tapes for other reasons, or simply taken them without any further explanation. It should therefore have been clear to the company that the five former CEOs and CCOs were part of the ACM's inspection. Different to the District Court's earlier ruling [see our November 2018 Newsletter], the Court of Appeal therefore ruled that the ACM had not violated its own inspection guidelines. Article 2.1(4) of the inspection guidelines aims to enable companies subject to dawn raids to determine the scope of their duty to cooperate and rights of defence. This determination is possible if it is clear to the company which individuals are targeted for data collection, even if these individuals were not explicitly mentioned before collecting their data.

Companies are therefore advised not only to read the ACM's inspection guidelines carefully, but also remain vigilant of other ways in which the ACM clarifies its inspection goals and factor these developments into their dawn raid response strategy.

 

 

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of April 2019. Other articles in this newsletter:

Team

Related news

01.04.2021 NL law
Slovak Telekom: ECJ on essentials of the ‘essential facilities’ doctrine

Short Reads - Only dominant companies with a “genuinely tight grip” on the market can be forced to grant rivals access to their infrastructure. According to the ECJ’s rulings in Slovak Telekom and Deutsche Telekom, it is only in this scenario that the question of indispensability of the access for rivals comes into play. In the assessment of practices other than access refusal, indispensability may be indicative of a potential abuse of a dominant position, but is not a required condition.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Collective action stopped due to lack of benefit for class members

Short Reads - On 9 December 2020, the Amsterdam District Court (the “Court”) declared a foundation inadmissible in a collective action regarding alleged manipulation of LIBOR, EURIBOR and other interest rate benchmarks. The foundation sought declaratory judgments that Rabobank, UBS, Lloyds Bank and ICAP (the “defendants”) had engaged in wrongful conduct and unjust enrichment vis-à-vis the class members.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Pay-for-delay saga ends with nothing new; but pharma quest continues

Short Reads - On 25 March 2021, the ECJ ended the Lundbeck pay-for-delay saga by dismissing the appeals from Lundbeck and five generic manufacturers against a European Commission ‘pay-for-delay’ decision. Following its recent Paroxetine judgment, the ECJ found that Lundbeck’s process patents did not preclude generic companies being viewed as potential competitors, particularly since the patents did not represent an insurmountable barrier to entry. In addition, the patent settlement agreements constituted infringements "by object".

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
ECJ in Pometon: beware of too much info in staggered hybrid proceedings

Short Reads - In hybrid cartel proceedings (in which one party opts out of settlement), settlement decisions should not pre-judge the outcome of the Commission's investigation into non-settling parties. When the Commission publishes the settlement decision before the decision imposing a fine on the non-settling party, it must be careful in its drafting, the European Court of Justice confirmed. Furthermore, differences in the fining methodology applied to (similarly placed) settling and non-settling parties will have to be objectively justified and sufficiently reasoned.

Read more