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

03.08.2022 EU law
Gotta catch ‘em all? Upward referral of ‘killer acquisitions’ upheld

Short Reads - Companies involved in intended or completed M&A transactions falling below EU and national merger notification thresholds should beware that their deals may still catch the European Commission’s eye. The General Court has upheld the Commission’s decision to accept a national referral request regarding Illumina’s acquisition of Grail: a transaction not triggering any of the notification thresholds within the EEA.

Read more

28.07.2022 NL law
Purely commercial interest also a legitimate interest? Council of State leaves the question unanswered.

Short Reads - On 27 July 2022, the Council of State confirmed that the Dutch Data Protection Authority wrongly imposed a €575,000 fine on VoetbalTV. But the Council did not answer the question whether the AP rightly or wrongly believes that a purely commercial interest cannot be a legitimate interest within the meaning of the General Data Protection Regulation.

Read more

06.07.2022 NL law
Highest Dutch court: the postman may still ring twice?

Short Reads - The Dutch Minister of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy was wrong to unblock the ACM’s prohibited merger between postal operators PostNL and Sandd on grounds of public interest. According to the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb), the Minister cannot substitute the ACM’s assessment for its own when considering public interest reasons. Since the Minister did do so in this particular case, the CBb annulled the Minister’s merger clearance.

Read more

28.07.2022 NL law
Zuiver commercieel belang ook gerechtvaardigd belang: Raad van State laat zich er niet over uit

Short Reads - Op 27 juli 2022 heeft de Raad van State bevestigd dat de Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens onterecht een boete van € 575.000 aan VoetbalTV heeft opgelegd. De hoop bestond dat de Afdeling antwoord zou geven op de vraag of de AP terecht of onterecht meent dat een zuiver commercieel belang géén gerechtvaardigd belang kan zijn in de zin van de Algemene Verordening Gegevensbescherming. Het antwoord op deze vraag blijft echter uit.  

Read more

06.07.2022 NL law
Foreign Subsidies Regulation crosses the finish line

Short Reads - On 30 June 2022, the European Parliament and the European Council reached agreement on the final text of the Foreign Subsidies Regulation. Adding to the regulatory burdens, this Regulation creates a notification obligation for companies that receive subsidies from non-EU governments in transactions or public procurement procedures. 

Read more