Short Reads

No full judicial review of each document seized during dawn raid

No full judicial review of each document seized during dawn raid

No full judicial review of each document seized during dawn raid

06.02.2020 NL law

Companies should keep a careful record of which documents the Belgian Competition Authorities seize during a dawn raid. In the event of a dispute on whether certain documents were rightfully seized, the Belgian courts are not required to undertake a full review of each document.

According to a decision of the Belgian Supreme Court of 12 September 2019, the Court of Appeal’s judicial review of documents copied by the Belgian Competition authorities can be limited to ensuring compliance with the procedural rules, confirming sufficient motivation, and affirming that there is no prima facie incorrect appreciation of the documents.

During a dawn raid by the Belgian Competition Authorities, conducted under the previous Belgian Competition Act, the authorities entered the premises of a company with a mandate from the Competition Authorities but without a mandate from an independent judge. By decision of 12 September 2019, the Belgian Supreme Court has confirmed that under the old law (and under the European Convention on Human Rights) a dawn raid was possible without a prior mandate issued by an independent judge. It was sufficient that a legal review by such judge, to take place immediately following the raid, was possible. This has now changed; the new Belgian Competition Act explicitly provides that the Competition Authority can only proceed with a dawn raid on the basis of a mandate of an independent judge.

More interestingly, the Supreme Court shed light on the kind of review the Court of Appeal should undertake in respect of documents copied by the competition authority during the dawn raid in the event that the investigated party objects to the copying of particular documents. While the Supreme Court recognised that the Competition Act in Belgium grants full jurisdiction to the Court of Appeal, it nevertheless held that in light of its specific position in the enforcement of competition law, the role of the Court of Appeal is not similar to that of the Competition Authorities. As a result, the Court of Appeal is not obliged to undertake a full review of each seized document but can limit its review to examining whether the procedural rules have been abided by, whether the motivation of the Competition Authorities is sufficient, whether the facts have been correctly set and whether there is no manifest incorrect appraisal or an abuse of competence.

When confronted with dawn raids, companies should double-check that the Belgian Competition Authorities have a mandate from an independent judge, as is now required. In addition, it is advisable to keep track of the documents seized by the Belgian Competition Authorities, as well as the reasons for seizing them, so as to be well prepared in the event of a dispute.

 

This article was published in the Competition Newsletter of February 2020. Other articles in this newsletter:

 

 

Team

Related news

07.02.2020 BE law
Het finale Belgische ‘nationaal energie- en klimaatplan’ en de Belgische langetermijnstrategie: het geduld van de Commissie op de proef gesteld?

Articles - Op 31 december 2019 diende België, nog net op tijd, zijn definitieve nationaal energie- en klimaatplan (NEKP) in bij de Commissie. Het staat nu al vast dat het Belgische NEKP niet op applaus zal worden onthaald door de Commissie. Verder laat ook de Belgische langetermijnstrategie op zich wachten. Wat zijn de gevolgen?

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

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

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