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

02.07.2020 NL law
European Commission to pull the strings of foreign subsidies

Short Reads - The European Commission is adding powers to its toolbox to ensure a level playing field between European and foreign(-backed) companies active on the EU market. On top of merger control and Foreign Direct Investment screening obligations, companies may also need to account for future rules allowing scrutiny of subsidies granted by non-EU governments if those subsidies might distort the EU Single Market.

Read more

04.06.2020 NL law
Please share – ACM conditionally clears shared mobility platform merger

Short Reads - There may soon be a new competition tool available to tackle structural competition concerns in dynamic tech and platform markets. Until then, competition authorities resort to existing tools to deal with these markets. The Dutch competition authority (ACM) recently subjected the merger of two emerging platforms – without significant market footprint – to behavioural remedies. On 20 May 2020, the ACM cleared the merger between the travel apps of Dutch rail operator NS and transport company Pon.

Read more

02.07.2020 NL law
New competition tool: something old, something new, something borrowed

Short Reads - Large online platforms may face more regulatory obligations, whilst non-dominant companies’ unilateral conduct may soon be curbed. The European Commission intends to tool up its kit by adding a new regulation to keep digital gatekeepers in check, as well as providing more clarity on how to define digital markets in its new Market Definition Notice.

Read more

04.06.2020 NL law
No proof of competitive disadvantage? No abusive favouritism

Short Reads - Companies claiming abuse of dominance in civil proceedings have their work cut out for them, as demonstrated by a ruling of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal. Real estate association VBO had accused dominant online platform Funda of favouritism. However, in line with the District Court’s earlier ruling, the Appeal Court dismissed the claim for insufficient evidence of negative effects on competition. The ruling confirms that the effect-based approach also applies in civil abuse claims, and that the standard of proof is high.    

Read more