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

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

20.09.2022 EU law
Launch of Metaverse blog series

Articles - Stibbe launches a new blog series focusing on the legal challenges of the Metaverse. In our upcoming blog posts, we will discuss the legal challenges of NFTs, crypto-assets, Metaverse platforms, crypto exchanges, DAO, and many more.

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

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