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

02.04.2020 NL law
ACM played high stakes and lost: no more fixed network access regulation

Short Reads - The ACM’s failure to meet the requisite standard of proof has led to the fixed networks of Dutch telecom providers KPN and VodafoneZiggo being free from access regulation. The Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal ruled that the ACM had failed to demonstrate the existence of collective dominance, and that KPN and VodafoneZiggo would tacitly coordinate their behaviour absent regulation.

Read more

26.03.2020 BE law
​I am suffering significant financial losses as a result of the spread of the corona virus. Is there a possibility of State aid?

Short Reads - COVID-19 brings certain questions to centre stage regarding State aid. In this short read, Peter Wytinck, Sophie Van Besien and Michèle de Clerck discuss the possibility of State aid in case of significant financial losses as a result of the spread of the corona virus.

Read more

02.04.2020 NL law
Claims assigned to a litigation vehicle: who needs to prove what?

Short Reads - Two recent decisions from the Amsterdam Court of Appeal have confirmed that litigation vehicles cannot come empty-handed to the court, and should provide documentation regarding the assignments of claims they submit. The Dutch legal system allows companies and individuals to assign their claims to a “litigation vehicle” or “claims vehicle” that bundles those claims into a single action. In its decisions of 10 March 2020, the Court of Appeal ruled that it is up to litigation vehicles to prove that the assignments can be invoked against the debtor. 

Read more

10.03.2020 NL law
De AVG staat niet in de weg aan de verwerking van persoonsgegevens door een toezichthouder tijdens een bedrijfsbezoek

Short Reads - Bedrijven die met toezicht worden geconfronteerd, zijn gehouden op verzoek van een toezichthouder in beginsel alle informatie te verstrekken. Met de komst van de Algemene verordening gegevensbescherming (AVG) is in de praktijk de vraag opgekomen of een toezichthouder bevoegd is om persoonsgegevens die onderdeel uitmaken van de gevraagde informatie te verwerken.

Read more

02.04.2020 NL law
EU competition policy agenda: full to the brim

Short Reads - The European Commission’s competition policy agenda stretches to 2024 and contains plans for many new or revised rules and guidelines. Recent publications, such as the New Industrial Strategy for Europe, shed more light on the Commission’s initiatives and their possible impact on parties from both inside and outside the European Union (EU). These new initiatives include temporary state aid rules to address the effects of the Corona crisis, consultations on the Block Exemption Regulations, and new measures in respect of (primarily) third-country companies.

Read more

05.03.2020 NL law
CBb confirms: no cartel fine, still interest to appeal cartel decision

Short Reads - Companies can challenge a decision establishing that they committed a competition law violation, even if no fine was imposed on them. The CBb – the highest court for public enforcement of cartel cases – recently confirmed that the absence of a fine does not affect a company’s interest to appeal. Consequently, parent companies held liable for a subsidiary’s cartel infringement can still challenge a cartel decision, irrespective of whether fines were imposed on them separately.

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