The Court of Justice has delivered its judgment in Deutsche Bahn’s appeal against a General Court judgment that upheld European Commission decisions authorising dawn raids of Deutsche Bahn’s premises. In March 2011, the Commission conducted unannounced inspections at Deutsche Bahn’s premises as part of an investigation into whether Deutsche Bahn had abused its dominant position contrary to Article 102 TFEU. Deutsche Bahn launched various appeals challenging the inspection decisions and all measures taken in consequence.
The Court of Justice rejected Deutsche Bahn’s human rights challenges under Article 8 and 6(1) ECHR that the Commission's decisions infringed its fundamental rights to inviolability of premises and to an effective legal remedy due to the lack of prior judicial review of the inspection decisions.
However, the Court of Justice found that the General Court had wrongly found that the Commission had not violated Deutsche Bahn’s rights of defence by informing its agents prior to the first raid about further suspicions of anticompetitive activity which were not within the scope of the decision authorising the first inspection. The information that was gathered during the first inspection decision informed the Commission’s decision to launch a second and third inspection which were vitiated by the circumstances in which the information was gathered. Therefore, the Court annulled the second and third inspection decisions.
In dismissing Deutsche Bahn’s human rights challenges the Court has reasserted the legal basis of the Commission’s power to launch a dawn raid and contained in Article 20 of Regulation 1/2003. The fact that the company can challenge an inspection decision after the fact was considered sufficient to safeguard the rights of defence. Although the Commission’s procedures may not correspond in all respects to the components of Article 6, the ECtHR confirmed in the Menarini judgment that the Italian institutional framework - which is very similar to that of the EU - is adequate. It stated that fines may be imposed by an administrative body the procedures of which may not necessarily comply in all respects with the requirements of Article 6 of the ECHR, provided that the decision of that body is subject to subsequent review by a judicial body that has full jurisdiction and does in fact comply with those requirements. The Court of Justice’s ruling is consistent with that principle.
But the Court has clarified that the legality of the inspection decision and measures taken as a result depends on the information covered by the decision. The Commission cannot stray beyond the limits of its inspection decision by using the raid to gather information related to a suspected infringement that is outside the scope of the decision authorising the inspection. However, it seems that if by chance or genuine accident the Commission discovers information relating to another infringement in the course of the raid it is not precluded from bringing further proceedings to verify that information.
The Court has gone some way to clarify that the Commission must put all its cards on the table when launching a raid. It cannot bolt on other potential lines of inquiry to the search if these were not set out in the decision.
It will be recalled that the Commission’s investigation into Deutsche Bahn was concluded with commitments in 2013. The Court’s judgment does not overturn that decision as it was not based on documents found in the second and third inspections.
Case C-585/13 P Deutsche Bahn and others v European Commission ECLI:EU:C:2015:404, judgment of 18 June 2015
The Court of Justice rejected Deutsche Bahn’s human rights challenges under Article 8 and 6(1) ECHR that the Commission's decisions infringed its fundamental rights to inviolability of premises and to an effective legal remedy due to the lack of prior judicial review of the inspection decisions.
However, the Court of Justice found that the General Court had wrongly found that the Commission had not violated Deutsche Bahn’s rights of defence by informing its agents prior to the first raid about further suspicions of anticompetitive activity which were not within the scope of the decision authorising the first inspection. The information that was gathered during the first inspection decision informed the Commission’s decision to launch a second and third inspection which were vitiated by the circumstances in which the information was gathered. Therefore, the Court annulled the second and third inspection decisions.
In dismissing Deutsche Bahn’s human rights challenges the Court has reasserted the legal basis of the Commission’s power to launch a dawn raid and contained in Article 20 of Regulation 1/2003. The fact that the company can challenge an inspection decision after the fact was considered sufficient to safeguard the rights of defence. Although the Commission’s procedures may not correspond in all respects to the components of Article 6, the ECtHR confirmed in the Menarini judgment that the Italian institutional framework - which is very similar to that of the EU - is adequate. It stated that fines may be imposed by an administrative body the procedures of which may not necessarily comply in all respects with the requirements of Article 6 of the ECHR, provided that the decision of that body is subject to subsequent review by a judicial body that has full jurisdiction and does in fact comply with those requirements. The Court of Justice’s ruling is consistent with that principle.
But the Court has clarified that the legality of the inspection decision and measures taken as a result depends on the information covered by the decision. The Commission cannot stray beyond the limits of its inspection decision by using the raid to gather information related to a suspected infringement that is outside the scope of the decision authorising the inspection. However, it seems that if by chance or genuine accident the Commission discovers information relating to another infringement in the course of the raid it is not precluded from bringing further proceedings to verify that information.
The Court has gone some way to clarify that the Commission must put all its cards on the table when launching a raid. It cannot bolt on other potential lines of inquiry to the search if these were not set out in the decision.
It will be recalled that the Commission’s investigation into Deutsche Bahn was concluded with commitments in 2013. The Court’s judgment does not overturn that decision as it was not based on documents found in the second and third inspections.
Case C-585/13 P Deutsche Bahn and others v European Commission ECLI:EU:C:2015:404, judgment of 18 June 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment