³ÉÈËÓ°Òô

View the related checklists about Dawn raid

Dealing with competition dawn raids (EU)—Checklist

Dealing with competition dawn raids (EU)—Checklist The European Commission (Commission) can carry out dawn raids on company premises to collect evidence whenever it suspects that EU competition law has been breached. These are unannounced inspections by officials—not actually carried out at dawn, but during business hours. A business will want to 'manage the raid' but, at the same time, be mindful that the dawn raid is not obstructed in any way—for example, if documents are not made available or are shredded, additional penalties can and will be imposed by the Commission. The Commission have wide-ranging powers when carrying out dawn raids, including (amongst other things): • searching premises for records and taking copies of documents away • searching, reviewing and copying records from all IT equipment (eg laptop and desktop computers, mobile phones, tablets and other equipment) and storage media (eg CD-ROMS, DVDs, USB-keys, external hard drives, backup tapes, cloud services and servers) using not only in-built (keyword) searches but also dedicated software and...

HMRC dawn raids in practice—client checklist

HMRC dawn raids in practice—client checklist When conducting a criminal investigation, HMRC has the power to apply to a magistrate for a warrant to enter and search premises. It can also seize and retain any material covered by the warrant. HMRC's powers to investigate criminal offences, and the circumstances in which it may use them, are described in Practice Note: HMRC criminal investigations and dawn raids. This Checklist contains a practical list of things to do, or not to do, in a dawn raid. It can be used as a reference guide for clients who may be facing a dawn raid. The procedures described would need to be communicated to staff in advance. As the client would not know about the dawn raid before it happens this may be problematic. It may be possible to circulate the guide on a 'just in case' basis. It is also a good idea to train key staff on how to manage and respond to a dawn raid. What to expect in a dawn...

View the related practice notes about Dawn raid

Making a complaint to the European Commission under EU competition law

Making a complaint to the European Commission under EU competition law Any party affected by an alleged infringement of EU competition law can bring a complaint before the European Commission (the Commission) in relation to agreements and/or practices that may amount to an infringement of Articles 101 and/or 102 TFEU. The Commission states in its Notice on the handling of complaints (Complaints Notice) that it 'wishes to encourage citizens and undertakings to address themselves to the public enforcers [of competition law] to inform them about suspected infringements of the competition rules'. For ease of reference, the party bringing the complaint is referred to as the 'complainant' in this Practice Note. The party complained about is referred to as the 'defendant'. Further guidance on the Commission’s handling of complaints can be found in section 5 of the Commission’s notice on best practices for the conduct of proceedings concerning Article 101 and 102 TFEU (Notice on Best Practices). A complainant could potentially submit a complaint to the Commission, or, in a Member...

Slovak Telekom (and Deutsche Telekom)—broadband in Slovakia (COMP/39.523) [Archived]

Slovak Telekom (and Deutsche Telekom)—broadband in Slovakia (COMP/39.523) [Archived] CASE HUB (NOTE–appeals lodged) ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 15 October 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 102 TFEU investigation into allegations of an abuse of dominant position in broadband services in Slovakia. The Commission issued its infringement decision and imposed fines totalling €69.9m on 15/10/2014. The abusive behaviour involved a refusal to supply and a margin squeeze. Latest developments On 15 October 2014, the Commission issued its infringement decision. The Commission has imposed a fine of €38,838,000 on Slovak Telekom and Deutsche Telekom for breaching Article 102 TFEU. Deutsche Telekom is jointly liable for the fine because it has decisive influence over the actions of its subsidiary, Slovak Telekom. The Commission has imposed an additional fine of €31,070,000 on Deutsche Telekom. This reflects:• an increase of 50% to reflect repeated abusive...

View the related precedents about Dawn raid

Dawn raid—Response Team details table

Dawn raid—Response Team details table Title Name Contact details Responsibilities [Reception AND/OR Security] [Insert name] [Insert contact details] Greet investigatorsRequest and copy the warrant/decision notice and investigators’ IDsShow investigators to a secure meeting roomContact Response Team LeadersArrange secure meeting room for Response Team Response Team Leaders [Insert names] [Insert contact details] Immediately attend the premisesReview the warrant or decision noticeAssemble and brief the Response TeamInform staff and Response Team Leaders in other locations (if appropriate), of the raidManage the gathering of documents and materialsManage the interview processEnsure end-of-raid procedures are

Dawn raid—record of raid details

Dawn raid—record of raid details . Please note that this record

View the related q&as about Dawn raid

What are the privilege issues which arise in relation to a regulatory investigation?

What are the privilege issues which arise in relation to a regulatory investigation? Professional privilege—core principles The core aim of privilege is to protect the confidentiality of communications between clients and their lawyers. The right belongs to the client and not to the lawyer. The definition of ‘client’ in a civil litigation context in the UK was limited in the landmark case of Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No 5) where the definition of the 'client' bank was limited to the working group set up to prepare a response from the bank to an inquiry. The scope was not extended to employees of the bank outside that working group. In Astex Therapeutics Ltd v Astrazeneca AB applying Three Rivers (No 5), the High Court held that certain employees were not part of the 'client' for privilege purposes. For a detailed consideration of this decision, including practical implications arising from it, see News Analysis: Hiding communications behind the cloak of legal advice...

View the related News about Dawn raid

EU Law weekly highlights—21 November 2024

This week's edition of EU Law weekly highlights includes analysis on the European AI Office’s draft General-Purpose AI Code of Practice, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court decision confirming its international jurisdiction, the judgment that 3D inhaler trade mark cannot be restored by Boehringer, the ruling that Ukraine border service cannot get an EU trade mark for its war slogan, Meta being fined €798m for tying marketplace ads to Facebook, and the role of acceptable use policies in AI, In addition, this week the 2025 EU annual budget was agreed, the Council of the EU adopted a regulation to shut down European Online Dispute Resolution platform, adopted a ban on forced labour products in Union market, and approved the certification framework for carbon removals, the European Parliament endorsed the postponement of the deforestation rules, the European Commission proposed a single digital portal for posted worker declarations, and the EU Cyber Resilience Act and EU Listing Acts were published in the Official Journal.

EU Court upholds Commission decision to initiate first dawn raid under foreign subsidies regulation

Competition analysis: On 23 April 2024, the European Commission carried out its first dawn raid under the new EU Foreign Subsidies Regulation. The business targeted was Nuctech—a subsidiary of a Chinese owned company specialising in security inspection equipment, operating from both the Netherlands and Poland. During the raid, the Commission requested the content of a number of employees’ mailboxes whose data were stored on servers located in China. In late May 2024, Nuctech issued proceedings in the EU’s General Court, challenging the Commission’s decision to initiate the raid and requesting the investigation be suspended. Nuctech’s application was dismissed by the General Court on 12 August 2024. Written by Jonathan Branton, head of EU/Competition at the English law firm DWF and also leads the government and public sector group and Amanpreet Kaur, solicitor at DWF Law LLP.