Cooperate, protect, and challenge: Responding to dawn raids conducted by EU competition authorities

Inspections in the tyre industry

On July 9, 2025, the General Court (GC) issued a judgment involving the French tyre manufacturer Compagnie Générale des Établissements Michelin (Michelin). Michelin and other global tyre manufacturers were subject to dawn raids conducted by the European Commission (Commission) in January 2024, as part of a broader investigation into anticompetitive practices in the tyre sector. In its application, Michelin sought the annulment of the inspection decision, and the return of all documents seized.

The interesting element to this case is that the dawn raid was not based on complaints from competitors or customers (as is often the case) but on evidence that the Commission extracted from a large number of earnings calls by the tyre companies concerned. The Commission had set up a monitoring tool “in order to analyse several hundred thousand earnings calls in various sectors and geographical areas”. These earnings calls were analysed through key word searches, using terms like “price discipline” or “industry following”. Based on this analysis, the Commission came to the conclusion that these key words popped up frequently in the earning calls of the tyre companies concerned, and according to the Commission this evidence was sufficient to justify dawn raids.

Michelin challenged the legality of the Commission’s dawn raid decision, arguing that the contested decision lacked a sufficiently detailed statement of reasons, as required under Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Article 20(4) of Regulation No 1/2003. Michelin argued at the GC hearing that the dawn raid decision was so vague it allowed the Commission “to seize any document over a very long period.” Hence, the inspection essentially amounted to a “fishing expedition.”

In its judgment, the GC confirmed in general that the Commission must indicate as precisely as possible what it is looking for and the elements to be verified. By contrast, it is not necessary to specify the exact scope of the market concerned, the exact legal classification of the alleged infringements or the exact period during which those infringements were allegedly committed, provided that the inspection decision contains the essential elements. The reason is that inspections take place at the beginning of the investigation, at a time when the Commission does not generally have precise information enabling it to make a specific legal assessment.

Having clarified these general principles, the GC distinguished two different periods.

For the main period, the Commission had gathered sufficiently serious evidence suggesting that Michelin and other tyre manufacturers may have coordinated pricing strategies through these earnings calls, including unilateral declarations from major tyre manufacturers. This evidence was sufficient to justify the inspections.

By contrast, for an earlier period, the Commission was unable to identify any such earnings calls and relied primarily on retrospective references made in more recent calls. The various statements submitted for the earlier period did not mention any future intentions or respective pricing strategies that might be implemented during that period. Consequently, the GC concluded that the Commission’s assumption of price coordination among major tyre manufacturers during the earlier period was not sufficiently supported by evidence.

As a result, the GC partially annulled the inspection decision, thereby excluding evidence collected for the unjustified period. However, it upheld the validity of the inspection for the main period, confirming that the Commission had met the threshold of “sufficiently serious indicia” for that timeframe.

Inspections in the fragrance industry

On March 7, 2023, the Commission caried out dawn raids on several companies active in the fragrance industry.

This inspection and the underlying decision have resulted in various issues. First, during one of the inspections, an employee of one of the companies raided, International Flavors & Fragrances (IFF), allegedly deleted WhatsApp messages. leading to a sanction decision by the Commission. Second, another raided company, Symrise, challenged the legality of the inspection decision itself, claiming a violation of the right of inviolability of private premises and privacy and an infringement of the Commission’s obligation to state reasons for the inspection.

Alleged Obstruction of inspections by IFF

During the inspection at the premises of IFF, the Commission alleged that an IFF employee had deleted WhatsApp messages from his professional mobile phone. The deleted messages contained communications with a competitor and related to the Commission’s ongoing antitrust investigation.

This conduct resulted in a decision issued on June 24, 2024, in which the Commission imposed a fine of EUR 15.9 million for obstructing the inspection (Decision of the Commission of 24 June 2024, IFF, case AT.40882). This sanction underscores the severity of the Commission’s position when it comes to obstruction of inspections, for which a company can be fined up to 1% of its total worldwide turnover.

This is not the first time the Commission has sanctioned a company for such conduct. In 2012, Czech companies active in the energy market were fined EUR 2.5 million by the Commission after a password, used by the Commission’s officials to access a company’s email accounts, was changed and attempts were made to redirect incoming emails while the company was under investigation (Decision of the Commission of 28 March 2012, EPH, case AT.39793). Two other important Commission decisions for obstructing inspections were issued in 2008 and 2011, both due to the breaking of, or “tampering with”, seals, for which the Commission issued fines of EUR 8 million and EUR 38 million, respectively (Decision of the Commission of 24 May 2011, Suez Environment, case AT.39796 ; and decision of the Commission of 30 January 2008, EON, case AT.39326).

Challenge of the inspection decision by Symrise

Symrise brought an action before the GC contesting the legality of the Commission’s inspection decision. The company alleged (i) a violation of the right of inviolability of private premises and privacy and (ii) an infringement of the Commission’s obligation to state reasons.

On April 30, 2025, the GC issued its judgment (Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2025, Symrise AG v European Commission, T-263/23, EU:T:2025:417) in which it rejected Symrise’s appeal and considered that the Commission’s dawn raid was lawful. The following examines the two bases of the appeal and the GC’s response:

First ground of appeal: Violation of the right of inviolability of private premises and privacy

The first ground of appeal alleged that the Commission decision was arbitrary and that there was a disproportionate interference with the right to privacy.

Symrise argued that the inspection decision was arbitrary since the Commission did not have “sufficiently serious evidence to suspect its involvement in any competition law infringement and accordingly justify an inspection of its premises” (Symrise decision previously cited, para 54). The company characterised the dawn raid as a “fishing expedition,” a term referring to an inspection conducted by the Commission without justification. This was the situation, for example, in the 2012 Nexans case, where the GC partially annulled an inspection decision, holding that the Commission had no reasonable grounds to conduct the inspection (see below; Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2012, Nexans and Nexans France v. Commission, T‑135/09, EU:T:2012:596).

However, the GC rejected the argument of a “fishing expedition” and recalled that “the various indicia which make suspecting an infringement possible must not be assessed separately but as a whole, and can be mutually supportive” (Symrise decision previously cited, para 60). According to the GC, the Commission had presented an open-source intelligence report that made clear that it:

“possessed sufficiently specific and clear indicia for it to suspect that the four largest fragrance manufacturers, which include the applicant, aligned, imposed and defended their industrial policy to the detriment of their other competitors through IFRA [the International Fragrance Association], shared, during or on the occasion of IFRA meetings, sensitive business information concerning those competitors, aligned their business behaviour in respect of their customers and, lastly, were able to coordinate their strategic behaviour regarding tenders” (Ibid, para 72).

Symrise also alleged that the inspection decision lacked a specified end date for the inspection, which “constitutes disproportionate interference with the right to privacy” (Ibid, para 91). The GC dismissed this argument considering that, as stated in the Nexans decision (Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018, Nexans France and Nexans v Commission, T‑449/14, EU:T:2018:456, para 69), the “absence of any specific date by which the inspection has to be completed does not mean that the inspection can go on indefinitely, since the Commission is, in that regard, required to observe a reasonable time limit” (Symrise decision previously cited, para 94).

The applicant also claimed that its right to privacy was infringed because the Commission could have sent a request for information instead of conducting inspections, which were qualified as a “disproportionate interference in its fundamental rights of inviolability of its private premises and of privacy” (Ibid, para 103). The GC rejected this argument on the ground that the applicant failed to explain how the inspection could have been adequately replaced by a request for information (Ibid, para 104).

Second ground of appeal: Infringement of the Commission’s obligation to state reasons

Symrise alleged a lack of precision as to the subject matter and purpose of the inspection, and an absence of clear and unequivocal reasoning.

The GC rejected Symrise’s argument on the lack of precision as to the subject matter and purpose of the inspection. The GC considered that the market was clearly indicated in the decision (Ibid, para 30) and that there was sufficient precision regarding the suspected practices (Ibid, para 32). Furthermore, the GC recalled that “the Commission is not required to indicate the period within which the suspected infringements were allegedly committed” (Ibid, para 41).

Symrise also alleged that Article 1 of the inspection decision was not clear and unequivocal. Article 1 stated that:

“among the alleged agreements [or] concerted practices are, inter alia, the exchange of sensitive business information, the coordination of commercial [behaviour] and commercial strategies, directly [or] through IFRA, regarding the supply of consumer fragrances and fragrance ingredients to customers and competitors as well as the potential coordination, together with or with the support of IFRA, of the setting of IFRA standards with the intention to exclude other suppliers of fragrance [or] fragrance ingredients from the market.”

Symrise based its reasoning on an absence of clarity of the expressions “among the alleged agreements” and “inter alia.” However, the GC rejected this reasoning, recalling that “inter alia” does not infringe “the obligation to state reasons, since the Commission does not yet have precise information to issue a specific legal opinion, but must first of all verify the substance of its suspicions and also the extent of the facts that have taken place” (Ibid, para 46).

The 2012 Nexans decision considered that the wording “amongst others,” referring to products in relation to which Nexans could be requested to submit documents, could have been “less ambiguous.” In Symrise, however, the GC clarifies that this statement does not mean that the wording “amongst others” in the dawn raid decision was ambiguous – it simply referred to a list of behaviours that may constitute an infringement (Symrise decision previously cited, para 47). Thus, the GC rejected the allegation.

In summary, the GC recalled that statement of reasons must be appropriate to the measure at issue and must disclose in a clear and unequivocal way the reasoning followed by its author. Therefore, the GC reiterated the Commission’s obligations regarding inspection decisions:

• They must indicate the subject matter and purpose of the inspection.
• They must rely on reasonable grounds for suspecting an infringement of competition rules (which is a prerequisite to order an inspection).
• They must be necessary to detect an infringement of the competition rules.

Thus, the Commission must have sufficiently serious evidence to justify an inspection and ensure that it is proportionate to the objectives pursued. As the GC has made clear, this obligation to give specific reasons is a fundamental requirement, not only to show that the investigation is justified, but also to enable the companies to understand the scope of their duty to cooperate, while at the same time safeguarding their rights of defence.

Hence, the GC rejected Symrise’s appeal in full.

Insights from other appeals of dawn raid decisions

In recent years, several decisions regarding dawn raids have been challenged in court, giving the ECJ the opportunity to clarify the legal principles that define the Commission’s powers during investigations.

In 2012, the GC partially annulled the Commission’s dawn raid decision in the Nexans case (Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2012, Nexans and Nexans France v. Commission, T‑135/09, EU:T:2012:596). The Commission conducted an inspection in January 2009 at Nexans’ premises, suspecting competition law infringement in the electric cable sector. Nexans challenged the inspection decision, alleging (i) a vague and broad product and geographic scope of the decision, and (ii) that the Commission had sufficiently detailed information to justify the inspection only in the underwater cable sector, and not in the broader cable sector stated in the Commission decision.

In its 2012 judgment, the GC rejected Nexans’ first argument and approved the broad geographic scope of the Commission’s decision, the GC approved investigations outside of the European Union, considering that “there is nothing to prevent [the Commission] from examining documents relating to those markets [referring to markets outside of the EU] in order to detect conduct which is liable to affect trade between Member States and which has as its object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the common market” (Ibid, para 99). The GC considered that indicating “probably a global reach” of the cartel was sufficient and that the Commission did not have to show more detail in its dawn raid decision (Ibid, para 97).

This consideration was upheld by the ECJ in 2014 (Judgment of the Court of 25 June 2014, Nexans and Nexans France v. Commission, C-37/13 P, EU:C:2014:2030) and recalled in 2024 by the GC in the Nuctech case (Order of the President of the General Court of 12 August 2024, Nuctech Warsaw v. Commission, T‑284/24 R, EU:T:2024:564). In this case, the Commission raided Nuctech’s offices in the EU under the Foreign Subsidies Regulation. Nuctech challenged the inspection, arguing it required access to data stored in China which could violate Chinese law. The GC rejected Nuctech’s request to suspend the inspection, ruling that the Commission could demand access to data held outside the EU.

By contrast, the GC upheld Nexans’ argument that the Commission did not have sufficient information to investigate all types of cables (Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2012, Nexans and Nexans France v. Commission, T‑135/09, EU:T:2012:596, para 91). The GC found that the Commission’s decision was insufficiently reasoned with respect to all types of cables other than underwater cables, as the evidence only justified an inspection in these specific areas. As a result, the GC partially annulled the inspection decision insofar as it concerned other types of cable, emphasising that the Commission must provide reasonable grounds for suspicion.

The French Supermarkets case (Judgment of the Court of 9 March 2023, Intermarché Casino Achat v. Commission, C‑693/20 P, EU:C:2023:172) is another example of a dawn raid decision annulled by the ECJ. The decision was annulled in 2023 on the ground that it was based on interviews from competitors that had not been recorded. The Commission was investigating potential anticompetitive practices by French supermarkets, particularly information exchanges related to discounts negotiated with suppliers and future commercial strategies. After interviewing suppliers, the Commission decided to conduct an inspection, justifying its inspection with the information already collected from the suppliers.

However, the French supermarkets challenged this decision, alleging a lack of evidence of the infringement. On appeal, the ECJ annulled the Commission’s decision, considering that the interviews had not been recorded and that notes taken during the interviews by the case handlers were not enough evidence of the infringement, thus “the Commission did not have in its possession sufficiently serious indicia” to justify the inspection (Ibid, para 142). The Court underlined that:

• The Commission should have recorded the interviews with suppliers, since they were intended to gather information on the subject of a potential investigation.
• This obligation applies irrespective of whether the interview in question took place before the formal opening of an investigation, in order to gather indications of an infringement, or afterwards, in order to gather evidence of an infringement.

This decision reaffirms the Commission’s obligation to record interviews and demonstrates the willingness of the ECJ to enforce companies’ rights during a Commission investigation by ensuring that the Commission has sufficient justification to conduct the dawn raid.

The recent Red Bull case further illustrates companies’ tendency to challenge inspection decisions. In March 2023, the Commission conducted dawn raids at Red Bull’s premises across several EU countries, investigating potential abuse of dominance and concerted practices in the energy drinks market. Red Bull considers that the Commission did not have sufficient elements to justify dawn raids and that the dawn raids were disproportionate. Red Bull’s request for interim measures was rejected by the GC in September 2023 and a hearing on the merits took place in May 2025.

Conclusion

Dawn raids continue to be a source of legal uncertainty and challenges before the GC and ECJ. Recent judgments reinforce the Commission’s broad powers to conduct dawn raids while also clarifying the standards that must be met to justify such inspections.

In particular, the Commission must have sufficient evidence in terms of product and geographic scope as well as the time period concerned to justify a dawn raid. Sometimes the Commission meets this threshold (e.g. in the Symrise case), sometimes it does not (e.g. in Nexans and the French Supermarket cases). Therefore, in case of a dawn raid, it is imperative for the companies concerned and their advisor to scrutinise a dawn raid decision carefully and then take the appropriate steps to defends their rights.

Finally, it is interesting to see that the Commission is trying to compensate the lack of leniency applications by setting up a market monitoring tool. This is an approach that the CMA has already taken, but it’s a new approach for the Commission. Companies have, therefore, be careful in their public statements. Even if unintended, certain public announcements can amount to a suspicion of an antitrust infringement and trigger dawn raids.