EU ANTITRUST: HOT TOPICS & NEXT STEPS

Prague, Czechia

EU ANTITRUST: HOT TOPICS & NEXT STEPS 2022

• Increased activity of competition authorities after the end of economic or social restrictions. See. inspections carried out in 2021 by the Greek Competition Authority. • Extension of the duration of the inspection itself, when it will be necessary to respect not only the legal but also the health conditions of the inspection. • Inspection will increasingly be carried out through IT tools and remote access to technical equipment, not only in relation to the subject under investigation, but also to its employees. • It should be taken into account that in cases where the entity under investigation has employees in the home office, how to coordinate the inspection to ensure cooperation and the need for the presence of employees in the business premises. • An online connection will also have to be considered for possible questioning and witness statements. • Consider a hybrid control model and require remote data access. • Possibility to carry out an inspection by a competition authority without a physical presence only in online form. • Interruption and possible continuation of the inspection due to a restriction or impossibility to continue the inspection due to health and pandemic restrictions. • Interruption of the inspection in the event of the impossibility of reviewing the evidence seized. This conclusion is based on the case law of the CJEU: “The European Commissionmay continue the morning raid on the premises of the Office by making copies during a raid without first examining them on the spot” (Judgment of the CJEU, Nexans , C-606/18 P) 3.4 Verifiability of indications leading to an on-site investigation Any authorisation for inspection shall be duly justified so as not to call into question the legitimacy of the self-inspection. The reasons should also be verifiable from public sources. A competition authority should therefore not rely on only one submission, but should have all the grounds for inspection objectively verified. 3.5 Clarification of essential facts that are subject to inspection by the investigated subject The mandate itself should not be a terse finding of an infringement of competition law, but should, above all, clarify the facts when a competition authority finds an infringement of the law. This clarification should be reviewable and comprehensible. In itself, it should not give rise to suspicions of a biased assessment of the reasons for initiating the self-monitoring.

259