Written commercial agreement

Significant imbalance

Sudden termination of established relationships

Competition investigation – French law

Civil competition action

French competition law

Competition investigation – European law

European competition law

Vertical restraints

Distribution law

Liability for defective products

Consumer law

Prohibition of measures having equivalent effect

European business law

Corruption

Compliance

Economic law

Shareholders' agreements

Removal of company directors

Abuse of voting rights

Companies

Action for infringement (counterfeiting)

Rights conferred by the trademark

Patentability

Industrial property

Commercial rent review

Renewal of the commercial lease

Despecialization (change of use)

Commercial leases

Reform of contract law

Reform of the law of special contracts

Preliminary sales agreement

Obligation to deliver goods in conformity

Classification of the contract for services (contrat d'entreprise)

Effects of the agency agreement with respect to third parties

Business contracts

Ongoing contracts

Recovery claims

Court-approved transfer plan

Bankruptcy proceedings

Personal data breaches

White collar crime

Commercial law

500 Questions - Business Law

The Commission may freely choose to proceed by mandate and/or by decision, based solely on the needs of the investigation and the specifics of the case . The European authority is not required to conduct an inspection by simple mandate before resorting to an inspection by decision.

Indeed, the inspection must primarily enable the Commission to gather the necessary documentation to verify the real …

Can the Commission choose between the different types of inspection?

The Commission may, for the accomplishment of the tasks entrusted to it, collect all necessary information and carry out all necessary verifications (Art. 337 TFEU). Thus, to monitor compliance with Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, the Commission is authorized to conduct an investigation prior to initiating a procedure (Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 18, 19, and 20).

The purpose of this investigation is to determine whether there is a violation of European competition rules .

The Commission has broad investigative powers. It can:

interrogate persons holding useful information;

access all premises where professional documents are held, etc.

The exercise of investigative powers contributes to the maintenance of the system of competition intended by  the Treaty with which undertakings are absolutely bound to comply.

ECJ, Case 46/87 Hoechst AG v Commission,  Judgment of 21 September 1989, LawLex200500005405JBJ.

What is the purpose of the investigation?

In application of the principle of prosecutorial discretion, the Commission alone decides to initiate an investigation. Furthermore, it has the free choice of the investigative measure.

The Commission may conduct investigations by economic sector (Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 17). It increasingly uses this measure, which allows it, in fact, to gather information before initiating proceedings on its own for alleged infringements.

It may address a request for information to the governments and competent authorities of the Member States, as well as to undertakings and associations of undertakings (Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 18). It may be a simple requedt or by way of decision.

It may ultimately carry out all necessary inspections at the premises of undertakings or associations of undertakings (Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 20).

The Commission may, due to the autonomy of these measures, use them as it wishes. It may resort to one and/or the other in the order that, in its opinion, best suits the search for evidence of the alleged infringement. In particular, the request for information and the inspection are independent investigation procedures.

Even if it already has clues or even evidence relating to the existence of an infringement, the Commission may legitimately consider it necessary to request additional information to better understand the scope of the infringement, its duration, or the circle of undertakings involved. It may also initiate a new investigation procedure to complete or verify the accuracy of information it incidentally became aware of during a previous inspection.

Advice: Raise awareness among management, legal advisors, and employees of the undertaking about competition law and the powers of the Commission in the event of investigations.

They must know how to distinguish a request for information from an inspection, understand the conduct of each type of investigation, and know their rights and obligations to know how to react.

Is the power to request an investigation limited?

The Commission may conduct an investigation in a particular sector of the economy or regarding a type of agreements in different sectors when the development of trade between Member States, price rigidity, or other circumstances suggest that competition may be restricted or distorted within the internal market (Art. 17 Reg. 1/2003).

In the context of this investigation, the Commission may request the necessary information from the undertakings or associations of undertakings concerned and conduct inspections. It may notably ask them to provide all agreements, decisions of associations of undertakings, and concerted practices.

The Commission may also request all necessary information for the fulfillment of its mission from the governments and competent authorities of the Member States, as well as carry out all necessary inspections either by its agents or by the authorities of the Member States.

Finally, the Commission may publish a report on the results of its investigation and invite interested parties to submit their observations. The Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions must be consulted prior to the opening of the inquiry.

As of today, the Commission has opened sectoral inquiries particularly on:

the Internet of Things for consumer-related-products;

Under what conditions can the Commission conduct a sector inquiry?

The Commission is vested with a genuine power of information. Indeed, in addition to the possibility of gathering information during the investigation, the Commission can, through the exchange of information provided for in Article 12 of Regulation No 1/2003, have provided to it and use as evidence any factual or legal element collected for the application of Article 101 or 102 TFEU by the competition authorities of the Member States. This information can only be used as evidence to impose a sanction on a natural person in two scenarios:

the law of the authority transmitting the information provides for similar sanctions in case of violation of Articles 101 or 102 TFEU or, if not,

the information was collected in a manner that ensures the same level of protection of the rights of defense of natural persons as that recognized by the national rules of the recipient authority .

However, these cannot be custodial sentences.

Article 12(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 does not lay down a general  prohibition on the use as evidence, by the Commission, of information  obtained by a national authority in exercise of its tasks.

GC, Case T-655/11 FSL Holdings, Judgment of 16 June 2015, LawLex201500000777JBJ.

Through which channels can the Commission gather information?

The power to take statements is set out in Article 19 of Regulation No 1/2003, the recitals of which emphasize the importance for the Commission to be able to question any person likely to have relevant information and to record their statements.

The Commission may therefore interview any natural or legal person who agrees to be questioned for the purpose of collecting information related to the subject of an investigation. When interviews are conducted on the premises of an undertaking, the Commission must inform the competition authority of the Member State in whose territory the interview takes place. The agents of the competition authority of the concerned Member State may, if requested, assist the agents and other persons accompanying them, mandated by the Commission to conduct the interview (Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 19).

Pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation No 773/2004, “[t]he Commission may record  the statements made by the persons interviewed in any form”. To ensure the defense rights of the undertaking whose staff are interviewed, the EU court has transformed this simple option into an obligation , which applies at every stage of the procedure , as long as the interviews aim to collect information related to the subject of the investigation. The Commission is also required to make a copy of any recording available to the person interviewed for approval, failing which it cannot rely on the recording in question , include it in the file , and inform the undertakings concerned .

The Commission is required to record any interview conducted within the scope of its inspection powers, without making a distinction between formal and informal interviews.

CJEU Case C-413/14 P Intel Corporation Inc, Judgment of 6 September 2017, LawLex201700001368JBJ.

The obligation to record interviews conducted by the Commission applies whether these interviews took place before the formal opening of an investigation, in order to collect indicia of an infringement, or after it, in order to collect evidence of an infringement.

CJEU Case C-682/20 P Les Mousquetaires SAS and ITM Entreprises SAS., Judgment of 9 March 2023, LawLex202400005919JBJ.

Indicia obtained  from a statement gathered by the Commission, without the Commission having provided the interviewed person with a copy of the recording for approval, must be considered inadmissible and, therefore be disregarded.

The introduction of an unjustified distinction between detailed meeting minutes, intended for internal use, and brief notes, intended for the undertakings concerned and clearly insufficient to account for the content of the discussions between the Commission and the complainant, particularly regarding the nature of the information provided by the latter on the topics discussed, violates the recording obligation set out in Article 19 of Regulation No 1/2003.

GC, Case T-136/19 Bulgarian Energy Holding EAD, Judgment of 25 October 2023, LawLex202300012748JBJ.

The Commission must not only properly record the statements made by the complainant during the interviews it conducts with them and include them in the file, but also inform the undertakings concerned.

Can the Commission conduct hearings during the investigation?

The undertaking may consult a lawyer, but the absence of the lawyer is not likely to invalidate the inspection (Revised Explanatory Note of the Commission of 11 September 2015). Inspectors may begin the inspection without waiting for the lawyer to arrive. The refusal of the undertaking to allow investigators to access its premises before the arrival of its lawyers justifies the imposition of a fine under Article 23 of the regulation . However, a short delay may be granted to the undertaking to allow it to consult its counsel before the start of operations.

The exercise of the right to legal assistance must not impair the proper  conduct of the investigation or, specficially, prevent the Commission  inspectors from immediately accessing the whole of the undertaking's  premises, notify it of the inspection decision and occupy the offices of  their choice while waiting until it has consulted its lawyer.

GC, Case T-357/06 Koninklijke Wegenbouw Stevin BV, Judgment of 27 September 2012, LawLex201700001055JBJ.

Can the undertaking be assisted by counsel in the event of an inspection?

Article 18 of Regulation No 1/2003, without establishing a hierarchy between requests, specifies only that “[i]n order to carry out the duties assigned to it by this Regulation, the  Commission may, by simple request or by decision, require undertakings  and associations of undertakings to provide all necessary information”. Consequently, it may request information from an undertaking by decision without being required to first send a simple request, and it is not required to justify its choice..

The Commission is subject to the principle of proportionality and must, when a choice is offered between two measures, resort to the least restrictive one .

The request may be made at an advanced stage of the procedure, particularly after the Statement of Objections .

The choice the Commission has between an investigation by  straightforward authorization under Article 18(2) of Regulation No  1/2003 and a request for information ordered by a decision under Article  18(3) of the same regulation is subject to review in accordance with  the principle of proportionality.

GC Case T-297/11 Buzzi Unicem SpA, Judgment of 14 March 2014, LawLex201700000979JBJ.

Insofar as the Statement of Objections is not a measure recording the Commission's final assessment of the lawfulness of the practices but is a  purely preparatory measure setting out its provisional findings, which  it may revisit in the final decision, it is entitled to continue with its fact-finding after the adoption of  the Statement of Objections with a view to withdrawing certain  objections or adding others in light of the arguments put forward by the undertakings concerned.

GC Case T-371/17 Qualcomm Inc. and Qualcomm Europe Inc., Judgment of 9 April 2019, LawLex201900000508JBJ.

Can the Commission use either a simple or formal request for information indiscriminately?

The request for information is sent to the undertaking or association of undertakings concerned. Article 18(4) of Regulation No 1/2003 specifies that “The owners of the  undertakings or their representatives and, in the case of legal persons,  companies or firms, or associations having no legal personality, the  persons authorised to represent them by law or by their constitution  shall supply the information requested on behalf of the undertaking or the association of undertakings concerned.” The request for information can therefore be addressed to a financial holding company if it is likely that it or the companies it controls possess the information sought.

To whom should the request for information be addressed?

The simple request is addressed to the undertaking by registered letter with acknowledgment of receipt signed by an authorized official of the Commission. The Commission must simultaneously send a copy of this request to the competent authority of the Member State in whose territory the headquarters of the undertaking or association of undertakings is located. The request must indicate:

the time limit within which the information must be provided;

the penalties incurred in the event of providing inaccurate or distorted information.

The simple request must also set the deadline within which the information must be provided.

In what manner and form should a simple request for information be addressed?

Like any decision of the Commission, the request for information by way of decision must be notified to its recipient and takes effect only from the time of this notification. Simultaneously with the notification, a copy of the request must be sent to the competent authority of the Member State in whose territory the headquarters of the undertaking or association of undertakings is located. The decision must indicate:

the legal basis and the purpose of the request;

the penalties incurred in the event of providing inaccurate information;

the remedies available to the undertaking concerned on the basis of Articles 263 and 278 TFEU.

On the other hand, the Commission is not required to hear the undertakings concerned before sending them a decision requesting information, nor to explicitly attribute to them the presumptions of infringement that weigh on them and inform them of their implication.

When the undertaking receiving a request for information has its registered office in a third country, the choice of the official language of the decision must take into account the relationship established between this undertaking and a Member State of the Union.

In what manner and form must a formal request for information be addressed?

The formal request for information must, like any decision of the Commission, be reasoned (TFEU, Art. 296). It must therefore indicate the purpose of the investigation. This obligation constitutes a fundamental requirement .

The decision must specify with sufficient clarity the presumptions of infringement that the Commission intends to verify , but not the evidence it already holds. The Commission is not required to disclose all the information it possesses regarding the alleged infringements nor to conduct a rigorous legal classification of the infringements. The mere fact that the investigation targets numerous activities and that its geographical scope is extensive cannot, in itself, be considered as an indication of vague reasoning.

Furthermore, the Commission is not required to provide specific reasoning regarding the necessity of the requested information or the reasons that justified choosing a decision over a simple request. It is also not required to provide specific reasoning for each search term requested to be applied on the company's servers, explaining why it believes that term is necessary for its investigation and would only contain or identify relevant information. Finally, the obligation to provide reasoning does not require the Commission to explain in detail how it intends to use the elements mentioned in the request, even if it is presented at an advanced stage of the procedure.

When the request by way of decision follows a simple request for information, it is subject to a reduced obligation to state reasons. It may thus reiterate the same arguments as the simple request to which the undertaking would not have responded. However, a request for information whose reasoning is excessively brief, vague, and generic, or even ambiguous, is irregular, particularly when it occurs long after the initial inspections while the Commission has information allowing for a more complex reasoning of the request.

The obligation to indicate the legal bases and the purpose of the request is a fundamental requirement both in order to show that the information requested of the undertakings  concerned is justified and also to enable those undertakings to assess  the scope of their duty to cooperate while at the same time safeguarding  their rights of defense.

CFI, Case T-34/98 Société Générale, Judgment of 8 March 1995, LawLex200500005048JBJ.

The recitals of a request for information decision that clearly and unequivocally describe the object or effect of the practices the Commission suspects the undertaking of, as well as the products or services of the latter potentially concerned by these practices, are sufficiently reasoned to allow the undertaking to verify whether the requested information is necessary for the purposes of the investigation and for the Court to exercise its review.

GC, Case T-451/20 Meta Platforms Ireland v Commission, Judgment of 24 May 2023, not available in English.

Must the formal request for information be justified?

The request for information must only concern necessary information . It is up to the Commission to decide whether information is necessary to detect the existence of an infringement of competition rules .

The request for information must establish a correlation between the requested information and the alleged offense.

The information requested by the Commission must be related to this infringement and must not represent a disproportionate burden for the undertaking compared to the needs of the investigation . This would be the case if a decision required the undertaking to provide information previously requested, in a new format. However, the mere fact that a request for information imposes a significant workload on the undertaking is not sufficient to demonstrate that it is disproportionate in view of the needs of the investigation .

The fact that the request is broad in scope, that the Commission did not conduct inspections at the undertaking's premises beforehand, nor sent a simple request for information, does not imply the exploratory nature of its request (fishing expedition).

In general, the concept of necessary information is interpreted broadly .

The necessary nature of the request for information raises no doubt when it occurs after the statement of objections and aims to modify or adapt the Commission's methodology in light of the observations presented by the undertakings.

The Commission is entitled to require the disclosure only of information which may enable it to investigate the alleged infringements that justify the conduct of the inquiry and are set out in the request for information. 

CFI Case T-34/93 Société Générale, Judgment of 8 March 1995, LawLex200500005048JBJ.

Since the Commission has discretion to assess the necessity of the information requested and the relevance of the comparisons it seeks to make, the undertaking may challenge the latter only in its response to the Statement of Objections or in support of its action for annulment against the final ruling.

GC, Case T-302/11 Heidelberg Cement, Judgment of 14 March 2014, LawLex202000002039JBJ.

The mere fact that applying search terms causes numerous documents to be captured, some of which subsequently prove not to be relevant to the Commission’s investigation, is not sufficient, in itself, to make a finding that the search terms in question have no correlation with the infringement suspected or to rule out the possibility that the Commission could reasonably have supposed, at the time of the decision to request information, that applying those search terms could have helped it to determine the existence and extent of that infringement, its duration or the circle of undertakings involved.

GC, Case T-451/20 Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd, Judgment of 24 May 2023, LawLex202300006964JBJ.

The mere request for old documents, which the undertaking is not legally required to retain, does not constitute a disproportionate burden, insofar as, having been subject to preliminary measures of investigation, it had a general duty of care to ensure the proper maintenance of information enabling details of its activities to be retrieved.

GC, T-371/17 Qualcomm, Judgment of 9 April 2019, LawLex201900000508JBJ.

The fact that the Commission requests a significant amount of information does not allow for the presumption of the exploratory nature of its request.

A request for information may concern both purely factual data and assessments made by the undertaking.

GC, Case T-297/11 Buzzi Unicem SpA, Judgment of 14 March 2014, LawLex201700000979JBJ.

The necessity to obtain new or more detailed information may justify a new request concerning information already in the possession of the Commission.

GC, Case T-293 /11 Holcim (Deutschland) AG et Holcim Ltd, Judgment of 14 March 2014, not available in English.

What is meant by 'necessary information'?

The Commission's requests for information must not represent a disproportionate burden for the undertaking. This principle does not, however, prevent the Commission from requesting a certain format of the information requested.

It may thus address questions that require responses in a particular format provided that the responses do not lead the undertaking to admit that it has committed an offense and that their provision does not constitute a disproportionate burden compared to the needs of the investigation. The mere fact that this imposes a significant workload on the undertaking is not sufficient to demonstrate that it is disproportionate in view of the needs of the investigation. The Commission may also require that ther undertaking provide not only factual data but also assessments of these data. It may even require the undertaking to provide information already requested again or to provide it in a new format, provided that this request also concerns additional or more detailed information.

When requesting the disclosure of computer data, it may require the undertaking to enter specific terms .

When requesting information the Commission is not confined merely to  requesting the production of existing information but is entitled to ask  the undertkaing concerned for information in a particular format.

GC, Case T-371/17 Qualcomm Inc. and Qualcomm Europe Inc., Judgment of  9 April 2019, LawLex201900000508JBJ.

Where an investigation has a particularly broad scope and there are serious suspicions of an offense, the Commission does not violate the principle of proportionality when it requires an undertaking to provide it with a large amount of information in a specific format that allows for comparison with the information provided by other participants.

The mere fact that the application of search terms imposed by the Commission and drawn from common language results in the identification of numerous documents, some of which may later prove irrelevant to the Commission's investigation, is not sufficient, in itself, to make a finding that those terms have no correlation with the offense in question or to exclude the possibility that the Commission could reasonably have supposed, at the time of the contested decision, that applying those search terms could have helped it to determine the existence and extent of that infringement, its duration or the circle of undertakings involved.

GC, Case T-451/20 Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd, Judgment of 24 May 2023 , LawLex202400005922JBJ.

Can the Commission require that responses be in a specific format?

The obligation to provide the information requested by the Commission rests on the owners of the undertakings concerned or their representatives and, in the case of legal entities, companies, or associations without legal personality, the persons responsible for representing them according to the law or the company statutes. The information may also be communicated to the Commission by lawyers duly authorized on behalf of their clients, who remain fully responsible for the completeness, accuracy, and undistorted nature of the information provided.

Who must provide the requested information?

The undertaking is subject to the obligation to respond as soon as the simple request for information is sent. The following are characterized as refusals to cooperate:

provision of only part of the information requested;

refusal to provide the information requested on the grounds that it would expose the undertaking to criminal sanctions in its home Member State.

However, the time allotted to the undertaking to respond must be reasonable, considering the risk of a fine that weighs on it and the burden of collecting and verifying the completeness, accuracy, and undistorted nature of the information to be provided.

The scope of the duty to cooperate depends on the purpose of the investigation as specified in the request to which the undertaking must refer in order to respond.

The response of the undertaking must be assessed as a whole. Indeed, this assessment cannot be limited to only the answers to the questions asked. The following must be considered as a response to a request for information:

responses to the specific questions of the Commission;

information that goes beyond the specific scope of these questions, insofar as it falls within the subject of the Commission's request.

The undertaking must not only provide the required information within the time limit set by the Commission but also provide accurate and complete information. As part of its obligation of active cooperation, the undertaking may even be asked to provide information that is not in its possession.

Are undertakings required to cooperate?

The undertaking's obligation to provide accurate and undistorted information is inferred from Article 18 of Regulation No 1/2003, which requires the Commission to specify in its request for information the penalties incurred in the event of providing inaccurate information.

Any information that provides a distorted image of the situation in question, significantly deviating from reality on important points, is inaccurate, particularly if it is false or so incomplete that the response as a whole is likely to mislead the Commission about the true situation. An undertaking cannot, in response to a request for information:

refrain from communicating documents that would allow the identification of the number and nature of the contracts concerned by a recommendation from an association of undertakings;

The answers to the Commission's specific questions, as well as the information that goes beyond the specific scope of these questions, constitute a response insofar as they fall within the subject of the Commission's request.

What is inaccurate information?

In the case of a simple request, only the inaccuracy of the information exposes the undertaking to a financial penalty, whereas the refusal to respond is sufficient to sanction the undertaking questioned by way of decision.

The undertaking questioned that provides inaccurate or distorted information in response to a formal request from the Commission is liable to a fine, whether the information was provided spontaneously or at the Commission's request.

The fine may amount to 1% of the total turnover achieved during the preceding financial year, whether the infringement is committed intentionally or by negligence (Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23).

The Commission may also impose a penalty payment on the undertaking of up to 5% of the average daily turnover achieved during the preceding financial year per day of delay to compel it to provide the requested information in full (Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23).

Advice: While raids are the most intrusive form of investigation, do not take information requests lightly and prepare for them alongside search and seizure operations.

The undertaking, which, in response to a request for information from the Commission, provides its turnover figures in an incorrect manner, commits gross negligence justifying an increase in the amount of the fine.

GC, Case T-332/01 Roquette Frères SA Judgment of 27 September 2006, Roquette Frères SA, LawLex200900000049JBJ.

The undertaking, which, in response to a request for information from the Commission, does not provide the documents that would allow the identification of the number and nature of the contracts concerned by a recommendation from an association of undertakings, provides incomplete information justifying an order to supply precise information within a two-month period under penalty of sanctions.

Commisson decision No 82/174 Fire Insurance (D), 9 December 1981, LawLex200500004079JBJ.

What are the penalties for providing incomplete or inaccurate information?

The provisions of the Treaty grant undertakings the right to challenge in court the decisions made by the Commission during the preliminary investigation. The undertaking, whose legal situation may be altered by the effect of the inspection decision or requiring the provision of information, indeed has an interest in acting to preserve its rights. It has two avenues of recourse for this:

application for interim relief to obtain the suspension of the enforcement of the decision.

These remedies are strictly regulated and cannot be exercised in all cases where the undertaking disagrees with the Commission's decision.

A simple request for information not constituting a decision within the meaning of Union law, no appeal is available against it.

What remedies are available to undertakings against a request for information?

Any natural or legal person may, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, bring an action for annulment against decisions of which they are the addressee or which concern them directly and individually.

The admissibility of the appeal depends on the challengeable nature of the act .

For a measure to be classified as a challengeable act, it must affect the legal situation of the person concerned . This is notably the case for a decision rejecting a request for the protection of documents from the staff members of an undertaking on the grounds of their private life.

Acts that unequivocally establish a measure producing legal effects affecting the interests of the persons concerned by bringing about a distinct change in their legal position and that are binding on them alone may be subject to an action for annulment.

GC, Case T-87/96 Assicurazioni Generali SpA and Unicredito SpA, Judgment of 4 March 1999, LawLex200500004255JBJ.

The request for information by way of decision constitutes a challengeable act, as it is likely to affect the legal situation of the party concerned, even if the latter has complied with this request.

CFI, Case T-46/92 Scottish Football Association, Judgment of 9 November 1994, LawLex200500004002JBJ.

What are the admissibility conditions for an action for annulment?

Article 278 TFEU grants the European court the ability to order the suspension of the enforcement of the contested act. The suspension of enforcement may be granted if it is established that its granting is prima facie justified in fact and in law (fumus boni juris) and that it is necessary to prevent serious and irreparable harm to the applicant's interests after balancing the interests of the parties. These requirements are cumulative. The possibility of obtaining a suspension of the investigation procedure appears limited .

According to the Court, only exceptional circumstances would allow the judge in summary proceedings to order the suspension of the procedure for the application of Article 101 TFEU.

Furthermore, the Court considered that the financial harm that could result from the obligation imposed by the Commission on the undertaking to employ significant human and material resources to respond to a request for information constitutes a reparable harm, as long as the undertaking still has the ability to seek compensation.

The judge hearing the application for interim relief cannot in principle accede to a request for interim measures seeking to prevent the Commission from exercising its powers of investigation after the opening of an administrative procedure.

CFI, Case T-216/01 R Reisebank AG, Judgment of 5 December 2001, LawLex200500003895JBJ.

To what extent can an undertaking obtain a stay of enforcement of a Commission's decision?

Article 20 of Regulation No 1/2003 authorizes the Commission to “carry out all necessary inspections of undertakings and associations of undertakings.”

The regulation thus covers both simple and extensive investigations according to the types of French competition law. Authorized agents conduct the inspection by way of warrant or decision and are assisted by agents of the authority of the Member State on whose territory the investigation operations take place.

500 Questions - Business Law

170. Can the Commission choose between the different types of inspection?

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

170. Can the Commission choose between the different types of inspection?

Demandez un accès gratuit au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise