The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that EU law does not inherently prohibit national competition authorities from seizing business emails during dawn raids without prior judicial authorization. However, the Luxembourg-based court emphasized that national frameworks must impose strict limits and guarantee effective ex post judicial review to prevent potential abuse.
The ruling stems from three joined cases originating in Portugal, involving health sector and payment processing companies including Imagens Médicas Integradas, Synlabhealth II, and SIBS. During investigations into alleged anticompetitive practices, the Portuguese competition authority seized internal email exchanges between managers and staff. The affected businesses contested the actions, arguing that seizing electronic communications required authorization from an investigating judge rather than the Public Prosecutor’s Office.
In its decision, the Court acknowledged that seizing work emails limits fundamental rights guaranteed under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, specifically the rights to private life, communications, and personal data protection. Nevertheless, judges determined that such interferences are justified by the public interest objective of preserving undistorted competition. The Court noted that as long as authorities lack unrestricted access and restrict their use of seized data strictly to identifying anticompetitive behavior, the essence of those fundamental rights remains respected.
Furthermore, the Court pointed out that EU competition rules do not explicitly mandate prior court authorization for inspections carried out on business premises. Authorization from an independent body such as the Portuguese Public Prosecutor’s Office helps ensure that inspections remain bounded in scope, duration, and appropriateness.
However, the EU tribunal established a crucial reservation concerning personal and mixed-use devices. When competition inspectors access mobile phones, laptops, or storage media used for both professional and private purposes, the potential intrusion into an individual’s private life becomes far more severe. In those specific instances, the Court ruled that national law must require prior authorization from a court or an independent administrative body before inspectors can examine or seize the data.