Access to Emails in Dawn Raids: Need for Judicial Authorization?
Opinion by Advocate General L. Medina
Advocate General L. Medina presented her Opinion in Joined Cases C‑258/23 to C‑260/23 before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The Court was asked to determine if national competition authorities (NCAs) must obtain prior judicial authorization to search and seize emails during dawn raids.
Main Findings
AG Medina concluded that, under EU law interpreted in light of Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, prior judicial authorization is not generally required. This applies as long as national legal systems ensure strict procedural safeguards and effective judicial review after the fact.
Key Safeguards Required
- A well‑reasoned inspection decision based on reasonable suspicion of a competition law breach, defining both the scope and timeframe.
- Data minimization through precisely defined search parameters.
- Participation of company representatives during the inspection, with the opportunity to raise objections.
Judicial Oversight
The Opinion stresses that effective ex‑post judicial review must be available throughout and after the investigation, allowing courts to assess legality and impose consequences for procedural violations.
“EU law does not, as a rule, require prior judicial authorization for NCAs to search for and seize professional electronic correspondence during dawn raids, provided that adequate safeguards and judicial control later exist.”
Conclusion
AG Medina’s Opinion clarifies that national authorities can act without prior court approval if robust legal and procedural protections are ensured at every stage of the competition investigation.
Author’s summary: The Opinion balances efficiency of competition enforcement with fundamental rights, emphasizing post‑raid judicial accountability over pre‑authorization.