The White & Case Dawn Raid Analysis Quarterly (DRAQ) is an information and discussion resource regarding surprise on-the-spot inspections by antitrust authorities (dawn raids) across Europe. DRAQ provides updates on recent case law, enforcement activity and trends.
Q2 2026 at a glance
In the second quarter of 2026, European competition authorities conducted a total of 15 dawn raids, four fewer than in the previous quarter (Q1 2026).
The most active competition authority in Q2 2026 was the Polish competition authority conducting four dawn raids, followed by the Romanian competition authority conducting three dawn raids. Consumer goods was the most targeted sector this quarter, with competition authorities conducting four dawn raids in Q2 2026.
We provide more statistics below on the number of raids and the sectors impacted, including a country-by-country list, available through our Interactive Dawn Raid map.
Key Q2 2026 legal developments
Below is a selection of key developments in Q2 2026:
- The General Court draws the line on lawyers' fee cost recovery during a dawn raid
- Antitrust enforcement without borders? The case that could reshape European Commission's investigative powers
- No-poach and wage-fixing in the spotlight in Poland: Polish competition authority conducts three dawn raids in two weeks
The General Court draws the line on lawyers' fee cost recovery during a dawn raid
On 22 April 2026, General Court (the Court) delivered a judgment concerning a demand for a reimbursement of costs arising from a dawn raid. In March 2023, the European Commission (the Commission) ordered an inspection at Red Bull's premises in Austria, France, and the Netherlands, as part of an investigation into potential anticompetitive agreements and abuse of dominant position in the energy drinks sector. After the on-site inspection at Red Bull's premises concluded on 24 March 2023, the Commission moved the inspection to its own premises in Brussels. This continuation took place over two periods: 14-20 June 2023 and 29 August-29 September 2023.
Red Bull subsequently submitted a reimbursement request covering travel and accommodation expenses, daily subsistence allowances, and the entirety of its lawyers' fees — including fees from a second law firm instructed specifically for the Brussels phase. The Commission agreed to reimburse travel, accommodation, and subsistence costs but refused to reimburse the lawyers' fees.
The central issue of the dispute was what constitutes additional costs and could be therefore reimbursable. The Court held that reimbursable costs are the costs that qualify as "additional costs":
- Costs must be over and above those that would have been incurred had the inspection continued at the undertaking's own premises, and
- there must be an exclusive causal link between the costs and the fact that the inspection continued at the Commission's premises.
The Court held that lawyers' fees do not generally qualify as additional costs where the undertaking had already chosen to be assisted by lawyers during the on-site phase, because the legal services would, in principle, have been the same regardless of location. Given that Red Bull had engaged lawyers on a continuous basis throughout the on-site inspection at its premises in March 2023, no exclusive causal connection could be established between the decision to continue the inspection in Brussels and the legal fees arising from that continued phase.
The Court acknowledged that the Commission has not entirely excluded the prospect that some lawyers' fees may amount to "additional costs"; however, it is for a company to show that the particular legal services to which those fees relate would not have been rendered had the inspection taken place at its own premises. As regards the fees charged by the law firm based in Brussels that Red Bull had instructed, the Court declined to grant reimbursement, observing that Red Bull had at no point supplied the itemised breakdown of its lawyers' fees that the Commission had specifically asked for, and had instead consistently taken the position that it was entitled to full reimbursement.
Practical implications
- Understand what qualifies as "additional costs". The Court has reiterated that reimbursable costs must satisfy the two-part test set out above. Travel, accommodation, and subsistence costs for staff and lawyers travelling to Brussels for the continuation of the inspection will typically qualify. Lawyers' fees, however, will generally not, particularly where a company was already using lawyers during the on-site phase unless a company can prove that the fees were genuinely incurred as a result of the change of location.
- Document everything meticulously from the outset. The Commission may request detailed evidence — including names of lawyers, hours worked, hourly rates, descriptions of advice provided, and reasons why that advice was provided solely for the purpose of the continued inspection. Companies should maintain granular records from day one of the inspection and be prepared to substantiate every cost item.
Antitrust enforcement without borders? The case that could reshape European Commission's investigative powers
On 6 May 2026, a US-headquarter chip and software companies group (the Group) filed an appeal before the EU General Court challenging the Commission's request for information (RFI) issued by way of a decision ordering the Group to produce documents located outside the EU, including documents containing legal advice from non-EU qualified lawyers on non-EU law matters.
The lawsuit follows complaints emerging from users and trade associations alleging that, amongst others, the Group had imposed unfair licensing practises that harmed European cloud providers. In response, the Commission opened an investigation into potential antitrust abuse.
The core of the dispute relates to the correspondence containing legal advice given by the company's US-based in-house lawyers on matters of US law that are also located outside of the EU. Under US law, these documents are protected by legal professional privilege. However, EU law on legal professional privilege does not extend to communications with in-house lawyers. This is because in-house lawyers are viewed as employees who are not necessarily independent from their company employer. Only advice from external lawyers benefits from protection under EU law.
Specifically, the key grounds of appeal are:
- The Commission unlawfully interferes with the Group's privileged communications with non-EU lawyers on non-EU law, infringing its fundamental rights.
- The Commission lacks enforcement jurisdiction to compel a non-EU based company to produce documents located outside the EU, including those containing non-EU advice in violation of the principle of territoriality under public international law.
- The decision breaches the principle of comity, which requires the Commission to exercise restraint and defer to non-EU privilege rules where enforcement would adversely affect the essential interests of those jurisdictions.
- The Commission cannot circumvent these jurisdictional limits by directing enforcement measures at the Group's EU-domiciled subsidiary which lacks access to or control over the documents at issue.
Practical implications
The appeal has the potential to redefine the boundaries of the Commission's investigative reach, particularly regarding the treatment of foreign legal privilege during both formal information requests and dawn raids, and could set an important precedent for all non-EU headquartered companies subject to EU antitrust enforcement.
- First test of non-EU privilege before EU courts: This is the first time that the Court will be called upon to determine whether legal advice on non-EU law matters is protected from disclosure to EU investigators. The settled EU law only addresses the status of EU-based in-house lawyers at an EU company. This case extends the debate into an entirely new dimension involving cross-border privilege.
- Implications for dawn raids and beyond: The outcome of this case could have profound consequences for how the Commission conducts dawn raids at companies with global operations. If the Court rules that non-EU privileged documents must be respected, it could impose new constraints on what Commission inspectors can seize or demand during dawn raids at EU subsidiaries of non-EU parent companies. This issue also arises in other types of proceedings or investigations such as in relation to merger control, or Foreign Subsidies Regulation (FSR).
- Extraterritorial enforcement limits: The case squarely raises the question of whether the Commission can effectively reach beyond EU borders by compelling an EU subsidiary to produce documents held by its non-EU parent, particularly when those documents are privileged under the parent's home jurisdiction. This has direct relevance to dawn raids, where inspectors may encounter documents on shared servers or in global document management systems that contain advice from lawyers in multiple jurisdictions.
- Practical impact on multinational compliance: For multinational companies operating in the EU, the case will clarify whether they need to segregate privileged non-EU legal advice from documents accessible to EU subsidiaries — a significant operational and compliance consideration that would affect how companies prepare for and respond to dawn raids.
No-poach and wage-fixing in the spotlight in Poland: Polish competition authority conducts three dawn raids in two weeks
Over a two week period spanning late May and early June of this year, the Polish Competition Authority (UOKiK) conducted three separate dawn raids targeting suspected no-poach and wage-fixing agreements in the retail/logistics, automotive components and pharmaceutical packaging sectors. The UOKiK has made clear that these dawn raids form part of a broader and ongoing programme of labour market enforcement. Given the pace and breadth of these investigations, there is no doubt that labour market collusion now sits amongst priority enforcement areas.
The three matters cover distinct but overlapping dynamics. On 25 May 2026, UOKiK raided Lidl (supermarket chain) and four transport companies, suspecting that carriers serving Lidl's distribution centers agreed not to recruit each other's drivers, with Lidl allegedly operating an access-control mechanism that entrenched the arrangement. On 2 June 2026, UOKiK opened formal antitrust proceedings against Dino Polska (also a supermarket chain), four carriers, and five individual managers, alleging a three-month "quarantine period" during which drivers could not move between carriers in the Dino network, with Dino Polska suspected of being the scheme's initiator and enforcer. On 8 June 2026, UOKiK raided automotive components manufacturers (including Toyota Boshoku) and pharmaceutical packaging producers, investigating suspected wage-fixing (including coordination of salaries and employee benefits) alongside mutual no-poach agreements amongst companies active across inter alia industrial manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, logistics, and automotive supply.
Three sets of dawn raids across three separate matters within two weeks indicate a sustained, proactive programme of enforcement – not isolated incidents. Given the wide range of sectors in which UOKiK conducts dawn raids, this enforcement could target any sector. Even companies that do not compete directly compete in any downstream product could still be at risk of enforcement if they recruit from the same regional workforce pool and infringe the rules. Businesses active in Poland should proactively review HR policies, contractor access protocols, inter-company recruitment arrangements, and any salary benchmarking coordination before UOKiK's investigative focus widens further.
Interactive Dawn Raid map
Hover over the highlighted countries to get a closer look at the enforcement activity of the respective National Competition Authorities since 2021.
Austria2024
2023
2022
2021
Belgium2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
Bulgaria2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
Croatia2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
Cyprus2023
2022
2021
Czech Republic2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
Denmark2026
2025
2023
2022
2021
Estonia
Finland2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
France2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
Germany2024
2023
2022
2021
Greece2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
Hungary2025
2023
2022
2021
Ireland2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
Italy2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
Latvia2026
2025
No dawn raids for the period 2021 – 2023 Lithuania
Luxembourg2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
Netherlands2026
2025
2023
2022
2021
Norway2026
2025
2023
2022
2021
Poland2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
Portugal2024
2023
2022
2021
Romania2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
Slovakia2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
Slovenia2026
2024
2023
2022
2021
Spain2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
Sweden2023
2022
2021
Switzerland2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
United Kingdom2023
2022
2021
|
A look at the statistics
The information below has been sourced from LexisPSL, and is based on dawn raids that have been publicly announced by competition authorities. The LexisPSL information was supplemented from selected public sources in jurisdictions where further information was available. Since not all competition authorities announce every dawn raid, the data below likely underestimate the number of raids. The sector charts reflect dawn raids in which the sectors were identified by the competent authorities. In some jurisdictions (e.g., Germany or Czech Republic), the authority publishes the number of raids without identifying the sector. As a result, the statistics in the charts below may underestimate the actual number of dawn raids by sector and country. The statistics displayed for the Czech Republic are available only as of 2021.
White & Case means the international legal practice comprising White & Case LLP, a New York State registered limited liability partnership, White & Case LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated under English law and all other affiliated partnerships, companies and entities.
This article is prepared for the general information of interested persons. It is not, and does not attempt to be, comprehensive in nature. Due to the general nature of its content, it should not be regarded as legal advice.
