Dawn Raid Analysis Quarterly

Key Q2 2025 legal developments

Below is a selection of key developments in Q2 2025:

• Successful challenge of inspection decision on grounds of temporal scope
• What level of detail is required for an inspection decision in an ex officio investigation?
• Regulation 1/2003 reform
• New Czech whistleblowing tool – more raids?
• Lawfulness of the joint dawn raid by the Italian and Irish competition authorities in the Ryanair case – TAR ruling

Successful challenge of inspection decision on grounds of temporal scope

On 9 July 2025, the General Court partially annulled the European Commission’s (EC) inspection decision of Michelin (Case T-188/24), which the EC had used to dawn raid Michelin in 2024 on the alleged grounds that Michelin may have infringed Article 101 TFEU by using earnings calls to signal pricing strategies to competitors. The Court upheld the inspection decision for the more recent period but annulled the part of the inspection decision referring to earlier years on the basis that the EC had not supported its suspicions for this earlier period with sufficiently serious indicia of anti-competitive conduct.

The dawn raid arose as a result of an ex officio investigation by the EC which involved the algorithmic screening of hundreds of thousands of earnings calls. The Court considered there was no contemporaneous evidence for the part of the decision referring to the earlier years, and that references in later earnings calls to past behaviour were not sufficient evidence.

The Court rejected Michelin’s arguments that the use of the words “and/or” in describing the form of the suspected co-ordination as an agreement or concerted practice was too imprecise.  The Court considered that the exact legal characterisation of the suspected co-ordination depended on an assessment which could not be required at the time the inspection decision was drafted and that the characterisation did not alter the scope of Michelin’s duty to co-operate or the extent of Michelin’s rights of defence during the inspection. The use of the word “including” to describe the EC’s suspicions did not make the decision excessively vague but allowed Michelin to understand sufficiently the EC’s suspicions.  

What level of detail is required for an inspection decision in an ex officio investigation?

On 30 April 2025 (Symrise v Commission, Case T-263/23), the General Court rejected a challenge to a dawn raid in an ex officio investigation where the EC had launched the inspection on the basis of its own market enquiries (several requests for information from third parties and an open source intelligence report), rather than information supplied by an immunity applicant.

The GC confirmed that there is a low bar for launching dawn raids in ex officio investigations. The GC held that the EC is not required in the inspection decision to:

• Set out all the information at its disposal concerning the presumed infringements
• Make a precise legal analysis or set out the exact legal nature of the presumed infringements
• Define precisely the relevant market
• Indicate the period during which the presumed infringements were committed
• Insert an end date in an inspection decision (although the inspection must end within a reasonable time which does not create a disproportionate interference with the fundamental right of privacy of the company concerned)

However, the EC must indicate the subject matter and purpose of the inspection, the presumed facts which it intends to investigate, the market thought to be affected, the nature of the suspected restrictions of competition, and the supposed degree of involvement in the infringement of the business concerned, as well as the powers of the EC inspectors.

The GC rejected arguments that the insertion of the words “inter alia” before the listing of the categories of suspected conduct rendered the reasoning in the inspection decision vague and imprecise.

Regulation 1/2003 reform 

On 10 July 2025, the EC  launched a 12-week public consultation (until 2 October 2025)  gathering views on policy options for revision of Regulation 1/2003. With respect to dawn raids, the EC is considering the following three options:

• Introducing an independent and self-standing power for the EC to adopt decisions ordering the preservation of digital and physical information; and/or
• Adapting the existing EC inspection power so that it is independent from the power to enter physical premises and means of transport (in other words creating a power to conduct fully remote inspections) and adapting the power to conduct inspections so that it covers all business records, regardless of the storage location of the data; and/or
• Enabling the EC to summon persons and ask them questions.  

New Czech whistleblowing tool – more raids?

The Czech Competition Authority has launched a new anonymous and confidential system for reporting suspected competition law infringements via a website. The new tool may result in more raids being conducted by the Authority. It will complement the tools that the Authority is already using, most importantly complaints, leniency applications and information provided by the police or other public authorities.

The service is accessible via a web interface at https://uohs.integrityline.com, which provides a quick and simple reporting system comprising a set of questions for the user to complete. Users can also upload documents and images, or leave voice mails (with automatic voice modification to hide the identity of the speaker). Whistleblowers may choose to remain anonymous or provide contact information for further communication. The Authority has declared that they guarantee strict confidentiality and anonymity in relation to any reports made through the system. The Authority recommends that users create a secure mailbox for follow-up communication which requires a chosen password and a randomly generated report number to log in. 

Lawfulness of the joint dawn raid by the Italian and Irish competition authorities in the Ryanair case – TAR ruling

In June 2025, the Regional Administrative Court of Lazio (“TAR”) upheld the legality of the joint dawn raid conducted by the Italian Competition Authority (“AGCM”) and the Irish Competition Authority (“CCPC”) at Ryanair’s premises in Dublin, Ireland. The judgment marks the last chapter in the litigation that began in March 2024 when Ryanair challenged the search warrant issued by the Dublin District Court before the Irish courts whilst simultaneously initiating proceedings before the Italian TAR, seeking interim measures. The 2025 TAR judgment confirmed the position of Italian law regarding the legality of a dawn raid conducted abroad jointly by the AGCM and a foreign competition authority, in accordance with the co-operation mechanism outlined in Article 22 of Regulation 1/2003.

Background 

In September 2023, the AGCM opened a proceeding against Ryanair for an alleged abuse of dominant position. In March 2024, the AGCM requested the assistance of the CCPC to carry out an inspection at Ryanair’s Dublin headquarters on the basis of Article 22 of Regulation 1/2003. Article 22 allows national competition authorities to assist each other with investigations. It states that, upon request, national competition authorities can undertake investigations, including inspections on behalf of another national competition authority within the European Union. 

At the beginning of the inspection, Ryanair personnel were informed about the Irish search warrant but not about the connected AGCM documents upon which the search warrant was based. Furthermore, at the end of the inspection, the inspectors did not prepare minutes of the inspection nor did they provide Ryanair with a copy of the seized documents. 

In May 2024, the Irish High Court found that the case fell outside of the jurisdiction of the Irish courts on the basis of AGCM’s actions being regarded as within the public law powers of investigation – for more details see here. In parallel, Ryanair also brought proceedings before the Italian TAR, seeking interim relief and the annulment of the inspection on the grounds that: (i) the inspection had not been duly authorised by the Board of the AGCM as required by Article 10(1) of the Regulation on the Proceedings of the Italian Competition Authority (Presidential Decree No. 217 of 1998); and (ii) the officials did not inform Ryanair about  the AGCM documents upon which the Irish search warrant was based. 

In May 2024, the TAR granted interim relief, preventing AGCM from using the documents seized during the inspection for the purposes of its investigation. It also ordered the AGCM to hand over the documents based on which the Italian competition authority requested the assistance from the Irish regulator. The AGCM appealed the interim relief before the Italian Council of State, the highest Italian administrative court. In light of the pending appeal, the TAR decided to stay the proceedings, noting that the outcome of the Council of State’s ruling on the interim measures would also affect other substantive aspects of the case.

The co-operation mechanism pursuant to Article 22 of Regulation 1/2003 under Italian law – Key takeaways

The 2025 TAR judgment (judgment No. 8507, 2 May 2025) fully endorsed the interpretation of Article 22 of Regulation 1/2003 provided by the Italian Council of State judgment issued in November 2024. 

• The Italian Council of State held that Article 22 of Regulation 1/2003, which served as the legal basis for the AGCM’s request for collaboration addressed to the CCPC, provides a sufficient foundation for initiating an investigation and does not require implementation through Italian domestic law to be effective.
• The absence of a formal decision by the AGCM’s Board under Article 10 of Presidential Decree No. 217 of 1998 does not invalidate the inspection carried out abroad, as that inspection was lawfully conducted under the co-operation mechanism established by Article 22 of Regulation 1/2003. In fact, the AGCM’s Board had adopted a resolution authorising the request for co-operation, explicitly stating that it sought assistance for an investigation. However, the Board could not formally authorise the investigation itself, as the execution of the inspection was necessarily subject to the authorisation of the competent foreign authority – in this case, the Irish court.
• Therefore, the absence of a formal decision under Article 10 of Presidential Decree No. 217 of 1998 authorising the investigation does not invalidate the inspection carried out abroad, as the latter was lawfully conducted under the co-operation mechanism established by Article 22 of Regulation 1/2003. The lawfulness of the inspection must be assessed with reference to the legal act authorising it within the jurisdiction where it took place – namely, the search warrant issued by the Irish authorities.
• The Council of State clarified that the authorisation of the AGCM’s Board is not a prerequisite for invoking Article 22 of Regulation 1/2003. Accordingly, any challenge to the validity or legality of the Irish search warrant must be brought before the Irish courts.
• At most, the Italian courts may assess whether the AGCM’s request for co-operation complied with the requirements of Article 22 of Regulation 1/2003. However, they may not review the lawfulness of investigative measures taken in another Member State, such as any alleged infringement of the rights of the undertaking under investigation.
• At the time of writing, no appeal has been lodged by either party, and the deadline for bringing an appeal has expired. The judgment is therefore final and binding.

Outlook

There may be two important consequences from this ruling. 

First, the case reveals a jurisdictional gap: the Irish courts declined to assert jurisdiction over the case on the basis of the exercise of public authority by another Member State – namely, the AGCM’s involvement in the inspection – whilst the Italian courts held that it was for the Irish judiciary to assess the legality of the search warrant and the underlying documents, including the AGCM’s request for co-operation.

Second, from a procedural standpoint, the ruling confirms that inspection decisions are treated differently under Italian law depending on whether the inspection is carried out domestically or abroad. Inspections conducted on Italian territory must comply with the procedural safeguards laid down in Article 10 of Presidential Decree No. 217/1998, including, as in the case at hand, a formal decision by the AGCM’s Board authorising the inspection.

By contrast, inspections carried out abroad pursuant to the co-operation mechanism under Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 are not subject to the same internal procedural requirements. In such cases, it is sufficient for the AGCM’s Board to approve the request for co-operation. The responsibility for assessing the legality of the inspection, including any potential violation of the rights of defence, lies with the courts of the Member State where the inspection takes place This includes review of both the request for co-operation and the supporting documentation provided by the AGCM.