EU ANTITRUST: HOT TOPICS & NEXT STEPS

Prague, Czechia

EU ANTITRUST: HOT TOPICS & NEXT STEPS 2022

other economic or other records relating to the business activities of the person under investigation. It is not decisive where this information is located, on which medium and where it is stored. Competition authorities may obtain or obtain information on anti-competitive conduct in any form, not only original documents but also copies or extracts from the accounts. Where information in electronic form is subject to inspection, competition authorities may, through authorised officials, search all electronic devices, data storage facilities such as servers, desktops, laptops, mobile phones or tablets and, where appropriate, other mobile devices and storage media such as CD-ROMs, DVDs, USB keys, external hard drives, backup tapes, cloud services of the entity under investigation, etc. The above authorisation shall also apply to private establishments located at the site of the inspection at the time of the inspection. To do this, the keywords you enter should also be part of the credential. Specialized forensic (investigative) tools in the form of special software or hardware can also be used for searching. These tools should record data in an unchanged form, therefore so-called fingerprints of data should be created, which should be kept unchanged or even modified throughout the administrative procedure. The imprint is captured in the form of a forensic copy. This in itself is an authentic duplicate, both partially and in all the data stored on the original carrier (Jalabert-Doury, M., 2020; Practical procedures for planning Dawn Raid. European Competition Network) In the taking of evidence, the person under investigation is obliged to cooperate, otherwise he is threatened with the imposition of a procedural fine. Investigations using forensic tools shall be carried out by a responsible official of the competition authority. As part of proper cooperation, between the competition authority and the competitor under investigation, the provision of an employee who is able to explain the functioning of a particular IT system of the company or is able to block access to e-mail or disconnect specific computers from the network. The subject under investigation should also disclose all access passwords through its own entity. During the inspection, the body under investigation should not interfere with the inspection or attempt to circumvent the inspection. The subject under investigation should not avoid investigations with reference, for example, to the absence of a director or owner of a company or to the fact that the e-mail servers are located in another company. The fact that such a practice is not tolerated can be demonstrated by the judgment of the Regional Court in Brno in the lawsuit of Egem s.r.o. the illegality of the on-site inspection of the investigation carried out by the Czech competition authority on the basis of the chairman’s authorisation (Authorisation of the President of the Czech competition authority of 3. 9. 2019). The unlawful interference required the blocking and extraction of J.N.’s mailbox and its transport to the site of a local investigation carried out by the defendant at the plaintiff’s premises. The court stated that: “It

257