Hoechst AG v Commission
The Commission's powers to carry out dawn raids are subject to fundamental rights, but the inviolability of the home does not extend to business premises, and the decision ordering an inspection must state its subject matter and purpose.
Facts
The European Commission adopted a decision ordering Hoechst to submit to an inspection of its premises, on suspicion of participating in cartels in the PVC and polyethylene industries. Hoechst refused to allow the inspectors in without a search warrant, and the Commission obtained a warrant from a German court and imposed a periodic penalty payment on Hoechst for its refusal. Hoechst challenged the decisions, arguing that the inspection breached the fundamental right to the inviolability of the home.
Legal principle
The Court of Justice dismissed the challenge. The court said that the fundamental rights protected by EU law include the right to protection against arbitrary or disproportionate intervention by public authorities in the sphere of the private activities of any person, but that the right to the inviolability of the home, recognised in national legal systems, applied to the private dwellings of natural persons and could not be extended to business premises. The decision ordering the inspection must specify its subject matter and purpose, and the Commission must respect the procedural guarantees laid down by national law when seeking assistance from national authorities. The European Court of Human Rights later took a broader view of article 8 in relation to business premises.
Related cases on investigations, cartels and penalties
- A Menarini Diagnostics SRL v Italy (2011) Application no 43509/08
- Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd v Commission Case C-550/07 P, [2010] ECR I-8301
- AM & S Europe Ltd v Commission Case 155/79, [1982] ECR 1575
- Norris v Government of the United States of America [2008] UKHL 16, [2008] 1 AC 920
- Orkem SA v Commission Case 374/87, [1989] ECR 3283
- Pfleiderer AG v Bundeskartellamt Case C-360/09, [2011] ECR I-5161
- Vantaan kaupunki v Skanska Industrial Solutions Oy Case C-724/17, EU:C:2019:204
Studying competition law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
