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.
Q3 2025 at a glance
In the third quarter of 2025, European competition authorities conducted a total of 11 dawn raids - two more than in the same period last year (Q3 2024).
The Danish Competition and Consumer Authority was the most active regulator in Q3, carrying out three dawn raids in the consumer goods, financial services, and transport sectors. Notably, this coincides with the Danish regulator's October announcement of adopting a new press policy: proactively disclosing dawn raids shortly after they are conducted, rather than at a later stage (if at all), as was previously the case.
Ambitious start to Q4: October marked a very busy beginning to Q4. In just a month, European competition authorities conducted seven dawn raids. The European Commission targeted flu vaccine and ski equipment makers for possible anticompetitive behaviour—adding a seasonal touch.
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 Q3 2025 legal developments
Below is a selection of key developments in Q3 2025:
- AG Medina distinguishes business from personal: Guidance on business email seizures during antitrust dawn raids
- General Court endorses European Commission’s dawn raid powers in Red Bull legal challenge
- European Commission imposes first ever fine for incomplete reply to information request
AG Medina distinguishes business from personal: Guidance on business email seizures during antitrust dawn raids
On 23 October 2025, Advocate General Medina delivered her second opinion in an ongoing dawn raid case. The CJEU is seeking to answer the question of whether a competition authority needs a prior judicial authorisation to seize business emails.
The case arises from requests for a preliminary ruling submitted by a Portuguese court and concerns three parallel antitrust investigations of medical imagery, medical testing and payment provider companies. The companies claimed that for the Portuguese competition authority to seize the communication, it needed a prior authorization from a judge as opposed to just from a public prosecutor. They argued that this is because the work emails contained personal data which benefit from protection under the Article 8 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. AG Medina already delivered her first opinion in the case last year (for more details, see here). The CJEU decided to reopen the oral procedure, and convene the Grand Chamber to take into account the Landeck ruling that was delivered in the meantime. In Landeck, the judges held that when police seize personal mobile phone of a private individual from their home during a criminal investigation, they must comply with strict requirements, including obtaining a judicial authorization.
AG Medina argued that circumstances in Landeck are not comparable to the case at hand. In particular, she distinguished it from Landeck based on the following two key aspects:
- Access to business emails v access to personal mobile phone: In Landeck, the police took a suspect’s personal mobile phone from their private residence, gaining complete and unrestricted access to all its information. Such access could reveal highly detailed insights into the data subject’s private life, such as their daily routines, places they live or visit, movements, activities, social connections, and locations they frequent. In contrast, the collection of business emails generally does not enable authorities to draw such detailed conclusions about an individual’s private life. Additionally, any personal data obtained from business emails is typically gathered only incidentally and in small amounts, making it unlikely for authorities to build a comprehensive or in-depth profile of someone’s private affairs.
- Antitrust dawn raids target businesses, while a criminal investigation targets individuals: Therefore antitrust dawn raids do not justify the same level of protection as when an authority targets an individual.
On this basis, AG Medina concluded that a competition authority does not need a judicial authorization when conducting dawn raids at business premises (unless a Member State explicitly imposes such requirement) provided:
- Sufficient legal safeguards are in place: A competition authority must:
- ensure the inspection decision is well-reasoned and precise;
- limit data collection to what is strictly necessary;
- ensure the collection and access to data is carried out in the presence of representatives of the business;
- unform individuals of any processing of their personal data and of their rights;
- use rigorously defined keywords for digital searches;
- anonymise irrelevant personal data;
- ensure that personal data is stored in a secure environment, only for as long as strictly necessary;
- ensure that access to personal data is restricted to as few people as possible, who are subject to confidentiality obligations and are prohibited from using the data for purposes other than the investigation;
- secure deletion of personal data (either because it is irrelevant to the purpose of the investigation or because the acceptable period of retention has expired) by means of a general cleansing mechanism that prevents its subsequent recovery;
- have a data protection officer who examines “independently” whether the rules concerning personal data have been correctly applied.
- Ex post facto judicial review of the conduct of the inspection is available, both during and at the end of the investigation.
However, the AG emphasised that, in line with the already existing EU law, prior judicial authorization is required in two specific situations: (i) when emails are seized at an individual’s private residence, or (ii) when the seizure is intended to incriminate an individual under criminal law.
The CJEU follows AG opinions in majority of the cases. If this is the case here, the opinion serves as a useful checklist for authorities as well as businesses, in particular in relation to preservation of privacy rights.
General Court endorses European Commission’s dawn raid powers in Red Bull legal challenge
On 15 October 2025, Red Bull lost its legal challenge against the European Commission’s (EC) decision to conduct a dawn raid at its business premises. This General Court (GC) judgment provides important clarifications on the balance between the EC’s investigatory powers in antitrust investigations and the procedural safeguards available to companies subject to inspections. Notably, the case is part of a recent trend, including the Symrise and Michelin challenges, where companies have challenged the EC’s dawn raid powers, as discussed in our previous quarterly edition.
In May 2023, Red Bull contested the EC’s decision to inspect its business premises, following a raid conducted in March 2023. The investigation was prompted by a competitor’s complaint alleging that Red Bull engaged in anticompetitive practices. After the initial raid, EC inspectors continued their review at the EC’s own premises. In July 2023, Red Bull also sought interim relief to suspend the execution of the dawn raid decision, but the GC dismissed this application, finding that privacy rights were sufficiently protected – for more details see here.
In its appeal, Red Bull argued (i) that the EC’s inspection decision authorising the dawn raid was insufficiently clear about the purpose and object of the inspection, (ii) the EC did not have sufficient evidence to justify the dawn raid, and (iii) the dawn raid was disproportionate as the EC could have sent a request for information (RFI) instead which would be less restrictive. Additionally, Red Bull also argued that the decision to continue the inspection at its premises was disproportionate. It also raised issues with the behaviour of inspectors during the dawn raid.
The GC rejected all of Red Bull’s arguments. In particular, the Court found that:
- The inspection decision was sufficiently clear: The decision was adequately reasoned, enabling Red Bull to understand the scope of the inspection and its duty to cooperate. The GC noted that the decision clearly described the relevant sectors, geographic market, and the nature of the suspected anticompetitive conduct. It dismissed the argument that the inclusion of terms such as “in particular” or “potential” created uncertainty regarding the scope of the inspection or hindered Red Bull’s ability to comprehend the subject matter.
- The EC had sufficiently serious evidence: The EC had serious indications of a potential infringement, based on complaints from both a competitor and third parties. The GC emphasized that the EC is not required to verify every detail or contact every third party at this preliminary stage, as this could compromise the investigation and the “element of surprise essential to any inspection.”
- The EC was entitled to choose a dawn raid over an RFI: The GC confirmed that the EC may opt for a dawn raid instead of less intrusive measures, such as an RFI, if it considers this necessary for an effective investigation—especially where voluntary cooperation is unlikely to yield incriminating evidence.
- Conduct during the inspection is irrelevant to the legality of the dawn raid decision: Complaints about alleged aggressive behaviour of EC inspectors, handling of electronic data, or the continuation of the inspection at the EC’s premises were deemed irrelevant to the legality of the inspection decision itself. The GC noted settled case law according to which the legality of an act must be assessed based on the legal and factual circumstances at the time the act was adopted. Subsequent events cannot affect its validity, and any issues with the conduct of the inspection must be challenged separately.
Practical takeaways
- Inspection decisions must clearly state the object and purpose of the inspection, but need not provide exhaustive detail or disclose all evidence at the preliminary stage. However, the GC is prepared to scrutinise the sufficiency of the evidence in the EC’s file used as a basis to launch an inspection.
- The EC is not required to use the least intrusive means if an inspection is justified by the needs of the investigation; inspections are appropriate where voluntary disclosure is unlikely.
- Challenges to the conduct of an inspection must be raised separately from challenges to the legality of the inspection decision itself. The legality of the decision is assessed based on the circumstances at the time of adoption, not on subsequent events
European Commission imposes first ever fine for incomplete reply to information request
On 8 September 2025, the European Commission (EC) imposed a fine of €172,000 on Eurofield SAS (Eurofield) and its then-parent company for providing incomplete information in response to requests for information (RFI) during an ongoing antitrust investigation in the synthetic turf sector. This marks the first time the EC has fined a company for an incomplete RFI reply in an antitrust case. The decision sends a clear message: companies must take RFIs very seriously. For more details, see our alert.
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
Belgium2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
Bulgaria2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
Croatia2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
Cyprus2023
2022
2021
Czech Republic2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
Denmark2025
2023
2022
2021
Estonia
Finland2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
France2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
Germany2024
2023
2022
2021
Greece2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
Hungary2025
2023
2022
2021
Ireland2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
Italy2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
Latvia2025
No dawn raids for the period 2021 – 2023 Lithuania
Luxembourg2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
Netherlands2025
2023
2022
2021
Norway2025
2023
2022
2021
Poland2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
Portugal2024
2023
2022
2021
Romania2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
Slovakia2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
Slovenia2024
2023
2022
2021
Spain2025
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.
View full image: Number of dawn raids per year in the EU, Switzerland and the UK, 2018 – 2025 (Q3 + October) (PDF)
View full image: Dawn raid leader board (PDF)
View full image: Number of dawn raids tracker per year and during 2018 – 2025 (Q3 + October) in the EU, plus Switzerland and the
View full image: Dawn raid tracker by sector: EU plus Switzerland and the UK, 2018 – 2025 (Q3 + October) (PDF)
View full image: Dawn raids tracker by sector: EU plus Switzerland and the UK, 2024 and 2025 (Q3 + October) (PDF)
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.
