06|12|2017
The Competition Council does not have absolute powers of investigation, concludes Administrative district court
The court concludes that the powers of investigation of the Competition Council are not absolute and do not create legal grounds to receive any information in any amount.
Administrative district court has recognized that actions of the Executive Directorate of the Competition Council when seizing private and sensitive date from a PC used for business purposes amount to actual actions of a state institution. The court has concluded that an employee has a protected right to a private life also in the office environment and this right needs to be respected by the state institutions when executing their functions.
Most importantly, the court has indicated in the judgment that in accordance with the Competition law the Executive Directorate of the Competition Council should firstly conduct review and selection of the data and only afterwards seize or copy any data. The Executive Directorate is entitled to seize only data relevant for the purpose of investigation. Thus, the court has finally accepted the notation that the Executive Directorate cannot request or seize any data that the undertaking has.
The data copied in the current matter were not reviewed and selected. The Executive Directorate did not conduct any analysis, which data was required for the ongoing investigation. Thereby, the Executive Directorate of the Competition Council did not observe the limits of their authorisations set forth by the Competition law and court decision sanctioning the ongoing investigation and obtained evidence that was not relevant for the purposes of their investigation.
It is important to note that the officials of the Executive Directorate did not inform the applicant that it was possible to identify private information and data during the ongoing search at the company premises. Thus, the officials of the Executive Directorate breach internal regulations of the Competition Council and the Law on Protection of the Data of Natural Persons.
Back
Administrative district court has recognized that actions of the Executive Directorate of the Competition Council when seizing private and sensitive date from a PC used for business purposes amount to actual actions of a state institution. The court has concluded that an employee has a protected right to a private life also in the office environment and this right needs to be respected by the state institutions when executing their functions.
Most importantly, the court has indicated in the judgment that in accordance with the Competition law the Executive Directorate of the Competition Council should firstly conduct review and selection of the data and only afterwards seize or copy any data. The Executive Directorate is entitled to seize only data relevant for the purpose of investigation. Thus, the court has finally accepted the notation that the Executive Directorate cannot request or seize any data that the undertaking has.
The data copied in the current matter were not reviewed and selected. The Executive Directorate did not conduct any analysis, which data was required for the ongoing investigation. Thereby, the Executive Directorate of the Competition Council did not observe the limits of their authorisations set forth by the Competition law and court decision sanctioning the ongoing investigation and obtained evidence that was not relevant for the purposes of their investigation.
It is important to note that the officials of the Executive Directorate did not inform the applicant that it was possible to identify private information and data during the ongoing search at the company premises. Thus, the officials of the Executive Directorate breach internal regulations of the Competition Council and the Law on Protection of the Data of Natural Persons.
