On 16 July 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) delivered an important judgment in IMI – Imagens Médicas Integradas SA and Others v Autoridade da Concorrência,[1] concerning the powers of competition authorities to seize electronic communications during antitrust investigations. In a decision likely to be welcomed by competition regulators across the EU, the Court confirmed that EU law does not require prior judicial authorisation for the seizure of business emails during competition inspections, provided that the applicable legal framework contains appropriate safeguards to protect fundamental rights and that effective judicial review is available.
The judgment reflects the increasing importance of electronic evidence in competition investigations and reinforces the need for businesses to maintain robust dawn raid preparedness procedures.
Background
The cases arose from investigations conducted by the Portuguese Competition Authority. During inspections of several undertakings, the authority seized business emails exchanged between employees and managers pursuant to warrants issued by the Portuguese Public Prosecutor’s Office. The inspections were not authorised in advance by a court.
The undertakings challenged the legality of the seizures before the Portuguese courts, arguing that business email communications constitute protected correspondence and that the seizure of such communications without prior judicial authorisation infringed their rights under Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the “Charter“), which protect the right to respect for private life and communications and the right to protection of personal data respectively. In particular, the undertakings argued that the seizure of business emails should have been authorised by a court rather than the Public Prosecutor’s Office.
The Portuguese Competition, Regulation and Supervision Court referred a number of questions to the CJEU regarding whether the Portuguese regime was compatible with Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter and, more generally, EU law.
The CJEU’s decision
The Grand Chamber held that Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter do not require prior judicial authorisation for the seizure of business emails exchanged between employees and managers by a competition authority in the context of a competition investigation.
The Court accepted that the seizure of business emails constitutes an interference with the rights protected by Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter. However, it reiterated that those rights are not absolute and may be restricted where such restrictions are provided for by law, pursue an objective of general interest and satisfy the principle of proportionality.
In the Court’s view, the effective enforcement of EU competition law constitutes an objective of general interest capable of justifying such interference. The Court recognised that access to documentary evidence, including electronic communications, is often essential for competition authorities to detect and investigate potential infringements of competition law.
Significantly, the Court concluded that prior judicial authorisation is not a prerequisite under Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter for the lawful seizure of business emails by competition authorities. Instead, what is required is the existence of an appropriate legal framework containing sufficient procedural safeguards to protect against arbitrary or disproportionate interference with fundamental rights.
The Court emphasised that the proportionality of investigative measures must be assessed having regard to the overall procedural framework, including the availability of effective judicial review.
Key takeaways
Confirmation of broad investigatory powers
The judgment confirms that competition authorities may, subject to applicable national laws and procedural safeguards, seize business emails during inspections without first obtaining a court order. The decision therefore confirms the broad investigatory powers available to competition authorities throughout the EU, subject to applicable procedural safeguards and fundamental rights protections.
Continued importance of procedural safeguards
The Court did not endorse unrestricted access to corporate communications. Rather, it stressed that fundamental rights protections remain relevant and that any interference with those rights must be proportionate and accompanied by adequate safeguards.
Accordingly, the focus of the Court’s analysis was not on whether prior judicial authorisation had been obtained, but on whether the applicable legal framework provides sufficient safeguards against arbitrary or disproportionate interference with fundamental rights. In this respect, the decision is consistent with the decision of the Irish Supreme Court in CRH plc v CCPC, which established principles on safeguards and proportionality in respect of the seizure and use of material falling outside the scope of a competition investigation.
Increased regulatory focus on electronic evidence
The judgment reflects the reality that electronic communications now play a central role in competition investigations. Competition authorities increasingly rely on emails, messaging services and other digital records when investigating suspected cartel conduct, information exchanges, abuse of dominance and other infringements.
Businesses should therefore expect electronic communications to remain a key focus of competition inspections and investigations.
What businesses should do
As competition authorities continue to place increasing reliance on electronic evidence, businesses should ensure that their dawn raid response procedures are fit for purpose. This includes reviewing internal protocols, training employees on their obligations during inspections, maintaining robust processes for identifying legally privileged and out-of-scope materials and ensuring that document retention, communications and data governance policies can effectively withstand regulatory scrutiny.
For further information, please contact a member of our Competition and Regulated Markets Group.
[1] Joined Cases C‑258/23 to C‑260/23, EU:C:2026:585, 16 July 2026
