Digital evidence searches in competition investigations : Best Practices for effective fundamental rights (Results of an international survey among defense lawyers)

An international survey among defense lawyers was lauched under the aegis of Concurrences in order to compare the protections that have been implemented in 15 different jurisdictions to address issues of fundamental rights arising in the frame of digital investigations. A first set of Best Practices emerges from this survey as it appears that, notwithstanding major structural differences between these regimes, similar protections are available in a large number of them. All jurisdictions should in our view consider these Best Practices, especially within the EU, where major differences remain between the various national competition regimes.

1. In April 2006, the International Competition Network published Chapter 3 of its Anti-Cartel Enforcement Manual dedicated to Digital Evidence Gathering. [1] This Chapter aims to provide an overview of practices and procedures for digital evidence gathering of ICN member agencies. It is based on information collected from ICN members in June 2005 by means of a survey to understand better the range of ICN member's approaches to digital evidence gathering and to identify good practices and procedures in that respect. 2. Unsurprisingly for a chapter based on questionnaires sent to enforcement authorities and agencies, it provides detailed information on methods, tools and techniques. It is however less instructive on the protection of fundamental rights and privileges in this respect.

L'accès à cet article est réservé aux abonnés

Déjà abonné ? Identifiez-vous

L’accès à cet article est réservé aux abonnés.

Lire gratuitement un article

Vous pouvez lire cet article gratuitement en vous inscrivant.


Version PDF


  • Mayer Brown (Paris)
  • Preslmayr
  • Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer (Dusseldorf)
  • Ashurst (Madrid)
  • Folksam (Stockholm)
  • Lenz & Staehelin (Geneva)
  • Eversheds Sutherland (London)
  • Euclid Law (London)
  • Loeb & Loeb (Washington, DC)
  • Ashurst (Singapore)
  • Gómez-Acebo & Pombo (Barcelona)
  • Cause of Action Institute (Arlington)
  • Gilbert + Tobin
  • Kahui Legal (Wellington)
  • Boverry Attorneys
  • Lenz & Staehelin (Geneva)
  • Netherlands Authority for Consumers & Markets (ACM) (The Hague)
  • Bonelli Erede (Brussels)
  • Mannheimer Swartling (Stockholm)
  • Bonelli Erede (Rome)
  • Maersk (Copenhagen)
  • Bech-Bruun (Aarhus)
  • University Dublin College (UCD)
  • Jones Day (Sydney)
  • Australian Law Reform Commission
  • Carreras, Barsikian, Robertson & Partners


Nathalie Jalabert-Doury, Serge Bourque, Benoît Merkt, Martijn Snoep, Massimo Merola, Tommy Pettersson, Sara Lembo, Camilla Jain Holtse, Christian Nielsen, Suzanne Kingston, Nick Taylor, Shreeya Smith, Kiri Tahana, Graeme Edgerton, Dieter Hauck, Martin Klusmann, Teresa Lorca Morales, Christian Hagerman, Rayan Houdrouge, Lesley Farrell, Michael Reiss, Nathan J. Muyskens, Angie Ng, Inigo Igartua, David T. Fischer, Ana Barros Feiteira, Digital evidence searches in competition investigations : Best Practices for effective fundamental rights (Results of an international survey among defense lawyers), décembre 2009, Concurrences N° 4-2009, Art. N° 29119, pp. 65-73

Visites 7485

Toutes les revues