knowledge 18 March 2026 |

A New Dawn for Dawn Raids? Proposals for the Reform of Regulation 1/2003 and the Future of Unannounced Inspections

Introduction

Fostering healthy and competitive markets is a key objective of the European Union. And one set of regulations has served as the cornerstone of EU competition enforcement for over two decades: Regulation 1/2003¹ (the “Regulations”). In force since May 2004, the Regulations decentralised application of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU to national competition authorities and courts while preserving the central investigative powers of the European Commission (“EC”). While it is generally accepted that the Regulations have proven effective, rapid and far-reaching changes in the technological landscape have, in recent years, given rise to questions as to their continued fitness for purpose in relation to investigative work in particular.

The EC initiated its review of the Regulations in March 2022, as they approached their 20th birthday. The review aimed to evaluate the functioning of the procedural antitrust framework in terms of its (i) effectiveness, (ii) efficiency, (iii) relevance, (iv) coherence, and (v) EU added value. The output of this review took the form of a Staff Working Document² in September 2024. In an executive summary published alongside the Staff Working Document, the EC acknowledged that while “net outcomes associated with the Regulations have been generally positive", certain aspects require modernisation to address contemporary business practices – particularly digitalisation.

A public consultation process began in July 2025 to gather stakeholder feedback on potential targeted reforms to the Regulations for the purposes of enhancing the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of competition enforcement.  

Article 20 of the Regulations, which deals with the EC’s powers of inspection, has been a particularly hot topic for the EC and stakeholders alike throughout the review and consultation process. In this article, we focus on those inspection powers, examining the case for reform, the EC’s proposals, stakeholder feedback, and potential impacts for Irish businesses. 

Dawn Raids and Evidence Gathering: Current Framework and the Case for Reform

Current Framework

Inspections – and particularly unannounced inspections – are one of the EC’s most potent enforcement tools. Article 20 empowers EC officials to carry out what are colloquially known as “dawn raids” – a term derived from EC inspection teams’ preferred modus operandi : swift, unannounced, early morning arrival at business premises and homes. The element of surprise is critical in such raids, allowing records to be seized by officials before they can be tampered with or destroyed.

Dawn raids carried out by the EC may be by ‘written authorisation’ (referred to as a simple inspection) or by a formal EC decision. While there is no legal obligation to submit to an inspection under a written authorisation (however, where a company voluntarily submits to an inspection, they must not obstruct the investigation), parties must submit to an inspection by decision.

Subject to the terms of the inspection (whether under the written authorisation or decision), officials may search the entire physical premises and IT environment of the undertaking concerned.³ With work from home arrangements growing in prevalence, authorities are increasingly carrying out raids connected to investigations into anticompetitive business practices at private dwellings⁴. Searching the digital space has, however, proven to be the most important and probative aspect of most raids – and forensic IT experts routinely accompany inspection teams to retrieve data, image hard drives, and access cloud-hosted accounts from terminals on-site.

The Case for Reform

The current inspection framework has proven robust and effective, yet technological advancements have highlighted its limitations: inspection powers remain tethered to physical entry onto premises, leaving inspectors unable to capture relevant evidence if data is not accessible on-site; cloud computing has fundamentally changed data storage protocols since the Regulations came into effect more than 20 years ago; and the mass adoption of the hybrid working model in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, together with the increased preference for ephemeral messaging applications over traditional email in many industries, has introduced additional challenges for inspectors. Specifically, the mix of hybrid working and increased digitisation of working methods has widened the scope of locations and materials that may be within the scope of an inspection.

These challenges slow down investigations, extending timelines and increasing legal and technical costs for both regulators and regulated entities. This has led in recent years to regulators and businesses seeking a move away from traditional boots-on-the-ground dawn raids, toward remote inspections and the introduction of associated powers and processes.

Stakeholder Views

To this end, the EC Consultation invited submissions on three specific and significant proposals concerning its inspection powers:

1. the introduction of an independent and self-standing power for the EC to adopt decisions ordering the preservation of digital and physical information; and/or
2. the adaptation of existing powers to enable inspectors to conduct fully remote inspections, covering all business records, regardless of the storage location of the data; and/or
3. the creation of a power enabling the EC to summon persons to compulsory interview and to ask them questions regarding ongoing investigations.

The Consultation closed in October 2025, having received 75 responses from 73 different stakeholders. These included business and legal associations, corporations, NGO’s, individual European citizens, and others. On 19 February 2026, the EC published a factual summary of the most relevant feedback provided by stakeholders on the topics covered by the consultation⁵.

As may have been expected, views diverged both as between different stakeholders, and as between each proposal:

1. Preservation Orders 
   Some respondents questioned the necessity for preservation orders in light of the existing general preservation obligation arising under CJEU case law. Respondents also raised concerns about increased IT costs and queried how the scope of these orders would account for, or deal with, extra-territorial materials. Others submitted that such orders would be less intrusive than dawn raids, provide greater legal certainty, and enable more targeted data collection.
    
2. Remote Inspections 
   Concerns regarding respect for fair procedures were the common thread throughout the responses on this proposal. Stakeholders asserted that remote inspections, should they be introduced, must be subject to the same or higher procedural safeguards as traditional inspections, including the right to have legal representation, healthy respect for privilege, a clearly defined inspection scope, and the need for a formal written decision. Views on the costs of such inspections were, again, mixed: some expected costs to simply be reallocated rather than reduced, while others saw potential savings in time and travel. Respondents acknowledged that one of the benefits of remote inspections was that they facilitated a more targeted approach than inspections employing traditional on-site techniques such as search-term requests for information (“RFIs”). Drawbacks which were identified included data protection concerns and intrusiveness.
    
3. Compulsory interviews 
   On this proposal, respondents were again mainly concerned that appropriate procedural safeguards be introduced alongside the power, should the EC choose to provide for it. The safeguards mentioned by stakeholders included the provision of advance notice to interviewees, honouring the protection against self-incrimination, the right to legal representation, and the ability to review and correct oral statements. Potential benefits of the proposal identified by stakeholders included enhanced investigative effectiveness, a reduced need for inspections, and alignment with the Commission's powers under the Digital Markets Act⁶. Drawbacks identified were that interviews are generally less effective than written RFIs, will lead to increased legal fees, and will create greater business disruption. Views on sanctions for failure to comply with requests to attend for interview were mixed. While some noted that sanctions might ensure compliance with requests, other were keen to ensure sanctions would be proportionate to the nature of any breach alleged. 

The rationale underpinning these proposals is fundamentally rooted in technological advances in how business is conducted. Evidence of anti-competitive conduct now resides in WhatsApp chats and cloud platforms rather than filing cabinets – and the Commission's powers, conceived for paper files and on-premise servers, will inevitably require updating. So pressing is the need for change that certain Member State authorities had already begun to dip their toes in the waters of remote inspections as early as 2021, following a hiatus in dawn raid activity at the height of the pandemic. At the very least, the above proposals would place these forays into the regulatory unknown on much firmer footing and would provide enhanced legal certainty to authorities and businesses across the European Union.

Add to the technological advances a geopolitical landscape in flux and the refocusing of EU policy toward enhancing the competitiveness of EU corporates vis-à-vis their third country counterparts (with those counterparts simultaneously coming under increased scrutiny in the European Union through policies such as  the Foreign Subsidies Regime) and it is easy to understand why the need for contemporary, fit for purpose inspection powers is increasing. The preliminary ruling in Nuctech⁷, in which the General Court rejected arguments that the Commission could not require access to data stored outside the EU, signals the direction of travel in this regard.

Implications for Irish Businesses

For Irish companies, Irish-headquartered multinationals and non-EU groups with significant Irish operations, the proposed reforms could carry wide ranging implications:

• Companies will have to review data mapping and IT systems protocols, as the ability to respond to a remote inspection or comply with a preservation order in a timely and cost efficient manner, will be closely linked with robust data storage structures and management.
• Document retention policies and practices will need to be reviewed and adapted for compatibility with potential preservation order obligations.
• Existing dawn raid protocols will require updating for remote inspection scenarios, ensuring legal teams can mobilise quickly and meaningfully observe the inspection, even where inspectors are not physically on-site.

4.2   A formal legislative proposal is, however, some way off, with a draft expected from the EC in Q3 of 2026. Following the ordinary legislative procedure, a realistic implementation timeline would see the proposals (in whatever form they may ultimately take) being effective in 2028 at the very earliest.

How McCann FitzGerald Can Assist

McCann FitzGerald's Regulatory Disputes and Competition teams advise Irish and international clients on all aspects of EU and Irish competition law, including dawn raid preparedness and investigations. We would be happy to assist in reviewing protocols, assessing readiness, and conducting simulation exercises for the current enforcement environment, or to provide advice or briefings on the potential future landscape.