knowledge 6 October 2025 |

Regulator Imposes Fine for Incomplete Response to Request for Information

The European Commission has, for the first time, jointly and severally fined a company and its ultimate parent €172,000 for providing an incomplete response to a Request for Information in the antitrust context.

Two RFIs were issued to Eurofield SAS by the Commission in connection with its investigation into the synthetic turf manufacturing industry. The first of these was a “simple” RFI issued in June 2023 pursuant to Article 18(2) of the Modernisation Regulation, whereby the recipient is not required to respond but may be liable for any incorrect or misleading information they do provide in response.

The Commission had previously seized materials during unannounced inspections it had carried out in connection with the turf investigation. Eurofield’s response to the simple RFI was assessed by reference to the materials seized in the unannounced inspections and was found to be incomplete.

A second RFI – this time issued under Article 18(3) and thus compelling the recipient to respond – was issued by the Commission a few months later in October 2023. The Modernisation Regulation provides for fines of up to 1% of turnover for entities that provide incorrect, misleading or incomplete information in response to an Article 18(3) RFI. By contrast, recipients of simple RFIs may only be penalised if the information they provide is incorrect or misleading. The Commission reviewed the response to the second RFI against the materials seized in the unannounced inspections and again determined it was incomplete. An investigation was then opened into a suspected procedural breach resulting in the imposition of the fine.

In imposing the fine, the Commission stated that RFIs are a primary evidence-gathering tool in antitrust investigations and that recipients are required to reply with utmost care, ensuring that answers are accurate, complete, and responsive to the questions asked. According to the Commission a lack of clarity on the part of the recipient as to the scope of the RFI is not a justification for a less than fulsome response and it is incumbent on the recipient to seek clarification from the Commission where there is any uncertainty.

The Commission considered the acts of Eurofield in responding to the RFIs to be “at least negligent” and set the fine at 0.3% of the combined turnover of Eurofield and its ultimate parent at the time of the infringement. The fine was reduced by 30% for co-operation as Eurofield cooperated with the Commission once the infringement proceedings for the alleged procedural breach were commenced. Eurofield acknowledged liability for the procedural breach and submitted the documents identified as having been omitted together with supplementary information that the Commission had not identified as missing in its review of the two RFI responses.

This fining decision highlights the Commission’s view that the effectiveness of their investigations is highly dependant on complete and accurate responses to RFIs and it is a clear signal of the seriousness with which the Commission approaches RFIs.   On the domestic front, a number of different regulatory regimes in Ireland provide that a failure to provide complete and accurate information in response to statutory information requests can amount to a criminal offence punishable by the imposition of fines.

The takeaway for business and their senior executives: Fail to appreciate the scope and gravity of a Regulator’s RFI at your peril. Responding to RFIs can be burdensome.  They require rigorous preparation, a thorough review of records, timely clarification of the scope and fulsome disclosure.