Commission fines companies for providing incomplete information in an antitrust investigation
The European Commission (the “Commission”) has broken new ground by imposing fines totalling approximately EUR 172,000 on Eurofield SAS and its parent company Unanime Sport SAS for providing incomplete information during an antitrust investigation. This marks the first time the Commission has exercised its powers in Regulation 1/2003 to penalize companies for failing to provide complete responses to a request for information (“RFI”) in an antitrust investigation.
Background
The case originated from the Commission’s ongoing investigation into the synthetic turf sector, which began on 7 June 2023 when the Commission carried out several dawn raids, suspecting that companies in the sector had engaged in cartel behaviour. During those dawn raids, the Commission seized documents and data from inter alia Eurofield. Later in June 2023, it sent Eurofield a simple RFI as part of the investigation. By comparing Eurofield’s response to the simple RFI with the materials already in its possession, the Commission was able to identify significant omissions in the company’s response. In October 2023, the Commission therefore escalated its approach by issuing a second RFI by formal decision, requesting the missing information and alerting Eurofield to its concerns about the inadequacy of the initial reply. Despite this, Eurofield’s response to the second RFI was considered incomplete.
In November 2024, the Commission notified both Eurofield and Unanime Sport (Eurofield’s ultimate parent company at the time of the infringement) that it had opened an investigation for a suspected procedural breach. At this point, both companies chose to cooperate and acknowledged liability. The companies submitted the previously omitted documents and additional information that the Commission had not initially identified as missing. On 8 September 2025, the Commission adopted an infringement decision against the companies with a fine of EUR 172,000.
The legal framework
Formal RFIs under Article 18(2) of Regulation 1/2003 are, contrary to simple RFIs under Article 18(3), legally binding and backed by the possibility to impose fines where replies are incorrect, misleading or incomplete.
Regulation No 1/2003 empowers the Commission to impose fines of up to 1 percent of a company’s total turnover where the company intentionally or negligently provides incorrect, incomplete, or misleading information in response to formal RFIs.
The fine
The Commission determined that Eurofield’s conduct constituted at least negligent behaviour, emphasizing that companies must, “with utmost care”, ensure that their RFI responses are correct and complete. The Commission noted that Eurofield had been explicitly warned that their first reply appeared incomplete yet failed to remedy the deficiencies in their second reply. The Commission also emphasised that if the scope of the request was unclear, Eurofield and Unanime Sport could and should have sought clarification from the Commission.
The Commission therefore considered the procedural infringement as serious, noting that RFIs are one of the main tools used in antitrust investigations. Based on the gravity and duration of the conduct, the Commission initially calculated a fine equivalent to 0.3 percent of the parties’ combined total turnover. However, recognising the companies’ proactive cooperation during the procedural investigation, the Commission applied a 30 percent reduction to the fine. This resulted in a final penalty of approximately EUR 172,000. The case thus also highlights that the Commission will reward companies that actively cooperate during investigations.
Concluding remarks
The case illustrates the Commission’s increasing focus on procedural infringements as a means of safeguarding the effectiveness of its investigations. While the fine imposed on Eurofield and Unanime Sport was relatively modest, fines for procedural breaches can be far higher, as seen in past cases involving obstruction of dawn raids (see our blog post here on the Commission’s EUR 15.9 million fine against a company for deleting Whatsapp-messages during a dawn-raid).
The decision also underlines the importance of RFIs as an investigative tool. Investigated companies are expected to handle them with care and rigour. Where the Commission has already obtained documents during dawn raids, it is able to compare that evidence with the company’s RFI responses. This significantly increases the likelihood that any gaps, inaccuracies, or inconsistencies in the reply will be detected.
For businesses, the message is clear: procedural obligations are not a formality. Careful internal coordination, early clarification of scope, and comprehensive cross-checks against documents already seized by authorities are essential to avoid exposure when responding to RFIs. At Delphi, we have extensive experience supporting companies in antitrust investigations, including advising during dawn raids, preparing responses to RFIs, and guiding businesses through every stage of the investigative process.