General Court partly annuls dawn raid decision: Key take-aways on the scope of inspection powers and antitrust risks of price signalling
On 9 July 2025, General Court delivered an important judgment on dawn raids under EU competition law in case T-188/24, Michelin v Commission. Michelin had challenged the European Commission’s inspection decision from January 2024, seeking its annulment. The case sheds light on the boundaries of the Commission’s investigative powers and offers valuable insights into its evolving stance on the antitrust risks associated with price signalling. In this blogpost, we analyse the General Court’s findings and their implications (at the time of writing, the judgment is only available in French here).
Background: Commission dawn raids in the tyre sector and challenged inspection decision
In January 2024, the Commission carried out dawn raids at the premises of Michelin and other tyre manufacturers. The investigation focused on suspected anti-competitive coordination on prices for car and truck tyres within the EEA, with a particular focus on the use of earnings calls to exchange commercially sensitive information on future pricing strategies. Earnings calls are public conference calls where representatives from publicly listed companies discuss financial results and expectations with investors and analysts.
Michelin appealed the inspection decision before the General Court, arguing that the Commission’s reasoning was unclear, overly broad, and not adequately supported by factual evidence. Before conducting a dawn raid, the Commission must adopt an inspection decision setting out the suspected infringement, the relevant product and geographic markets, and the time period under investigation. This is essential to ensure that companies understand the scope of the inspection, can effectively protect their rights of defence, and that the Commission does not exceed the lawful boundaries of its investigatory powers. Crucially, under EU case law, the Commission may only adopt an inspection decision if it holds sufficiently serious indicia—that is, credible evidence or indications—of a possible infringement. This requirement serves as a safeguard to balance the effective enforcement of competition rules with the fundamental rights of companies, including their right to privacy as protected by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
The judgment from the General Court
The General Court partially annulled the Commission’s inspection decision. It held that the Commission had sufficiently serious indications of anti-competitive conduct only for a certain period (described as the “main period” in the judgment), but not for an earlier period also included in the inspection decision’s scope. The Court found that the Commission had failed to provide sufficiently serious indicia to justify extending the inspection to this earlier timeframe. Accordingly, the Court upheld the inspection decision only in so far as it concerned the main period, annulling it for the earlier period.
The judgment underlines that dawn raids represent a significant interference with the right to private life and the right to conduct a business, even for legal persons. As such, the scope of any inspection must be strictly confined to what is justified by the evidence available to the Commission at the time the decision is adopted. Where an undertaking raises doubts, the EU Courts will closely examine whether the Commission has sufficiently justified the temporal, material, and geographic scope of its inspection decision.
This ruling serves as a strong reminder that while the Commission enjoys extensive fact-finding powers to detect and deter cartels and other anti-competitive practices, it cannot conduct fishing expeditions in the hope of uncovering infringements beyond what is supported by solid indications. For companies, the judgment highlights the importance of meticulously reviewing inspection decisions—challenging them where the Commission’s suspicions appear inadequately justified.
Insights into the Commission’s interest in price signalling
The judgment is also noteworthy for highlighting the Commission’s growing enforcement focus on price signalling, as well as its new investigative approaches targeting this conduct. In particular, it underscores the Commission’s increased scrutiny of public statements, such as those made during earnings call, as potential means of conveying anti-competitive signals.
The Court explained that the Commission’s suspicions were based on a large-scale algorithmic analysis of transcripts of earnings calls that were publicly accessible—either because some companies published them on their websites or because they could be consulted through paid databases. According to the judgment, the Commission had examined several hundred thousand such calls across various industries and jurisdictions to detect language potentially indicative of anti-competitive coordination. This algorithmic analysis led the Commission to focus on the tyre sector, where it found that directors of competing companies frequently used phrases that could imply alignment of strategies or signalling to rivals, particularly where manufacturers spoke about how competitors should set their prices, their own intentions to act as price leaders or followers, and how they would respond to competitors’ price changes. Examples highlighted in the judgment include statements such “we want to send a signal,” “the strategy is to focus on,” or “we strive to stick to” which the Commission viewed as possibly facilitating coordination on future market conduct.
The Court rejected Michelin’s claim that earnings calls are standard capital markets practice, finding that the Commission may legitimately view certain statements made—even in analyst Q&As—as potentially indicative of collusive conduct. The Court did not assess whether the earnings calls breached EU antitrust rules, focusing instead on whether the Commission had sufficiently serious grounds to justify launching an inspection. For publicly listed companies, this highlights the critical need to vet all external communications carefully in light of the Commission’s growing readiness to pursue cases based on theories of harm arising from public signalling.
Concluding remarks
The judgment underscores that companies facing dawn raids must scrutinise the inspection decision closely to determine whether its scope goes beyond what is justified by the Commission’s stated concerns. It also stresses the importance of thoroughly preparing all company representatives who speak publicly, including investor relations teams and executives, to understand the antitrust risks tied to making statements about future intentions. Delphi’s EU & Competition practice has extensive experience assisting clients during dawn raids by both the European Commission and the Swedish Competition Authority, as well as in subsequent investigations, including investigations on price signalling. We also help companies train employees and develop compliance frameworks to reduce the risk of becoming the subject of such intrusive measures.