On 4 May 2017, the Criminal Chamber of the French Supreme Court ruled that investigators of the French competition authority infringed Samsung Electronics' defence rights by not allowing employees to call their lawyers upon notification of the dawn raid warrant (Cass. Crim. n°16-81.071).

In 2013, during a duly authorised dawn raid, inspectors prevented employees of Samsung Electronic to contact any outside person, including lawyers, before all offices were sealed in order to secure the place and prevent loss of evidence. The lawyers arrived at Samsung Electronics' premises only several hours later.

The company challenged the dawn raid operation before the Paris Court of Appeals which concluded that, although the company should have been allowed to call its lawyers upon notification of the dawn raid warrant, no formal act or search activity other than sealing the premises was accomplished by the inspectors before the lawyers arrived. It concluded that, pursuant to the case-law of the Supreme Court (i.e., Cass. Crim. n°15-83.437), the dawn raid operation should be upheld since no injury was caused to the company.

On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed. It held that "for proceedings related to competition law infringements, the rights of defence may be exercised by the premises occupant upon notification of the dawn raid warrant," and consequently annulled the dawn raid.

In separate judgements rendered on the same day, the Supreme Court upheld the dawn raids carried out at other companies subject to the same resale price maintenance investigation (i.e., Darty, Electrolux France, Electrolux Home products of France). In these cases, the appellants claimed that a warrant can only be delivered if there are specific indications of illegal practices, a condition which arguably was not met in the case at hand. The Supreme Court recalled that a warrant can be issued if there are suspicions of a competition law violation, and that evidence of illegal practices is not required, since dawn raids are precisely intended to collect evidence. Samsung Electronics also pleaded this ground in front of the Supreme Court in its own appeal and similarly failed.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.