Ruling [CJEU] ¦ EU Court Says Competition Authorities Can Seize Business Emails Without Prior Judicial Warrant in Some Cases

What the EU Court’s new ruling means for business emails and compliance

The Court of Justice of the European Union has issued a major Grand Chamber ruling that will matter for competition law, corporate investigations, and data protection compliance across the EU. In Joined Cases C‑258/23 to C‑260/23, the Court held that business emails exchanged between employees and managers can fall within the protection of Article 7 of the Charter as “communications”, but that their seizure during a competition inspection at business premises does not necessarily require prior authorisation from a court.

What the case was about

The dispute arose in Portugal, where the national Competition Authority investigated suspected infringements of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. The inspections targeted undertakings in sectors including medical services, testing, and payment processing. During those inspections, the authority examined employee emails and seized large volumes of electronic files.

The companies challenged the measures, arguing that emails are protected communications and that seizure of such material should require prior judicial approval by a judge, not merely authorisation by the Public Prosecutor’s Office.

Bastian Schwind-Wagner _Follow

"The Court of Justice has confirmed that business emails exchanged between employees and managers are protected as communications under Article 7 of the Charter. However, it also held that a national competition authority may seize those emails during an inspection at business premises without prior court authorisation, provided the legal framework is strict and effective safeguards exist.

The ruling is important for companies facing regulatory scrutiny, because internal emails can be used as evidence in competition investigations. At the same time, the Court drew a clear line for personal devices and highly sensitive data, which may still require prior judicial review before access is allowed."

The Court’s main findings

The Court first confirmed that business emails are covered by Article 7 of the Charter. It relied on the idea that the Charter term “communications” reflects modern forms of correspondence and includes electronic messages, even where they are sent from business accounts or concern company activity.

The Court then moved to the harder question: whether Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter prevent a national competition authority from seizing such emails without prior authorisation from a court. Its answer was no, not as a general rule, so long as the national system provides a strict legal framework and effective safeguards against abuse.

Why the seizure was allowed

The Court treated competition enforcement as an objective of general interest recognised by the Union. It emphasised that the fight against cartels and abuses of dominance depends on effective investigations, and that emails are often a key source of evidence.

The judgment says that prior judicial authorisation is not automatically required for seizures at business premises. Instead, what matters is whether the law provides adequate safeguards, including a sufficiently precise legal basis and effective ex post judicial review.

The important limits

The ruling is not a blank cheque for competition authorities. The Court stressed that protection under Articles 7 and 8 remains strong, and that the legality of such measures depends on context.

A major caveat concerns devices that belong to individuals rather than to the undertaking itself. If investigators need to access mobile phones, computers, or other storage media belonging to managers or employees, that access may require prior review by a court or independent administrative body, especially because such devices can contain highly sensitive private material.

Why this matters for financial crime and enforcement teams

This judgment will be closely watched beyond traditional competition law. For financial crime practitioners, it reinforces a broader trend: courts are accepting robust investigative powers where the public interest is strong, but only if there are clear legal safeguards, limits on scope, and meaningful later review.

Companies should assume that business emails can be treated as evidence in regulatory investigations, even where the messages are internal and sent through company systems. That means document retention, mailbox policies, legal hold procedures, and inspection response protocols remain critical.

Practical takeaway

Although business emails are protected communications, this does not automatically prevent a competition authority from seizing them during an inspection of company premises. Whether this measure is legal depends on whether national law sets clear limits and whether individuals can effectively challenge it afterwards.

Dive deeper

• InfoCuria ¦ Joined Cases C-258/23 to C-260/23 ¦ Link
• EUR-Lex ¦ Joined Cases C-258/23 to C-260/23, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2026 ¦ Link
• EUR-Lex ¦ Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union ¦ Link
• EUR-Lex ¦ Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ¦ Link