Last week, the European General Court (GC) delivered its judgment in the Red Bull and Others v Commission case clarifying the scope of cost reimbursement following inspections by the European Commission (“dawn raids”). The GC upheld the Commission’s refusal to reimburse most of the legal costs claimed by Red Bull after the inspection was conducted partly at the Commission’s premises.
Background: Inspections in 2023
The case originates in a series of unannounced inspections carried out by the Commission in March 2023 at the premises of Red Bull GmbH in Austria and its subsidiaries in France and the Netherlands (together Red Bull). The inspections were based on suspected infringements of Article 101 and 102 TFEU (we have already blogged about the inspection here).
The on-site phase of the inspection lasted several days. Given the volume of data seized, the Commission decided to continue the inspection at its own premises in Brussels, where officials examined electronic documents copied during the raid. This continuation of the inspection at the Commission’s offices – rather than at Red Bull’s – triggered the dispute over reimbursable costs (see also our post here).
The Nexans precedent and costs claimed by Red Bull
Red Bull’s claim builds on established EU case law. In Nexans France and Nexans v Commission the European Court of Justice (ECJ) held that undertakings shall, in principle, be reimbursed for additional expenses such as, e.g. travel or accommodation costs resulting from the Commission’s decision to continue an inspection at their own premises in Brussels, rather than at the company’s site. Importantly, the ECJ also emphasized that ordinary legal costs typically incurred during an inspection shall not automatically be reimbursable.
Art. 20(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003 forms the legal basis for respective case law according to which the Commission may continue an inspection at its own premises in Brussels. Reasons for doing so could, e.g. be that the processing of electronic data would take a considerable amount of time, or conducting the inspection solely at the company’s premises would undermine the efficiency of the inspection and/or unnecessarily increase the disruption to the company’s operations caused by the inspection.
In the case at hand, Red Bull requested reimbursement for expenses incurred during the Brussels phase of the inspection. These included travel, accommodation and daily allowances for company staff, the costs of transporting documents, and – most controversially – high legal fees and related travel expenses for lawyers of two law firms: The Austrian law firm which generally assisted them and an additional Brussels-based firm retained specifically for the continuation of the inspection at the Commission’s premises.
While the Commission accepted that certain logistical expenses could qualify as “additional costs”, it refused to reimburse the lawyers’ fees. In a decision of 23 October 2024, the Commission reasoned that legal representation would have been necessary regardless of where the inspection was carried out and therefore could not be considered an “additional” cost caused exclusively by the continuation in Brussels.
The GC’s reasoning
The GC fully endorsed the Commission’s position and substantially relied on the ECJ’s Nexans-judgement. It reiterated that, under settled case law, the concept of reimbursable “additional costs” is narrow. It refers only to costs incurred exclusively because the inspection was continued at the Commission’s premises, compared to a hypothetical continuation at the undertaking’s own premises.
Applying the Nexans logic, the GC found that Red Bull had already been assisted by lawyers during the on-site raids and would likely have continued to need legal assistance even if the document review had proceeded at its own offices. Since Red Bull – and this might be an important aspect to keep in mind for any future reimbursement claims – sought reimbursement of the entirety of its legal fees, without isolating any costs strictly attributable to the change of location, its claim failed. Against this background, the question arises whether Red Bull might have succeeded had it sought recovery only of the alleged difference between the higher costs incurred by engaging the Brussels lawyers – due to their (also allegedly) higher hourly rates – and the costs that would have been incurred if Austrian lawyers had been retained instead.
Implications for companies and Red Bull’s legal options
The judgment reinforces a restrictive approach to cost reimbursement and sends a clear message to companies facing EU dawn raids. Only costs that are strictly location‑dependent – and demonstrably so – are eligible. Legal fees seem to be reimbursable only in exceptional circumstances, namely if an undertaking can show they would not have been incurred had the inspection continued at its own premises.
For Red Bull, the remaining legal avenue would be an appeal to the ECJ under Article 256 TFEU, limited to points of law. However, given the GC’s reliance on Nexans and the absence of a “novel” legal issue, the chances of success seem to be limited.
Dawn raid costs in a broader context
The Red Bull case fits into a wider debate on the financial burden of dawn raids. Such inspections commonly amount to significant costs, including internal staff time, IT support, forensic data collection, business disruption, external legal counsel, and travel and accommodation expenses.
As EU law currently stands, undertakings generally bear these costs themselves. Reimbursement by the Commission is the exception, not the rule, and is confined to narrowly defined “additional” expenses. Some companies mitigate this risk through internal dawn‑raid preparedness, negotiated fee arrangements with counsel for dawn raid supervision, or – depending on national law and policy terms – legal expenses insurances that may cover certain defense costs, even where the Commission itself offers no reimbursement.
Conclusion
The GC’s April 2026 decision in Red Bull confirms the restrictive interpretation of reimbursable costs established in Nexans. While companies may recover expenses linked directly to inspections conducted at the Commission’s premises, they should not expect routine legal fees to be reimbursed.
Antitrustpolitics.com 