## Facts

- A competitor, Engineering and Chemical Supplies Ltd. (ECS), filed a competition complaint concerning Akzo’s conduct in flour additives/organic peroxides markets.
- Acting under Regulation No. 17, the Commission conducted on-the-spot inspections in December 1982 at Akzo Chemie BV (Netherlands) and Akzo Chemie UK Ltd. (United Kingdom).
- During the inspections, the Commission obtained documents that Akzo identified as confidential, including materials Akzo claimed were protected by business secrecy and legal professional privilege (LPP).
- The Commission later transmitted certain inspection documents to ECS, including documents Akzo had designated confidential.
- The Commission notified Akzo of the transmission four days after the documents were sent and stated it could decide which documents were confidential and disclosable.
- Akzo sought annulment of the Commission’s disclosure decision, challenging the legality of transmitting the documents to the complainant.

## Issues

1. Whether the Commission’s decision to transmit investigation documents to a complainant is a reviewable act producing legal effects for purposes of annulment.
2. Whether transmitting the identified documents breached the Commission’s duty to protect business secrecy and professional secrecy in competition investigations.
3. Whether the transmitted documents were protected by legal professional privilege such that they could not lawfully be disclosed to the complainant.
4. Whether transmitting documents before notifying Akzo violated procedural fairness or rights of defense.

## Decision

- The Court held that the Commission’s decision to transmit documents to a complainant was reviewable because it could affect the undertaking’s interests and was not merely internal.
- The Court dismissed Akzo’s action on the merits and upheld the Commission’s disclosure decision.
- The Court found no unlawful disclosure of information protected by professional or business secrecy in the documents at issue.
- The Court rejected Akzo’s LPP argument because Akzo did not establish that the particular transmitted documents fell within the strict criteria for privileged communications.
- The Court stated that prior consultation would have been preferable, but the post-transmission notification did not justify annulment absent a breach of a specific legal rule or fundamental procedural right.

## Legal Principles

- A Commission decision to disclose inspection-file documents to a complainant can constitute a reviewable act because it produces legal effects for the investigated undertaking.
- The Commission must protect professional and business secrecy, but that obligation is not absolute; limited disclosure to complainants may be permitted when necessary for effective participation in the administrative procedure.
- The Commission has discretion to assess relevance and confidentiality and to determine what information to communicate to a complainant, subject to judicial review for compliance with secrecy obligations and defense rights.
- Legal professional privilege is recognized but narrowly construed; the undertaking bears the burden to show the specific documents meet the criteria for privilege, and failure to do so permits disclosure.
- A failure to consult the undertaking before disclosure is not, by itself, grounds for annulment unless it entails a violation of an applicable procedural rule or fundamental right.

## Conclusion

The Court sustained the Commission’s transmission of selected inspection documents to the complainant, confirming that such disclosure decisions are judicially reviewable but lawful where the Commission stays within professional-secrecy limits and where asserted legal professional privilege is not proven under strict criteria.


Akzo Chemie BV & Akzo Chemie UK Ltd. v. Comm’n of the Eur. Cmtys., Case 53/85 (C.J.E.C. 1986)