European Commission Imposes € 38 Million Fine On E.ON For Breach Of A Seal During An Inspection
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.30.08
The European Commission (“Commission”) has imposed a fine of € 38 million on E.ON Energie AG (“E.ON”) for the breach of a Commission seal in E.ON’s premises during an inspection. The seal had been affixed to secure documents collected in the course of an unannounced inspection in May 2006. When the Commission came back the next day, the seal was broken. The inspection formed part of the Commission's enforcement activities against allegations of anti-competitive practices on the German energy markets.
The use of seals is intended to prevent the possibility of evidence being lost during an inspection, thus undermining the effectiveness of the inspection. Breaches of seals are therefore a serious infringement of competition law. In regard to the level of the fine, Council Regulation 1/2003 (Article 23(1) (e)) provides that the Commission can impose a fine of up to 1% of the company's total turnover for a seal broken intentionally or negligently. The European Commission claims, however, that when fixing the amount of the fine it has taken into account the fact that it was the first time that a seal has been broken by a company subject to an inspection and that a fine has been imposed under the provisions of Regulation No. 1/2003 concerning obstruction or interference with a Commission anti-trust investigation.
Click here to read the Commission’s press release as well as answers to frequently asked questions.
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
