The privilege against self-incrimination
in competition investigations
Peter Willis
Partner
Competition, EU and Trade Group
27 January 2005
Overview
- Context – powers of investigation
- The Orkem principle
- Funke
- Saunders
- National courts
- Graphite Electrodes
Commission and OFT powers
of investigation
- To require the production
of documents and information – written power, generally exercised at a distance
- To investigate on-site, take
copies of documents and request explanation of those documents and relevant
facts
Article 6 ECHR
- In the determination of his
civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him,
everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable
time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law…
- Everyone charged with a criminal
offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty.
Orkem
(1989)
- Orkem challenged Commission
request for information
- Court noted no express right
to remain silent
- Article 6 ECHR could be relied
upon by an undertaking under investigation
- No right under Article 6 not
to give evidence
- What rights under Community
law?
- Commission is entitled to
compel an undertaking to provide all information and documents, even
if they may establish the existence of anti-competitive conduct
- Commission may not compel
an undertaking to provide answers involving admission of an infringement
which it is incumbent on the Commission to prove
Orkem questions
Funke
(1993)
- French customs officers found
documents at F’s house
- Requested him to produce further
documents
- When sentenced to pay penalty
for non-production, F argued that
Article 6 ECHR applied
- ECtHR: “customs secured conviction in order to obtain
documents, although not certain of existence. Attempted to compel
F to provide evidence of the offence”
- Difficult to reconcile this
with the fact that customs had identified the documents requested, and
F had initially agreed to produce them
Saunders
(1997)
- Secretary of State appointed
inspectors into Guinness takeover of Argyll
- Powers to compel production
of documents and information
- S tried for theft and conspiracy
- Prosecution relied on transcripts
of interviews with inspectors to refute S’s evidence
- S applied to ECtHR
- ECtHR held that exercise
of inspectors’ powers did not infringe Article 6, because function
was investigative rather than adjudicative
- ECtHR was concerned with
use of statements at S’s trial
Saunders
(1997) - continued
- The right not to incriminate
oneself requires the prosecution to prove the case against the accused
without resort to evidence obtained through methods of coercion or
oppression in defiance of the will of the accused
- The right does not extend
to the use in criminal proceedings of material which may be obtained
from the accused through the use of compulsory powers but which has
an existence independent of the will of the suspect such as, inter
alia, documents acquired pursuant to a warrant, breath, blood and urine
samples and bodily samples for the purpose of DNA testing
- The right is not confined
to statements of admission or wrongdoing, but also to exculpatory remarks
and statements of fact
The story so far –
what could authorities request/ask?
Saunders
1
1
Funke
Orkem
Pre-existing documents
Factual questions
Incriminating questions
1 Note: Funke concerned only the production
of documents – so this is assumption.
Subsequent cases muddied
the waters still further
- Servès (1999) –
follows Saunders; the key issue is coercion in defiance of the
will of the accused
- Heaney and McGuinness
(2000) – compulsion to account for movements destroyed the essence
of the privilege even where statement could not be used in evidence
- JB v. Switzerland
(2001) – another case involving a tax authority request for financial
records; repeated requests for information were oppressive and violated
JB’s right not to incriminate himself
Testimonial self-incrimination
- Compare the US position under
the Fifth Amendment
- Fisher v. US –
privilege protects only against incrimination by own compelled testimonial
communication
- US v. Doe -
subpoena may have testimonial effect; compliance tacitly concedes existence
of the documents and belief that they are the documents described
- Scope for similar arguments
under EU law?
Mannesmannröhren-Werke
(2001 )
- Clarification badly needed
after Orkem, Funke, Saunders
etc
- Commission requested information
about Mannesmann’s participation in alleged stainless steel tubes
cartel
- Mannesmann declined to answer
certain questions; Commission imposed penalties; Mannesmann applied
to CFI for annulment
- Commission argued:
- ECtHR has never held that
privilege applies in competition proceedings
- ECtHR has never held that
privilege benefits legal persons
- privilege has been upheld
only in the context of “classic” criminal cases
- the Commission is not a tribunal
to which Article 6 applies
Mannesmannröhren-Werke
(2001) - continued
- CFI somewhat disingenuously
claimed that ECJ in Orkem had merely considered the possibility
of the application of Article 6 ECHR to Commission proceedings
- Regulation 17 contained no
express right to silence
- Necessary to consider whether
certain limitations on the Commission’s powers were necessary to preserve the rights
of the defence
- A right to silence would
constitute an “unjustified hindrance” to the Commission’s performance of its tasks
- Useful clarification of
Orkem - privilege applied to requests for:
- a description of the subject
of meetings and of decisions adopted
- a description of the relationship
between a series of agreements and the decisions adopted at various
meetings
- Requests went further than
the merely factual and required an analysis of the nature of the agreements
Mannesmannröhren-Werke
(2001) - continued
- CFI then turned to Mannesmann’s
argument that Article 6 allowed it not to reply to factual questions
(Saunders – although not clear that M cited the case) and
to refuse to produce documents (Funke)
- CFI held that M could not
rely on Article 6 ECHR before the CFI
- ECHR rights mean what the
CFI says they mean, not what the ECtHR says they mean
- CFI moved the goalposts?
What scope for national
courts to apply ECHR?
- National courts applying
national rules – relative freedom, although Regulation 1 limits
scope of exclusive application of national law
- National courts exercising
supervisory jurisdiction in EU investigations are permitted to ensure
respect for national procedural guarantees – Hoechst
- What does this mean?
- Mischo AG in Roquette –
merely the national rules designating the relevant court
- ECJ in Roquette –
case law of the ECtHR, including Funke
- Commission in Regulation 1 –
purports to codify Hoechst, but omits reference to national procedural
safeguards
The UK approach –
R v Herts CC, ex parte Green
(2000)
- Herts CC requested information
on clinical waste under s71(2) EPA
- Green argued that as s71(2)
EPA implemented EU waste directive, it should be interpreted in accordance
with EU principles, including principles derived from ECHR, particularly
Article 6
- House of Lords considered
that judge in a prosecution under EPA would be required to consider
whether to exclude compelled evidence
- Purpose of investigative
powers was wider than merely securing evidence for prosecution
- Rationale of Saunders
is fairness of trial
- Council’s request was not adjudicative, so Saunders
did not apply
OFT v. X
(2003)
- Application for a warrant
- Self-incrimination not expressly
considered
- But Morison J expressed view
that privilege did not extend to purely factual information
- Lower level of protection
for businesses than individuals
Graphite Electrodes –
CFI (2004)
- SGL Carbon argued that it
should be given credit for answering questions that required it to incriminate
itself –
ie. that the Commission had no power to compel it to answer
- CFI noted that ECJ had not
modified its position in Orkem
following Funke, Saunders
and JB
- Requirement to provide factual
information and pre-existing documents did not infringe Article 6
- Requests for object and results
of meetings did infringe Article 6
- However, requests for protocols,
working documents, notes, conclusions planning and discussion documents
and price increase implementation projects did infringe Article 6
- Not at all clear how CFI
distinguished between the two types of document
Graphite Electrodes –
AG’s Opinion (2006)
- CFI failed to address distinction
in case-law between documents and answers to questions
- CFI’s reasoning was inherently contradictory –
Strasbourg cases deal with classic criminal proceedings against individuals;
rights extended to undertakings are more limited
- Request for documents is
not inherently self-incriminating – likelihood may still be rebutted by other evidence
- A balancing exercise between
rights and enforcement
Conclusion
- Person under investigation
entitled not to answer incriminating questions (Orkem)
- Not entitled to refuse to
answer factual questions (SGL Carbon, OFT v. X) but this is contrary
to Saunders
- Not entitled to refuse to
produce documents (Saunders, SGL Carbon) but conflicts
with Funke and JB
- In practice, best course
of action is often to co-operate/seek leniency, rather than insist on
legal rights