European Commission fines business €172,000 for incomplete reply to a Commission request for information

Background

The Commission is investigating the synthetic turf industry.  In June 2023, the Commission sent a “simple” request for information by way of a letter to Eurofield SAS in the context of that investigation. Eurofield replied to the request. 

The Commission considered Eurofield's reply and compared it with documents which the Commission had collected in unannounced inspections (i.e. dawn raids). The Commission believed that it had indications that the reply was incomplete.

In October 2023, a subsequent request for information was issued by the Commission to Eurofield – on this occasion, the request was by way of a Commission decision under article 18(3) of Regulation 1/2003 (i.e. the Modernisation Regulation). Article 18(3) provides:

“Where the Commission requires undertakings and associations of undertakings to supply information by decision, it shall state the legal basis and the purpose of the request, specify what information is required and fix the time-limit within which it is to be provided. It shall also indicate the penalties provided for in Article 23 and indicate or impose the penalties provided for in Article 24. It shall further indicate the right to have the decision reviewed by the Court of Justice.”

The Commission made Eurofield aware of its concerns. Eurofield sent another reply which the Commission regarded it as incomplete. In November 2024, the Commission informed the parties that it had opened an investigation into a suspected procedural breach. The parties (i.e. Eurofield SAS and its then parent Unanime Sport SAS) then agreed to cooperate with the Commission and acknowledged their liability for a fine. The parties submitted the documents identified as having been omitted as well as supplementary information that the Commission had not identified as missing.

Article 23(1)(b) of Regulation 1/2003

The incomplete response triggered the possibility of a fine under article 23(1)(b) of Regulation 1/2003 which provides:

“The Commission may by decision impose on undertakings and associations of undertakings fines not exceeding 1% of the total turnover in the preceding business year where, intentionally or negligently:

…(b) in response to a request made by decision adopted pursuant to Article 17 or Article 18(3), they supply incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or do not supply information within the required time-limit;….”

The Background to Setting the Fine in this Case

In announcing the fine, the Commission made some interesting observations which are instructive for future cases. 

First, it recalled that the exact percentage of the total turnover (up to 1%) is set by reference to “the gravity and the duration of the conduct, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case.” 

Secondly, in this case, the Commission considered that the infringement in this case was committed “at least negligently” and continued:

“[w]hen replying to a request for information, recipients are required to prepare their reply with utmost care to ensure that it is correct and complete. If the parties had any doubts as to the extent of the requested information, they could have sought clarification from the Commission, which they chose not to do despite having been made aware by the Commission of the suspected incompleteness of their reply to the initial information request.”[1]

So, it is worth remembering that it is possible to ask the Commission for guidance on questions if they are incomplete in any way and that opportunity should be taken if there is ambiguity. 

Thirdly, the Commission regarded this infringement as “serious”, perhaps this was influenced by the fact that the respondent was given multiple opportunities to reply.

Finally, the Commission said that requests for information are “one of the main investigative tools used by the Commission to gather information in antitrust investigations. The effectiveness of such an investigation is therefore largely dependent on complete and accurate responses. Omitting information may therefore seriously hamper the Commission's ability to effectively investigate anti-competitive conduct.”

Setting the Fine

On 8 September 2025, the Commission fined Eurofield SAS and Unanime Sport SAS for providing incomplete information. The fine amounted to around €172,000.[2] The incomplete information involved an incomplete reply to a request for information issued by the Commission.

The Commission concluded that a fine corresponding to 0.3% of the parties' combined total turnover would be both proportionate and deterrent.  It was also lower than the 1% maximum because the Commission decided to reward the parties for their proactive cooperation once they were made aware of the investigation into their suspected procedural breach by reducing the fine by 30% leading to a fine of around €172,000.

The fine was imposed jointly and severally on Eurofield and on Unanime Sport, which was the ultimate parent at the time of the infringement and could therefore also be held liable under the presumption of parental liability.

Comment

This case marks the first time that the Commission imposed a fine under article 23(1)(b) of Regulation 1/2003 for the provision of incomplete information in reply to an information request in the context of an antitrust investigation.

It is tempting for businesses to focus on substantive matters and pay less attention to procedural issues.  The lesson from this case (and others) is that “procedure matters”.  It has been clear that the Commission has imposed substantial fines for breaches of EU procedural law - examples include fines for (a) deleting social media messages[3] and (b) possible breaches of seals[4], and this case is a further example of it.

The lesson for business executives is to take seriously all queries from the Commission, even “simple” requests, and if there is any ambiguity in the questions, get clarity from the Commission but also ensure that answers are complete or, at least, explain why they are not (e.g. information or documentation is not available).

The Commission did not mention, but it is clear, that unannounced inspections or dawn raids have a value in providing reference point for documents and information; had there been no unannounced inspection, perhaps the Commission might not have noticed the incompleteness of information and documentation in the replies to queries.

Indeed, businesses should recall that the Commission could well have regard to other information in its possession (e.g. from merger notifications and other investigations) so businesses should ensure that information is not only truthful, accurate and complete but also consistent with other sources of information and if there is an inconsistency, businesses should explain that inconsistency.

For more information on EU and national competition dawn raids and inspections, please contact Dr Vincent Power, Partner or any member of A&L Goodbody's EU, Competition & Procurement team.

Date published: 9 September 2025