Czech Republic: Privacy at risk in Czech dawn raids: what the CJEU's landmark ruling means for the Czech Republic

On 16 July 2026, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the EU delivered its judgment in Imagens Médicas Integradas and Others (Joined Cases C‑‑258/23 to C‑‑260/23), setting new limits on the powers of competition authorities during unannounced inspections (dawn raids). In the first instalment of this series, we examined the implications of the ruling for Serbia. In this second piece, we turn to the Czech Republic – where the judgment raises a distinct and pressing question: can the Czech Office for the Protection of Competition (OPC) continue to seize and search employees' personal devices, or devices used for both private and professional purposes, without prior judicial authorisation?

By way of a brief recap: the Court held that under Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (respect for private and family life, home and communications), the concept of "communications" covers business emails exchanged between employees and managers of an undertaking by means of that undertaking's messaging service. Even a purely work-related email enjoys that protection.

For business premises and business devices, the Court held – in line with its consistent case-law – that a competition authority may seize business emails without prior judicial authorisation, provided that domestic law clearly limits those powers and offers effective ex post judicial review. The Court drew on European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) case law, in particular the Delta Pekárny judgment. While the ECHR judgment in Delta Pekárny comes from the Czech Republic, Czech legislators reacted and amended the law to allow undertakings to challenge a dawn raid in a separate court action, independently of any appeal against the final infringement decision. The ex-post review requirement can therefore be regarded as satisfied.

The unresolved issue: personal and dual-use devices

The rules change fundamentally, however, the moment investigators reach for a device that is not used exclusively for business purposes. This is where the judgment creates a new and, for Czech practice, unresolved problem.

The Court expressed a reservation regarding inspections leading to the seizure of mobile telephones, computers or any other computer storage medium belonging not to the undertakings whose premises are being inspected but to natural persons such as their managers and employees. If investigators seize such devices, access to the data contained in them must be subject to prior review by a court or an independent administrative body.

The rationale is straightforward: since such devices may be used for private purposes, access to them carries the risk of serious, or even particularly serious, interference with the fundamental rights of that data subject. Therefore, the ex-ante review is to strike a fair balance between the legitimate interests relating to the needs of the investigation and the fundamental rights concerned.

The conclusion is clear: Czech ex-post court review is not sufficient for lawful access to devices (also) used for private purposes.

Implications for Czech competition enforcement

1. The Czech Competition Authority is no longer allowed to access devices (also) used for private purposes. Until this gap is corrected, the OPC should not be allowed to access such devices. Following the logic of the judgment, the heightened protection should also extend to devices that formally belong to the undertaking but that employees are permitted to use for personal purposes. The decisive factor is not ownership of the device but the presence of sensitive private data on it.

2. The OPC cannot be its own judge. As for the requirement of an "independent administrative body", the judgment does not elaborate on this concept. By its very nature, however, it must be a body that is independent not only institutionally but also procedurally. Consequently, the OPC (or its chairman) cannot serve in this role – hence, with respect to devices for personal use, the chairman's ex-ante approval cannot be sufficient even if the review practice is modified.

3. Evidence from devices for personal use seized during previous dawn raids is most likely unlawful. Although applying this principle established in the earlier criminal-law judgment in Bezirkshauptmannschaft Landeck (C‑548/21) to competition dawn raids is entirely novel, it is an interpretation of existing law and therefore operates ex tunc – the conclusions should thus be capable of being invoked in all pending proceedings as well as in judicial review of competition authority decisions. While conclusions are drawn with respect to EU competition law only, Czech courts are likely to reach similar conclusions for purely domestic cases as well.

For a number of past dawn raids in the Czech Republic, this could mean that the legality of the evidence so obtained is now open to challenge.