The General Court confirms the strict limits on reimbursement of inspection-related expenses, rejecting Red Bull’s argument that the Commission must cover IT and legal costs arising from an extraordinary inspection on cooperation obligations
The EU General Court ruled in Case T-682/24 on 22 April 2026. Red Bull GmbH challenged the Commission’s refusal to reimburse supplementary costs that Red Bull incurred during a competition inspection. The Commission had exercised its inspection powers under Article 20(4) of Regulation 1/2003, the EU’s primary competition enforcement regulation, arriving at Red Bull’s premises to examine books and business records.
During the inspection, Red Bull argued it had to incur extraordinary IT and legal costs beyond ordinary cooperation obligations to give Commission officials access to its systems and documents. It sought reimbursement of those additional costs, but the Commission declined to pay. Red Bull then brought an action before the General Court, arguing the costs were extraordinary and should not fall on the inspected company.
The Court rejected the claim in full, applying the principles from the Nexans line of case law, it confirmed that companies under inspection must cooperate and bear the ordinary costs of that cooperation. Supplementary costs arising from the company’s own IT architecture, data management systems, or legal advice taken during the inspection do not fall on the Commission. The obligation to cooperate already exists under Article 20. The costs of fulfilling an existing legal obligation cannot be transferred to the authority exercising the inspection power.
The Court found that, when the Commission conducts a dawn raid, the inspected company must pay the costs of its own cooperation. Firms facing competition inspections should factor this into their compliance and IT planning. There is no reimbursement mechanism for the costs of building systems that facilitate regulatory access, nor for the legal support required during the inspection itself. The judgment reinforces that cooperation is a condition of the inspection regime, not a service that the Commission commissions and pays for.
