In a second judgment arising from the Commission’s 2023 dawn raid at Red Bull’s premises, the General Court has clarified the limited circumstances in which undertakings may recover costs incurred when an inspection continues at the Commission’s premises.
The judgment follows the General Court’s earlier ruling in Red Bull,[1] which upheld the Commission’s inspection decision and clarified, inter alia, the evidentiary threshold required to justify a dawn raid and the legality of so-called “extended inspections.” Red Bull had also lodged a separate appeal seeking reimbursement of the additional legal costs incurred as a result of the extended inspection and its relocation from Austria to Brussels at the Commission’s headquarters.
Following the dismissal of its challenge to the inspection decision, Red Bull was also unsuccessful in its cost reimbursement action.[2] The General Court confirmed that the reimbursement mechanism identified by the Court of Justice in Nexans[3] is narrow, and, in doing so, adopted a restrictive interpretation of the concept of “additional costs”: only costs that are genuinely incremental and solely caused by the continuation of the inspection at the Commission’s premises are recoverable, not costs that the undertaking would have incurred in any event had the inspection continued onsite.
A Restrictive Interpretation of the Nexans Standard
In Nexans, the Court of Justice held that, where the continuation of an inspection at the Commission’s premises gives rise to “additional costs for the undertaking under inspection solely as a result of that continuation,” the undertaking concerned may request reimbursement from the Commission.[4] Red Bull argued that it had to incur “additional costs” such as travel and accommodation expenses of their employees and their lawyers who were present in Brussels, daily subsistence allowances paid to those employees, as well as the entirety of their lawyers’ fees, including those invoiced by a second law firm, which was instructed in addition to the Austrian law firm that generally represented them. [5] Red Bull argued that these costs were incurred due to “a disproportionately lengthy and far-reaching continued inspection” and sought reimbursement.[6]
Consistent with the formulation in Nexans, the Court held that two cumulative conditions must be satisfied for a successful reimbursement claim: first, the costs must be “additional”, i.e., they must exceed the costs that would have been incurred had the inspection continued at the undertaking’s premises; second, they must arise “solely” because of the continuation of the inspection at the Commission’s premises.[7]
In applying this test, the Court placed particular emphasis on the existence of an “exclusive causal link” between the continuation of the inspection in Brussels and the costs claimed.[8] It is not sufficient that the continuation of the inspection increased the overall burden of the investigation or led to higher costs.[9] Rather, the undertaking must demonstrate that the “additional” costs at issue would not have been incurred had the inspection been conducted entirely onsite.[10]
Against that background, the General Court rejected Red Bull’s claim for the reimbursement of legal fees, including those arising from the engagement of a second law firm to assist during the Brussels phase of the inspection.[11] The Court considered that the decision to engage legal counsel forms part of the undertaking’s “defence strategy” and is not, as such, contingent on the location of the inspection.[12] It noted that Red Bull had already received legal assistance during the onsite phase of the inspection, and that such assistance would likely have continued irrespective of the location. Thus, the corresponding legal costs could not be regarded as “additional” within the meaning of Nexans, nor could they be said to have arisen solely because the inspection continued in Brussels.[13]
The judgment also underscores the evidentiary burden on undertakings seeking reimbursement.[14] Red Bull sought full reimbursement of its legal costs without distinguishing between costs that would have been incurred in any event and those that might plausibly be attributable exclusively to the continuation of the inspection at the Commission’s premises.[15] In doing so, it did not provide the type of detailed substantiation requested by the Commission during the administrative procedure.[16]
Practical Considerations
With respect to legal fees in particular – which typically account for a significant share of the costs incurred by firms subject to inspection – although the “possibility” that “certain lawyers’ fees” could qualify as “additional costs” is not “categorically ruled out,” reimbursement will depend on a sufficiently granular demonstration that those costs are both incremental and exclusively linked to the continuation of the inspection in Brussels.[17] In practice, undertakings are likely to face a high bar in establishing those facts.
[1] Red Bull GmbH and Others v. European Commission (T-306/23) EU:T:2025:959. Red Bull appealed the judgment, inter alia, on the grounds that evidence may not be sufficiently reliable if it originates from a single competitor and that the Commission’s decision was disproportionate as regards the continued inspection, cfr. Application (OJ) in Red Bull v. Commission (C-865/25 P). The matter is pending before the Court of Justice. See Cleary Gottlieb Antitrust Watch, “Algorithmic Surveillance and Evidentiary Standards: Procedural Lessons from the EU’s Red Bull and Michelin Dawn Raid Judgments”, October 15, 2025, available here.
[2] Red Bull GmbH and Others v. European Commission (T-682/24) ECLI:EU:T:2026:276 (“Red Bull II”).
[3] Nexans France and Nexans v Commission (T-449/14), EU:T:2018:456.
[4] Nexans France and Nexans v Commission (Case C-606/18 P) EU:C:2020:571, para. 90.
[5] Red Bull II, para 7.
[6] Application (OJ) in Red Bull v European Commission (Case T-682/24).
[7] Red Bull II, paras. 80–87.
[8] Red Bull II, para. 86.
[9] Red Bull II, paras. 87–88.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Red Bull II, para. 91.
[12] Red Bull II, para. 89.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Red Bull II, para. 93.
[15] Red Bull II, paras. 95, 100.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Red Bull II, para. 93.