On April 1, 2025, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that the Netherlands’ Consumer and Market Authority (CMA) did not violate the European Convention on Human Rights by using phone-tap data originally obtained in a criminal investigation and transferred by another law enforcement body.

The case involved six limited liability companies, the applicants, that were implicated in a price-fixing scheme. Intercepted communications during unrelated criminal investigations revealed conversations about anti-competitive practices. This data was then transferred to the CMA, which initiated proceedings under competition law and imposed financial penalties on the companies. The companies challenged the CMA’s use of the data, claiming that it was not foreseeable and that procedural safeguards were insufficient.

They alleged violations of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention. The lower chamber previously found no violation, and the applicants requested referral to the Grand Chamber under Article 43.

The Grand Chamber upheld the lower chamber’s findings, concluding that the sharing of intercepted data between state authorities may be justified where the interference is lawful, has a legitimate aim, and is necessary in a democratic society. The Court also took into account the level of protection afforded to legal persons and the margin of appreciation granted to states. In this case, the aim—protecting the economic well-being of the country—was deemed legitimate and did not result in a violation of Article 8. The Court further found no violation of Article 13, noting that the applicants had access to effective domestic remedies to raise their complaints.

While a majority of the Grand Chamber found that the CMA’s actions complied with the Convention, a minority of judges dissented, arguing that Article 8 was breached due to the excessive discretion granted under the Dutch law.