On 12 September 2025, the Commission imposed a fine of €172,000 on Eurofield SAS and its parent company at the time of the infringement, Unanime Sport SAS, for providing an incomplete reply to a formal request for information during its antitrust investigation in the synthetic turf sector (see Commission press release here).
This is the first case in which the Commission has imposed a fine under Article 23(1)(b) of Regulation 1/2003 for an incomplete reply in an antitrust investigation. While similar fining powers have long been exercised in merger control under Article 14(1) of the EU Merger Regulation, this decision applies in the context of antitrust enforcement outside merger control.
Background
The synthetic turf sector supplies artificial grass surfaces for sports facilities, including within the EU. In June 2023, the Commission carried out dawn raids at the premises of several companies active in the sector, investigating potential infringements of Article 101 TFEU.
Following the dawn raid, the Commission issued a 'simple' request for information (RFI) under Article 18(2) of Regulation 1/2003 to Eurofield in order to gather further information to support its investigation. The Commission was concerned that Eurofield's response to this initial information request was incomplete, having compared it with documents obtained during the dawn raid. It raised these concerns with Eurofield and issued a further, 'formal' RFI, adopted by decision under Article 18(3) of Regulation 1/2003.
Eurofield's response was again deemed incomplete, and in November 2024, the Commission opened a separate procedural investigation under Article 23(1)(b) of Regulation 1/2003. Eurofield and Unanime Sport agreed to cooperate with the Commission in this investigation, acknowledging liability and providing the requested supplementary information.
The Commission's assessment
Legal basis
Article 23(1)(b) of Regulation 1/2003 empowers the Commission to impose fines of up to 1% of turnover where an undertaking, intentionally or negligently, provides incorrect, misleading, or incomplete information in response to a formal RFI adopted by decision.
Findings
The Commission considered that this was a serious infringement and that Eurofield had at least been negligent in the way it had responded to the RFIs. Information requests are one of the Commission's main tools in its antitrust investigations, and undertakings should therefore exercise the utmost care when replying to RFIs in order to ensure their responses are correct and complete. To the extent that the scope of an RFI is unclear, they should seek clarification rather than risk providing an incomplete response.
As Executive Vice-President Teresa Ribera underlined: "The Commission needs complete and accurate information to carry out its investigations. Supplying incomplete replies undermines the effectiveness of our work and will not be tolerated."
Fine calculation
The Commission calculated the fine at 0.3% of the parties' combined global turnover. A 30% reduction was granted because the parties agreed to cooperate with the Commission once they were made aware of the investigation into the procedural breach. The final amount of €172,000 was imposed jointly and severally on Eurofield and Unanime Sport under the presumption of parental liability.
CommentS and implications
While the fine may appear modest, the case is notable as the first application of Article 23(1)(b) of Regulation 1/2003 for an incomplete reply to an information request in the context of an antitrust investigation. It confirms that:
- Completeness of replies: even relatively minor omissions in an RFI response may give rise to liability.
- Exposure: fines can reach up to 1% of turnover, which may be significant for larger groups.
- Parental liability: parent companies can be held jointly and severally liable for subsidiaries' procedural infringements.
- Consistency checks: the Commission cross-checks replies against documents obtained during inspections and other sources.
- Cooperation and timing: cooperation may reduce fines, but limited credit is likely if cooperation comes only after a procedural investigation has begun.
As a broader point, the obligation to provide full and accurate replies is not limited to companies under investigation. Third parties such as suppliers, customers or competitors may also receive RFIs and face liability if their responses are incomplete or misleading.
Viewed alongside other procedural cases, the Eurofield decision also adds to the enforcement record on procedural infringements. Other examples include fines for the deletion of electronic evidence during inspections (International Flavours & Fragrances, €15.9 million, 2024) and for breaking seals during dawn raids (E.ON, €38 million, 2008; Suez Environnement, €8 million, 2011), as well as fines in merger control for incorrect or misleading information (Facebook/WhatsApp, €110 million, 2017; GE/LM Wind, €52 million, 2019; Merck/Sigma-Aldrich, €7.5 million, 2021).
For readers following how investigative tools are reviewed by the courts, this decision also sits against a backdrop of increasing judicial scrutiny of dawn raids more generally. We recently contributed an article to the CPI Antitrust Chronicle, From Indicia to Duration: Emerging Procedural Themes in EU Dawn Raids, which explores emerging procedural themes and possible safeguards. You can read the full piece here.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
