Challenge

Under the tobacco advertising directive, the EU Commission’s goal was to hunt down ‘insidious forms’ of tobacco advertising. For this reason, the directive had addressed both direct and indirect advertising to close loopholes. Davidoff and Lancaster had been accused of indirect tobacco advertising through the marketing of perfume products. The challenge was to convince the EU Commission in particular and the EU institutions in general that promoting the Davidoff brand image was not tobacco advertising.

Strategy

The strategy focused on the differentiation between direct and indirect tobacco advertising which the directive had established. The latter being mainly based on a brand diversification strategy of companies. In most cases these brand diversifications were meanwhile brand products of their own, not connected to tobacco products in any way.

But the directive’s wording not only addressed the marketing and advertising of such a diversification product like perfumes or clothes. It actually also addressed the diversification product itself, considering the sheer existence of the perfume as indirect tobacco advertising.

Results

We prevented the EU Commission from getting entangled into a wasteful litigation that would have compromised legitimate economic activity. Insofar as issues for Davidoff remained unresolved by lobbying we successfully executed a CJEU case.

Challenge

The European Commission had started investigating violations of the rule of law in Poland, initiating infringement proceedings regarding judicial independence in the country. The Venice Commission, an advisory body to the Council of Europe, had also expressed reservations about all parts of the Polish judiciary, especially over the Polish public prosecution’s independence.

Our client, the former CEO of a Polish investment bank, was caught in the middle of this battle by being at the receiving end of disproportional measures by the prosecution in Poland. The Polish government who started treating bankers in the context of the “GetBack” scandal as “banksters” created a political climate which put our client in custody without bail. Anticipating that the Polish government wanted to represent the case as an effort to protect the public by blaming the investment bankers’ business conduct, he reached out to Alber & Geiger.

Strategy

We approached several DGs in the European Commission and all the responsible committees in the European Parliament demonstrating that this was a practical case confirming the EU concerns stated in the infringement proceedings against Poland.

We gathered thereby EU political support towards the Polish government ensuring that our client receives fair trial and proportionate treatment as to be expected from an EU member state. We did so by informing the EU institutions over the shortcomings of the legal process in Poland and the unjustifiable measures against our client, placing our case on the European Commission’s radar in the ongoing infringement proceeding against Poland and into the European Parliament’s resolution on the rule of law and democracy in Poland.

Results

By introducing the Polish court case into EU politics, Alber & Geiger was able to take Polish politics out of the courtroom. The client was released from custody on bail.

Challenge

INTCO is a Chinese company and the world market leader in medical disposable gloves. The company plays a central role in securing reliable, high-quality medical supplies for hospitals, healthcare providers, and patients worldwide.

The European Commission considered applying the International Procurement Instrument (IPI), which could restrict third-country suppliers’ access to EU public tenders. For INTCO, this risked exclusion from medical procurements across the Union—threatening supply continuity, competitive pricing, and Europe’s preparedness for future health emergencies, including the next pandemic.

Strategy

Alber & Geiger engaged the European Commission and the European Parliament, and coordinated with key Member States to prevent discriminatory treatment under the IPI. We made the cross-institutional case that open competition in medical tenders strengthens supply resilience, affordability, and strategic autonomy, safeguarding the Union’s readiness for the next pandemic.

Results

INTCO preserved full access to EU procurement and maintained its ability to compete in medical tenders across Europe. European hospitals retained reliable and affordable access to essential disposable gloves and supplies—reinforcing the Union’s health security and preparedness for future crises.