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

A US Fortune 500 chemical company approached Alber & Geiger seeking regulatory and advocacy support over a European Union proposal that would have classified Titanium Dioxide as a cat.2 suspected carcinogen by inhalation. Such a decision would have affected our client’s revenue and increased risk of similar regulatory measures in the other jurisdictions across the globe.

Strategy

With the experts opinion from the ECHA’s Risk Assessment Committee delivered to the European Commission, our team quickly embarked on a campaign aimed at highlighting the broader ramifications of classification on other EU policies and beyond Titanium Dioxide.

We pursued a strategy that put the spotlight on loss of consumer choice, impact on jobs and EU competitiveness as well as cost to downstream users. Alber & Geiger also broadened the issue to include political considerations and other players. On top of the European Commission, in particular DG Envi and DG Grow and the Member States’ Competent Authorities, we reached out to the Permanent Representations of the Member States as well as select Members of the European Parliament.

Results

Our advocacy helped thwart the original carcinogen classification that would have harmed our client. Through active engagement at the regulatory and political level, we helped find a suitable compromise for our client, which was then mirrored in the European Commission amended proposal.

Instead of outright carcinogen labelling on Titanium Dioxide, the European Commission changed its position by agreeing for classification to apply to Titanium Dioxide in powder form, only on the level of manufacture and without carcinogenicity labelling in the end products.

Challenge

The Giurgiulesti port of Chișinău in Moldova is an important strategic hub for all shipping to the black sea. It is a high EU political strategic value with regard to neighboring Russia.

In Moldova, we were faced with the task of steering tough EU diplomatic entanglements, in a direction that secured justice for our Azerbaijani client. The client was an important investor in Moldova. His interests in the Moldovan port which also involved huge EBRD investments had been compromised by an EU national.
Our client had sought a solution in Moldovan courts. After a freezing order in his favour was miraculously lifted, in the context of public statements from EU officials, he was concerned about the rule of law, independence of judiciary and the respective safety of his assets in this potential EU member state – and reached out to our team.

Strategy

The strategy was a bold venture into the multi-layered external relations boundaries that have been blurring due process. We reminded the EU that it had an obligation to uphold the rule of law in a potential EU accession country even if the result geopolitically would favor potentially Russian interests.

Results

The EU was ultimately content with making a neutral statement that did not implicate its integrity. It resulted in substantive justice for the client, and created a more positive relationship with the EU institutions.