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

Our client, a Lottery Association, was faced with a network of monopolistic EU Member State laws and regulations that impeded the ability of its members – all private lottery operators – to exercise EU market freedoms. Alber & Geiger was enlisted to steer the developing legal framework in the field of gambling law and tear down restrictions of private lotteries in Europe. The challenge was to politically link the freedom of establishment with cross border lotteries based on the CJEU’s decisions on gambling freedom.

Strategy

The strategy was built upon the respected Opinion of our Chairman on the Gambelli case when he was a Advocate General at the CJEU. The Opinion was used as a roadmap for judicial and legislative change during this seminal mandate. It articulated the narrow circumstances where a restriction on freedom of establishment would be justifiable by general interest concerns.

The strategy was structured on all levels according to the integral components of the Opinion. It utilized the intellectual resources of our firm to co-ordinate the legislative dialogue in a direction that facilitated the creation of a EU wide free gambling market. We provided components of the machinery as well as oiling the cogs of law reform.

Results

We provided long term, fixed judicial capital for our client and legislative change. Due to the ongoing successful execution of our strategy, recent judgments of the CJEU with respect to German and Austrian gambling restrictions have been echoing the Opinion.

The CJEU now professes that in order to justify monopolistic state gambling regulations legislation must “ensure a particularly high level of protection” and a “coherent” gambling market. There must now be specific and narrow circumstances to legitimize curtailments to the freedom of establishment in the gambling market. This CJEU strategy must now be followed by the European Commission when checking EU Member States’ gambling restrictions.

Challenge

The European Commission initiated anti-dumping proceedings concerning imports of polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) originating from China. The investigation on the dumped PVA was worth more than $33 million. Solutia, a U.S. Fortune 500 firm and a Monsanto spin off, was one of the parties concerned by this investigation. Solutia relied heavily on PVA to produce polyvinyl butyral (PVB), a material used in glass, construction and auto industries. With only 5-months’ notice, Solutia sought Alber & Geiger’s help to avoid import duties on PVA.

Strategy

Alber & Geiger produced a narrative that included an understanding of the Chinese economy and the PVA market in China. Our message was strongly embedded in the European Commission’s approach to trade and competition law, while taking into account the global political consensus on Chinese PVA dumping. More concretely, we put forward arguments that the dumping was a natural consequence of China’s macro-economic situation and production pressures.

Our team demonstrated that other market factors had contributed to the EU economic injury. We argued that the European Commission had not shown a causal link between the detriments suffered by the EU market and dumped imports from China. Moreover, our message cast doubt on the way the European Commission had defined the market of PVA in light of the broader range PVA uses.

Results

Alber & Geiger’s lobbying activity led to the European Commission revising its preliminary duties decision on PVA imports. As we had argued, the European Commission concluded that there was no evidence that would link dumping and injury. The tariffs were lifted. Solutia’s profitability and position on the global market remained intact.