Challenge

Alber & Geiger was tasked with supporting entry into the EU for clients whose families suffered intimidation and coercion in their respective home countries. This would require us to obtain student visas for the UK. Their applications to leading UK universities had failed before. In a short space of time we had to support their applications.

We had to deal with the specific entities and their own distinct decision making processes. This had to be done with political sensitivity, and we had to rely on the integrity of the system to ensure that political influences did not have a bearing on their entry into the UK.

Strategy

The strategy required an expedient understanding of the nooks and crannies inside the UK education system. It used careful neutral language to ensure that their applications were not misconstrued. It relied on the basis of our firm’s intrinsic aptitudes.

We worked to break down and analyse the discretionary selection criteria of each university. The documents thoroughly assimilated the ‘criteria language’ of the universities into their narrative. In this case we had to effectively co-ordinate through the network of statutory instruments and satisfy the executive concerns they were designed to address.

Results

The result was the safe arrival of the families into the UK and their admission into top tier universities. The transferable nature of our skills is constantly being tested by the ever changing institutional framework of Europe.

Challenge

Vivacom, the former telecom monopolist in Bulgaria, sought Alber & Geiger’s help in tackling the Bulgarian Communications Regulation Commission’s (CRC) arbitrary and disproportionate mobile termination rates. Concurrently we were tasked with addressing the problem of illegal cables in Bulgaria, while the Commission’s position was that this issue ought to be handled solely at national level.

Strategy

The strategy adopted, demonstrated how broad ranging Treaty obligations should be translated into government actions. It had a strong EU public law and policy element, with consumer protection at the forefront. It helped Bulgaria understand and implement its EU law obligations. It enhanced the notions of fairness and proportionality in the civic realm. We used sophisticated fact-finding and law and economics analysis, to outline where subsidiarity pointed to, regarding the illegal cables.

Result

Vivacom has now been put in a position where it is better able to serve the public. Alber & Geiger’s lobbying activity resulted in the European Commission asking CRC not to discriminate when setting the level of termination rates between fixed and mobile networks. CRC significantly lowered Bulgaria’s termination rates to the benefit of consumers. Equally the EU Commission came on board with us to address the issue of illegal cables, exerting pressure on Bulgaria, demanding their immediate removal. A remarkable process of removals is now underway.

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.