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 Port of Belgrade’s property and investor rights were being violated by arbitrary Serbian legislation. There were limited domestic channels for these rights to be rectified and the Port of Belgrade was about to lose significant holdings. It turned to Alber & Geiger for help.

Strategy

The strategy made use of the new supra-national extraterritoriality, which post-communist states have been using to reconstitute certain rights and obligations. It addressed the EU institutions and Member States while Serbia was in the process of fulfilling its obligation to attain EU candidate status. It put forward comprehensive legal analysis that employed the entirety of the acquis communautaire, helping the legal narrative of the Serbian government and that of the Commission come together in a coherent mutually beneficial form.

Results

Alber & Geiger’s lobbing activity raised the awareness of European Parliament and the Commission towards the rights violations. We persuaded the European Commission to pressure the Serbian government into changing the content of these laws and to bring them in line with the EU acquis communautaire.

Challenge

Stanleybet launched the Fair Play For Sports Betting campaign, calling for fair access to all European markets for all EU-based sports betting operators. However, it was hampered by monopolistic Romanian gambling laws, which prevented it from bringing the full benefits of its cross border business model to the country. The challenge was to get the post-Communist Romanian sports law infrastructure in line with EU law.

Strategy

The strategy was based on the landmark Gambelli judgement. In that court case, our Chairman had been Attorney General. His Opinion had established an important framework for determining the validity on limitations to cross border gambling. Concurrently, our strategy contextualized our inter-institutional communication according the Romanian sports law infrastructure. It utilized the fact that Stanleybet had based its cross border business model on the Gambelli and Placanica rulings.

Results

We were able to demonstrate to the European Commission that Stanleybet was a model of the type of economic activity, which it had a duty to protect. Thanks to our efforts, the EU Commission forced the Romanian state to comply with these very recent extensions to EU competence. Stanleybet now has a lucrative and successful operation in Romania, which benefits consumers.