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.

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 Maidan Square disaster on the eve of the Ukrainian Revolution and the following fall of Yanukovych’s government, triggered the Russian annexation of Crimea and a souring of the relationship between Russia and the West.

On March 5, 2014 the EU Council froze the assets of 18 former Ukrainian high-ranking officials, suspected of involvement in the Maidan Square disaster and misappropriation of state property. Among them Mykola Azarov, the former Prime Minister of Ukraine, and his son Oleksii Azarov, turned to Alber & Geiger for help.

Strategy

The strategy employed was built on an awareness of the full scope of the rule of law in Europe today, looking at the procedural fairness surrounding the sanctions. It required a subtle deployment of innovative legal arguments and emotional intelligence to navigate through the political turbulence, EU officials and peripheral actors to the institutions, for Alber & Geiger to demonstrate their innocence with strong convictions about their executive culpability.

We put forward that the freezing of funds was of a persecutive nature and not within EU competence. The three pronged approach attacked the premise of the sanctions at the right places and times. Alber & Geiger challenged the (1) legality, (2) legitimacy and (3) non-arbitrariness of the action, grasping all the potential playmakers.

Results

Ultimately the we were able to successfully get the freezing orders imposed on Oleksii Azarov removed, and considerably improve the position of Mykola Azarov. We made clear that the arbitrary targeting of individuals lacked a sufficient legal premise.

Through diligent fact finding we were able to cast doubt on the premise of the government’s alleged responsibility in the first place. We ultimately managed to help reinforce the rule of law, getting platform for the notions of fairness and equitable treatment of individuals into the public forum at a time when fairness was not an institutional priority.