Short Reads

Safeguarding legal privilege: better safe than sorry?

Safeguarding legal privilege: better safe than sorry?

Safeguarding legal privilege: better safe than sorry?

07.11.2019 NL law

The European Court of Justice recently ruled that the European Commission does not have to take additional precautionary measures to respect the right of legal professional privilege when conducting a new dawn raid at the same company. Companies are well-advised to mark clearly all communications covered by legal privilege as 'privileged and confidential' and to keep all privileged communication separate from other communication.

However, solely marking communication as privileged and confidential does not automatically make it so; the CMA imposed a GBP 20,000 fine on technology company Sabre for (initially) having ‘over-designated’ documents as privileged. Companies should always verify whether the documents have been rightfully designated as privileged by checking their contents.

ECJ dismisses appeal by Alcogroup on alleged violations of legal privilege

On 17 October 2019, the ECJ dismissed an appeal by Alcogroup N.V. and Alcodis N.V. (together: Alcogroup) concerning the treatment of privileged documents following dawn raids by the Commission in two parallel investigations.

In this case, the Commission carried out two separate inspections at Alcogroup's premises. The first inspection took place in October 2014 and concerned potential collusion in the oil and biofuel markets. The second inspection followed in March 2015; this time however it concerned potential coordination and information exchanges relating to bio-ethanol sales.

Following the first inspection, Alcogroup's lawyers exchanged with their client numerous e-mails and memoranda containing legal advice on the subject matter of the first inspection. These communications were marked as 'legally privileged'. During the second inspection, a number of these documents showed up as part of the Commission's digital sweep, but were ultimately tagged by the Commission as legally privileged and separated from the Commission's file (with the exception of one document). Alcogroup subsequently sent a letter to the Commission requesting the suspension of its second investigation, as it considered that the Commission had violated its rights of defence by potentially reviewing legally privileged documents during that second inspection. The Commission responded with a letter stating that those concerns were unwarranted, as it had not yet taken a position as to the privileged nature of the documents concerned. Alcogroup lodged an appeal to the General Court (GC) on the legality of the second inspection decision and the Commission's letter.

The GC ruled that Alcogroup's appeal was inadmissible. The GC held that (i) the Commission's second inspection decision could not have been impacted, as the alleged violation of Alcogroup's rights of defence could only have arisen after that decision was taken, and (ii) the Commission's letter did not amount to a 'decision' affecting Alcogroup's legal position. 

On further appeal, the ECJ upheld the GC's ruling. In particular, the ECJ dismissed Alcogroup's contention that the second inspection decision should have included special "precautionary measures" to prevent the Commission from reviewing legally privileged advice that was drafted specifically as a result of the first inspection. The ECJ confirmed that the Commission is in any event bound to respect the rights of defence and treatment of privileged information as a matter of law, and that the lack of additional 'precautionary measures' in this case could not lead the inspectors to believe that it should treat such information any differently during its second inspection. To the extent the Commission would have violated Alcogroup's rights of defence, the parties could raise these concerns in their appeal against the Commission's ultimate infringement decision. As the Commission had taken no decision with legal effects, the ECJ confirmed the inadmissibility of Alcogroup's appeal.

CMA fines Sabre for incorrectly claiming legal privilege over certain documents

On 11 October 2019, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) CMA published its decision to fine Sabre Corporation GBP 20,000 for failing to submit relevant documents on time during its merger control review of Sabre's intended acquisition of Farelogix Inc.

The CMA had asked Sabre to provide all documents in its possession relating to certain specific topics, including the methodology used to retrieve such documents. Sabre's lawyers based their initial document submission to the CMA on a similar submission it had made to the DOJ in the context of merger control proceedings in the US. This submission excluded a large number of documents that were marked as legally privileged. Subsequently, however, two months after the deadline for its initial response, Sabre submitted 444 additional documents in response to the CMA's questions. Sabre explained that, after further review, these documents appeared to have been erroneously classified as privileged.

The CMA held that, even though it was aware that Sabre intended to base its submission on the files submitted in the US procedure, it could not have been aware that a large number of documents, which had been submitted in response to the CMA’s specific requests, would be withheld as a result of an incorrect assessment of legal privilege. The CMA stressed that it is the parties' responsibility to ensure that all relevant material is produced on time in response to its requests. The CMA considered that Sabre could not simply rely on foreign submissions, but had to independently assess its document submissions to the CMA and ensure that all relevant information would be produced. In that context, the CMA took note of the fact that Sabre had not submitted any information on the methodology according to which it had withheld (potentially) privileged information in its initial response.

Conclusion

In conclusion, both cases once again highlight the importance of ensuring that meticulous safeguards are put in place with respect to the selection and review of legally privileged documents.

 

This article was published in the Competition Newsletter of November 2019. Other articles in this newsletter:

 

Team

Related news

12.05.2020 NL law
Kroniek van het mededingingsrecht

Articles - Wat de gevolgen van de coronacrisis zullen zijn voor de samenleving, de economie en – laat staan – het mededingingsbeleid laat zich op het moment van de totstandkoming van deze kroniek niet voorspellen. Wel stond al vast dat het mededingingsrecht zal worden herijkt op basis van de fundamentele uitdagingen die voortvloeien uit zich ontwikkelende ideeën over het belang van industriepolitiek, klimaatverandering en de positie van tech-ondernemingen en de platforms die zij exploiteren.

Read more

07.05.2020 NL law
Spreading fast: Dutch and Belgian COVID-19 State-aid approved

Short Reads - Many Member States are taking measures to support the economy during the COVID-19 crisis. The European Commission’s Temporary Framework enables the rapid approval of certain types of State aid. So far, three Dutch State aid schemes and six Belgian schemes were approved, providing the beneficiaries with legal certainty that the aid received is in line with EU State aid law and cannot be challenged at a later stage.

Read more

07.05.2020 NL law
ECJ confirms: no shortcut for ‘by object’ antitrust infringements

Short Reads - The European Court of Justice has found there is no shortcut for determining whether particular conduct can be held to have the object to restrict competition. A competition authority will always need to assess carefully whether the conduct reveals "a sufficient degree of harm to competition” before labelling it a ‘by object’ infringement. This is the case where there is sufficiently solid and reliable experience showing that this type of conduct is commonly regarded as being inherently anticompetitive.

Read more

28.04.2020 EU law
Origin of the primary ingredient - Implementing Regulation 2018/775

Short Reads - Since the beginning of this month, the origin of the primary ingredient of a food must be clearly indicated on the product when it differs from the origin given for the product as a whole. This is the result of the implementation of Article 26 (3) of the European Regulation 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers.  

Read more

07.05.2020 NL law
COVID-19: fast-forwarding competition law

Short Reads - Competition authorities are temporarily ‘green-lighting’ certain collaboration initiatives to safeguard the supply of essential products in light of the COVID-19 outbreak. At the same time, authorities warn against using the current exceptional circumstances to engage in anti-competitive practices, such as price-fixing, excessive pricing, refusals to deal or opportunistic takeovers. 

Read more