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

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

06.02.2020
The ACM may cast the net wide in cartel investigations

Short Reads - Companies beware: the ACM may not need to specify the scope of its investigation into suspected cartel infringements in as much detail as expected. On 14 January 2020, the Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal upheld the ACM’s appeal against judgments of the Rotterdam District Court, which had quashed cartel fines imposed on cold storage operators. The operators had argued that the ACM was time-barred from pursuing a case against them, because the ACM had not suspended the prescription period by beginning investigative actions specifically related to the alleged infringements.

Read more

07.02.2020
Het finale Belgische ‘nationaal energie- en klimaatplan’ en de Belgische langetermijnstrategie: het geduld van de Commissie op de proef gesteld?

Articles - Op 31 december 2019 diende België, nog net op tijd, zijn definitieve nationaal energie- en klimaatplan (NEKP) in bij de Commissie. Het staat nu al vast dat het Belgische NEKP niet op applaus zal worden onthaald door de Commissie. Verder laat ook de Belgische langetermijnstrategie op zich wachten. Wat zijn de gevolgen?

Read more

06.02.2020
CDC/Kemira: Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies European principle of effectiveness to limitation periods

Short Reads - In a private enforcement case brought by CDC against Kemira, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies the European principle of effectiveness and rules that claims are not time-barred under Spanish, Finnish and Swedish law. With reference to the Cogeco judgment of the ECJ, the Court considers that claimants must be able to await the outcome of any administrative appeal against an infringement decision, even in relation to respondents who themselves have not filed appeals against the infringement decision.

Read more

06.02.2020
Pay-for-delay: brightened lines between object and effect restrictions

Short Reads - In its first pay-for-delay case, the ECJ has clarified the criteria determining whether settlement agreements between a patent holder of a pharmaceutical product and a generic manufacturer may have as their object or effect to restrict EU competition law. The judgment confirms the General Court’s earlier rulings in Lundbeck and Servier (see our October 2016 and December 2018 newsletters) in which it was held that pay-for-delay agreements (in these cases) constituted a restriction ‘by object’.

Read more

06.02.2020
Consumers and Sustainability: 2020 competition enforcement buzzwords

Short Reads - The ACM will include the effects of mergers on labour conditions in its review. It will also investigate excessive pricing of prescription drugs. As well as these topics, the ACM has designated the digital economy and energy transition as its 2020 focus areas. Companies can therefore expect increased enforcement to protect online consumers, and active probing of algorithms.

Read more

This website uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential for the technical functioning of our website and you cannot disable these cookies if you want to read our website. We also use functional cookies to ensure the website functions properly and analytical cookies to personalise content and to analyse our traffic. You can either accept or refuse these functional and analytical cookies.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring