We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance

Results:1-10 of 270

In-house lawyers do not have standing before the European courts
  • Nabarro LLP
  • Poland, European Union
  • October 3 2011

In a recent ruling, the General Court declared inadmissible an appeal in a competition case on the basis that the appeal was brought by an in-house lawyer rather than external counsel.

Beware of legal privilege?!
  • De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek
  • European Union
  • March 31 2011

The director of the NMa's legal department recently stated1 that the NMa will not align its legal professional privilege (LPP) practice with the European Court of Justice's Akzo ruling.

Akzo Nobel decision confirms ambiguity of privilege in European competition proceedings
  • Blank Rome LLP
  • European Union
  • March 9 2011

As has been widely reported, on September 14, 2010, in the case of Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd. et al. v. European Commission, the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) confirmed prior European Union case law that a company’s internal communications with in-house counsel are not entitled to the protections of the attorney-client privilege (or, as it is often called in Europe, the “legal professional privilege”) in E.U. competition proceedings.

Privilege in IP litigation
  • Shepherd and Wedderburn LLP
  • United Kingdom, European Union
  • January 20 2011

A recent spate of cases before the UK and European Courts re-considering the scope of privilege are of interest to businesses with valuable IP rights.

European Court of Justice rules that no privilege attaches to communications with in-house counsel in European Commission’s competition investigations
  • McCarthy Tétrault LLP
  • Canada, European Union
  • January 12 2011

On September 14, 2010, the European Court of Justice, Europe's highest court, ruled that communications between a company and its in-house lawyers are not covered by legal professional privilege (i.e., solicitor-client privilege in Canada) when the company comes under investigation by the European Union competition authorities.

Privileged position
  • LK Shields
  • European Union
  • December 31 2010

Companies might think that advice from with their in-house lawyer is covered by lawyerclient privilege - but not according to a recent ruling from the European Court of Justice.

ECJ decision in Akzo Nobel: no legal privilege for in-house lawyers
  • De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek
  • European Union
  • December 30 2010

The European Court of Justice recently confirmed in its Akzo ruling that communication between a company and its in-house lawyer, even when admitted to the bar, is not protected by legal privilege in EU competition investigations.

Akzo judgment - the compliance message
  • Greenberg Traurig LLP
  • European Union
  • December 17 2010

The decision in Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd and Akcros Chemicals Ltd v European Commission ("the AKZO case") confirmed the EU's position on legal professional privilege for in-house lawyers by re-affirming the decision in AM & S v Commission ("the AM & S case").

Privilege - data protection
  • Shepherd and Wedderburn LLP
  • United Kingdom, European Union
  • December 15 2010

Privilege is an issue which frequently arises in the context of litigation - the question of what can be withheld from disclosure on the basis that it is privileged communications between client and legal adviser - and a recent spate of cases before the UK and European Courts have reconsidered various aspects of the scope of privilege.

Legal professional privilege in-house or external lawyers?
  • AO HALL Advocates
  • United Kingdom, European Union, Guernsey
  • December 9 2010

In this article, we explore the boundaries of legal professional privilege in relation to in-house legal advisers.