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.

Challenge

Alber & Geiger was able to bring out the extraterritorial reach of EU human rights. This was against the backdrop of its clients having lost all available domestic remedies. The Former Minister of Economic Development of Azerbaijan and his brother were arrested on the eve of the Azerbaijani election. Initially accused of attempting a putsch, they were ultimately found liable for embezzlement. The European Court of Human Rights had held that the several of their rights had been infringed, especially the right to a fair trial. Nevertheless the Aliyevs remained imprisoned under their disproportionate and potentially wrongful sentences.

Strategy

Alber & Geiger’s strategy utilized the EU-Azerbaijan trade talks to leverage the EU institutional playmakers at opportune moments. Our litigious narrative extracted the EU’s human rights obligations underlying the European Neighborhood Policy (ENP), and demonstrated the innocence of the Aliyev’s.

Simultaneously we drew on the Aliyev’s pro-western views, showing through adversarial fact finding that this underlay their imprisonment. Substantively, we put forward that it was incumbent on the Azerbaijani authorities under these circumstances to show their commitment to the rule of law. In order to benefit from the ENP they had to play by its rules.

Results

Ultimately we secured a complete pardon for both of the Aliyevs. However, the broader reach of this mandate was the raising of awareness regarding human rights issues in Azerbaijan. This put the EU-Azerbaijani relationship on a trajectory of greater trust. The sensitive political dynamics were tackled head on and resolved with expedience.

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.