Challenge

Alber & Geiger was asked to advise and support the Government of India amid concerns coming from Members of the European Parliament in relation to trade, human rights and privacy. Such activity in the European Parliament, coming in the form of parliamentary questions and motions for resolutions risked turning into conditionality clauses in the EU-India bilateral relations.

Strategy

Our team embarked on a comprehensive campaign with EU lawmakers addressed their concerns. We turned the focus on India’s growing economic, technological and geopolitical role and emphasized the untapped potential for bilateral relations. By providing factual evidence and a clearer understanding over the expressed concerns, we were able to switch the focus towards the bilateral opportunities and fostering trade relations via a free trade agreement.

Results

With our diplomatic and advocacy experience we assisted the Government of India navigate the political landscape in the European Parliament. Thanks to our strategy and government affairs support, EU lawmakers now support the EU-India free trade deal.

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 Gauselmann Group, one of the largest producers and operators of games of chance in Europe, called on Alber & Geiger when faced with a number of threatening gambling regulations in Germany, Austria, Hungary, Netherlands, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia and the Czech Republic. Alber & Geiger had to convince the European Commission to make a counterintuitive political risk in confronting a powerful Member State, Germany and concurrently convince the European Commission that our interpretation would stand up to CJEU scrutiny.

Strategy

Given the limited scope of directly ascertainable EU competence, the strategy employed an abstracted analytical formula to show that the various regulations were legally incoherent. It demonstrated that the laws of the Member States contradicted their own main goals on a substantive level. It utilized the jurisprudential architecture of the CJEU in lieu of their crystallization.

The multifaceted strategy also incorporated an economic dimension. Concurrently, the same technique allowed us to demonstrate that the money laundering directive could not arbitrarily encompass all the gambling operators without distinction of risk volume and activity.

Results

Ultimately, we managed to convince the European Commission to act. Its omission to launch infringement proceedings had been rebuked. Alber & Geiger was able to safeguard fundamental liberties and freedoms by bringing EU instruments into a new field and challenging archaic but powerful structures. We were also able to hold the scope of the money laundering directive back, establishing a distinction between casinos and other gambling operators.