Challenge

INTCO is a Chinese company and the world market leader in medical disposable gloves. The company plays a central role in securing reliable, high-quality medical supplies for hospitals, healthcare providers, and patients worldwide.

The European Commission considered applying the International Procurement Instrument (IPI), which could restrict third-country suppliers’ access to EU public tenders. For INTCO, this risked exclusion from medical procurements across the Union—threatening supply continuity, competitive pricing, and Europe’s preparedness for future health emergencies, including the next pandemic.

Strategy

Alber & Geiger engaged the European Commission and the European Parliament, and coordinated with key Member States to prevent discriminatory treatment under the IPI. We made the cross-institutional case that open competition in medical tenders strengthens supply resilience, affordability, and strategic autonomy, safeguarding the Union’s readiness for the next pandemic.

Results

INTCO preserved full access to EU procurement and maintained its ability to compete in medical tenders across Europe. European hospitals retained reliable and affordable access to essential disposable gloves and supplies—reinforcing the Union’s health security and preparedness for future crises.

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

The Giurgiulesti port of Chișinău in Moldova is an important strategic hub for all shipping to the black sea. It is a high EU political strategic value with regard to neighboring Russia.

In Moldova, we were faced with the task of steering tough EU diplomatic entanglements, in a direction that secured justice for our Azerbaijani client. The client was an important investor in Moldova. His interests in the Moldovan port which also involved huge EBRD investments had been compromised by an EU national.
Our client had sought a solution in Moldovan courts. After a freezing order in his favour was miraculously lifted, in the context of public statements from EU officials, he was concerned about the rule of law, independence of judiciary and the respective safety of his assets in this potential EU member state – and reached out to our team.

Strategy

The strategy was a bold venture into the multi-layered external relations boundaries that have been blurring due process. We reminded the EU that it had an obligation to uphold the rule of law in a potential EU accession country even if the result geopolitically would favor potentially Russian interests.

Results

The EU was ultimately content with making a neutral statement that did not implicate its integrity. It resulted in substantive justice for the client, and created a more positive relationship with the EU institutions.