Challenge
Gauselmann Group
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
Sophisticated EU Lobbyists
The strategy required an expedient understanding of the nooks and crannies inside the UK education system. It used careful neutral language to ensure that their applications were not misconstrued. It relied on the basis of our firm’s intrinsic aptitudes. We worked to break down and analyse the discretionary selection criteria of each university. The documents thoroughly assimilated the ‘criteria language’ of the universities into their narrative. In this case we had to effectively co-ordinate through the network of statutory instruments and satisfy the executive concerns they were designed to address.
The strategy was based on the landmark Gambelli judgement. In that court case, our Chairman had been Attorney General. His Opinion had established an important framework for determining the validity on limitations to cross border gambling. Concurrently, our strategy contextualized our inter-institutional communication according the Romanian sports law infrastructure. It utilized the fact that Stanleybet had based its cross border business model on the Gambelli and Placanica rulings.
Alber & Geiger’s lobbying activity led to the European Commission revising its preliminary duties decision on PVA imports. As we had argued, the European Commission concluded that there was no evidence that would link dumping and injury. The tariffs were lifted. Solutia’s profitability and position on the global market remained intact.
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.
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.
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.
The strategy was for us to simulate a check and balance mechanism in a more private context, within the nature of EBRD, being positioned in between the public and private domain. We co-ordinated the relevant playmakers and acquired a detailed awareness of EBRD’s internal politics. We delicately navigated the assortment of economic and political objectives and obligations. We put forward that the behaviour of the EBRD was contrary to the purpose of the organization. By prejudicing the position of a Ukrainian company, it was acting against the stated objective of helping Ukraine become a stand-alone market economy.
We adopted an expansive macro-strategy. Its multi-faced argumentation had scientific, legal, political, social and economic elements. It utilized the framework of environmental consciousness. In doing so, it demonstrated that certain plastic bags provided the better choice for the environment, economy and the wider community. In particular, we showed that the majority of plastic bags produced in Europe were not “single-use” and caused fewer greenhouse gasses compared to paper and cotton bags. 
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.
Our methodology assimilated policy and law into a subtle and meticulously engineered lobbying strategy. It practically depictured to Commission’s experts that a resolution could be found which did not violate state aid law or inhibit Bulgaria’s legitimate development goals. It used the length and breadth of EU policy fields to put the situation on a macro-European policy context. It relied on the socio-economic dynamics of transition in the Bulgarian property market, and subsumed this framework into consciousness of the European Commission’s policy.