The Brussels Court of Appeal holds that communications between a company and its in-house counsel are entitled to the protection of the attorney-client privilege under Belgian law, and therefore are not subject to production to the Belgian Competition Authority (Belgacom)

The Brussels Court of Appeal held that communications between a company (Belgacom Group) and its in-house counsel were entitled to the protection of the attorney-client privilege under Belgian law, and therefore were not subject to production to the Belgian Competition Authority (“BCA”), which had obtained them in a dawn raid. [1] Why It Matters The Belgian Court declined to follow the Akzo ruling of the European Court of Justice, which generally precludes in-house counsel from asserting privilege in the context of European proceedings. The decision represents an important rebuke to Akzo’s presumption that in-house counsels are insufficiently independent to enjoy the attorney-client and related privileges. While it is too soon to predict the demise of Akzo, Belgacom has immediate

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Authors

Quotation

Timothy Hirsch, Donald W. Hawthorne, The Brussels Court of Appeal holds that communications between a company and its in-house counsel are entitled to the protection of the attorney-client privilege under Belgian law, and therefore are not subject to production to the Belgian Competition Authority (Belgacom), 5 March 2013, e-Competitions Bulletin Legal privilege, Art. N° 65468

Visites 62

All issues

  • Latest News issue 
  • All News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • All Special issues