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 (Belgacom)

This article has been nominated for the 2014 Antitrust Writing Awards. Click here to learn more about the Antitrust Writing Awards.

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

L'accès à cet article est réservé aux abonnés

Déjà abonné ? Identifiez-vous

L’accès à cet article est réservé aux abonnés.

Lire gratuitement un article

Vous pouvez lire cet article gratuitement en vous inscrivant.

 

Version PDF

Auteurs

Citation

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 (Belgacom), 5 mars 2013, e-Competitions Due Process Research Program, Art. N° 65468

Visites 217

Tous les numéros

  • Latest News issue 
  • Tous les News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • Tous les Special issues