EU rulings on litigation rights
19 Sep 04
Recent EU developments on in-house lawyers' rights; anti-suit orders; fees in cross-border cases
The following summaries are taken from material prepared by the Society’s Brussels office
In-house lawyers still waiting
The long campaign by in-house lawyers for recognition of legal professional privilege in EU competition investigations suffered a setback when the Council of Ministers rejected European Parliament amendments to the proposed Merger Regulation, that would have allowed privilege to a qualified lawyer subject to adequate rules of professional ethics and discipline. In some member states in-house lawyers do not hold legal qualifications. The CCBE had opposed the amendments for lack of sufficient definition. The issue will be revisited in the case of Akzo Nobel v The Commission.
Anti-suit orders challenged
An opinion by Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer on a reference by the House of Lords has concluded that member states may be precluded in certain circumstances from restraining litigants from commencing or resuming proceedings in other states. Mr Gregory Turner, a British solicitor employed by a group of companies in London and then in Madrid, raised proceedings before an employment tribunal, which dismissed the company’s objection to the claim. The company then instigated proceedings for damages against Mr Turner in Spain which Mr Turner sought to restrain by injunction in England. If followed by the court, the ruling could generate a surge of work for cross-border litigation lawyers.
Fees in cross-border cases
The Court of Justice recently ruled on the recovery of lawyers’ fees in cross-border cases. In AMOK Verlags GmbH v A&R Gastronomie GmbH (C-289/02) an Austrian company (A&R), successful in the German courts, sought its Austrian lawyer’s fees, charged according to the (higher) Austrian scale. The German court held that the claim for fees was limited to the amount a German lawyer could claim. It further held that the services of the local German lawyer could not be recovered. The ECJ held that the German court was within its rights to limit the level of the Austrian lawyer’s fees, but that A&R could recover the fees of the German lawyer, who by German law was obliged to work in conjunction with the Austrian lawyer.