Member State BITS after the Treaty of Lisbon: solid foundation or first victims of EU investment policy? Research Paper in Law, 02/2012

[Introduction.] This paper discusses the uncertain future of Member State BITs with third countries in the light of the developing EU investment policy. The question will be examined on the basis of the proposed Regulation establishing transitional arrangements for bilateral investment agreements between Member States and third countries presented by the Commission on 7 July 20101 and the European Parliament’s Position adopted at first reading on 10 May 2011.2 The proposed Regulation and the Commission Communication of the same day are meant to be the “first steps in the development of an EU international investment policy”.3 The first chapters present the legal framework relevant for this question and its evolution to better understand the particular challenges of this transition process. The second chapter examines the relationship of EU law and investment law, with a brief introduction of the notion of investment law and the scope of the EU’s new investment competence. The third chapter outlines the legal framework for the continuation and termination of treaties under international and EU law. The fourth chapter concerns BITs, first covering the particular nature of BITs and then the CJEU’s judgments in the BIT Cases of 2009. The fifth chapter consists of a step by step analysis of the different provisions of the proposed Regulation

Legal privilege for in-house lawyers in the light of AKZO: a matter of law or policy? Research Papers in Law, 05/2011

From introduction. This paper discusses the arguments in favour of extending legal privilege to in-house lawyers in the light of the CJEU‟s judgement in AKZO. The previous jurisprudence is unambiguous, as the Court clearly stated in AM & S that the confidentiality of written communications between an undertaking and its lawyer is protected under Union law only when two cumulative conditions are fulfilled: they must be connected to the exercise of the client‟s rights of defence and the lawyer must be independent, that is, “not bound to the client by a relationship of employment”.1 This protection also applies to internal notes confined to reporting the content of communications with independent lawyers containing legal advice.

Österreichisches Kartellobergericht verzehnfacht Geldbusse wegen vertikaler Preisbindungen : Anm. zu KOG (Österreich), Beschl. v. 08.10.2015, 16 Ok 2/15b

Der vorliegende Beitrag befasst sich mit dem Beschluss des österreichischen Kartellobergerichts zu 16 Ok 2/15b vom 08.10.2015. Im Rechtsmittelverfahren verzehnfachte das KOG die durch das Erstgericht verhängte Geldbuße, da nur angemessen hohe Geldbußen abschreckende Wirkung erzielen könnten. Das KOG bestätigte unter anderem, dass es sich bei vertikalen Preisbindungen um offenkundige Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen handelt. Klarstellungen wurden auch zum Vorliegen einer Vereinbarung im Zusammenhang mit vertikalen Preisbindungen getroffen. Das Höchstgericht führte des Weiteren aus, dass es im Vergleich zu horizontalen Vereinbarungen keines höheren Beweismaßstabs bedarf. Das KOG hat zudem festgestellt, dass bei der Geldbußenbemessung primär auf den konzernweiten Gesamtumsatz und nicht auf den tatbezogenen Umsatz abgestellt wird, wobei die in § 29 KartG vorgesehene Geldbußenobergrenze von 10 % des weltweiten Umsatzes ähnlich der deutschen Rechtslage nicht bloß "Kappungsgrenze" ist, sondern den Strafrahmen bildet, innerhalb dessen die Geldbuße zu bestimmen ist