PL EN


2012 | 5(6) | 193-214
Article title

Legal Professional Privilege and the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination in EU Competition Law after the Lisbon Treaty – Is It Time for a Substantial Change?

Content
Title variants
Languages of publication
EN
Abstracts
EN
Is there, in the context of the recent developments related to the Lisbon Treaty, a need for substantial change with respect to the scope and application of legal professional privilege (LPP) and the privilege against self-incrimination (PASI) in competition law proceedings before the European Commission? To answer this question this article first briefly describes the current scope of LPP and PASI in EU competition law enforcement proceedings. This is followed by a presentation of the impact that the binding effect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Charter) and the EU’s prospective accession to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Convention) may have on LPP and PASI. This analysis includes reasons why it may be necessary for the Commission and the EU Courts to reconsider the current scope of the privileges, and examines what could be considered as significant changes in this respect. In the event arguments for radical reform do not find the requisite political support, the article elaborates some nuanced improvements which could be implemented.
FR
Dans le contexte des changements récents liés au traité de Lisbonne, est-il nécessaire de procéder à des modifications substantielles par rapport au champ d’application du principe de confidentialité des communications entre avocats et clients (LPP) et du droit de ne pas contribuer à sa propre incrimination (PASI) dans les procédures de concurrence menées par la Commission européenne ? Pour répondre à cette question, le présent article donne d’abord une définition sommaire du champ actuel d’application du principe de confidentialité des communications entre avocats et clients et du droit de ne pas contribuer à sa propre incrimination lors d’une procédure communautaire de concurrence. On présente ensuite l’impact possible que peuvent avoir sur les principes LPP et PASI le caractère juridiquement obligatoire de la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne ainsi que l’adhésion prochaine de l’Union européenne à la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales. L’analyse tient compte des causes pour lesquelles il peut se montrer nécessaire que la Commission et les juges communautaires révisent le champ actuel d’application des principes susmentionnés et qu’ils étudient ce qui pourrait être considéré comme une modification substantielle en la matière. Dans une situation où les arguments à l’appui d’un changement radical quant à l’approche de ces principes ne trouveraient pas le soutien politique nécessaire, l’article propose certaines « améliorations » susceptibles de mise en œuvre.
Year
Volume
Pages
193-214
Physical description
Dates
published
2012-03-30
Contributors
References
  • Andreangeli A., EU Competition Enforcement and Human Rights, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK/Northampton, MA, USA, 2008.
  • Andreangeli A., ‘The Protection of Legal Professional Privilege in EU Law and the Impact of the Rules on the Exchange of Information within the European Competition Network on the Secrecy of Communications between Lawyer and Client: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back’ (2005) 2(1) Competition Law Review.
  • Arbault F., Sakkers E., ‘Cartels’, [in:] Faull J., Nikpay A. (eds.), The EC Law of Competition, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press 2007.
  • Aslam I., Ramsden M., ‘EC Dawn Raids: A Human Rights Violation?’ (2008) 5(1) Competition Law Review.
  • Bellis J.-F., ‘Legal professional privilege: An overview of EU and national case law’ (2011) No. 39467 e-Competitions.
  • Bernatt M., ‘Prawo do rzetelnego procesu w sprawach ochrony konkurencji i regulacji rynku (na tle art. 6 EKPC)’ [‘Right to a fair trial in competition and regulatory cases (as compared to Art. 6 ECHR)’] (2012) 1 Państwo i Prawo.
  • Bernatt M., Sprawiedliwość proceduralna w postępowaniu przed organem ochrony konkurencji [Procedural fairness in the proceedings before the competition authority], Warszawa 2011.
  • Boylan P., ‘Privilege and in-house lawyers’ (2007) 23rd October 2007.
  • Callewaert J., ‘The European Convention on Human Rights and European Union: a long way to harmony’ (2009) 6 European Human Rights Law Review.
  • Castillo de la Torre F., ‘Evidence, Proof and Judicial Review in Cartel Cases’ (2009) 32(4) World Competition.
  • Costa J.P., ‘The Relationship between the European Convention on Human Rights and European Union Law – A Jurisprudence Dialogue between the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice’, Lecture at King’s College London, 7th October 2008, available at http://www.ECtHR.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/DA4C4A2E-0CBE-482A-A205-9EA0AA6E31F6/0/2008_Londres_King_s_College_7_10.pdf.
  • Craig P., de Búrca G., EU Law. Text, cases and materials, 4th ed., Oxford University Press 2008.
  • Crofts L., ‘EU court’s Jaeger predicts tussle over fundamental rights, leniency policy under new EU treaty’, MLex, 5th March 2010, available at http://www.mlex.com.
  • Crofts L., ‘New settlement guidelines to reward compliance programmes, says France’s Lasserre’, MLex, 10th February 2012, available at http://www.mlex.com.
  • Curtis J.J., Savrin D.S., Bigelow B.L., ‘Collateral Consequences of Expanded European Antitrust Investigative Authority For Defendants in U.S. Proceedings’, [in:] Hawk B.E. (ed.), Annual Proceedings of the Fordham Corporate Law Institute, New York 2005.
  • Davies P., ‘Self-Incrimination, Fair Trials and the Pursuit of Corporate and Financial Wrongdoing’, [in:] Markesinis B. (ed.), The Impact of the Human Rights Bill on the English Law, Oxford/Clarendon 1998.
  • De Jesús Butler I, De Schutter O., ‘Binding the EU to International Human Rights Law’, [in:] Eeckhout P., Tridimas T. (eds.), Yearbook of European Law, Oxford University Press 2008.
  • Di Federico G., ‘Case C-550/07P, Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd and Akcros Chemicals Ltd v European Commission, Judgement of the European Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of 14 September 2010’ (2011) 48 Common Market Law Review.
  • Dutheil de la Rochere J., ‘The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, Not Binding but Influential: the Example of Good Administration’, [in:] Arnull A., Eeckhout P., Tridimas T. (eds.), Continuity and Change in EU Law, Oxford University Press 2008.
  • Egger A., ‘EU-Fundamental Rights in the National Legal order: The Obligations of Member States Revisited’, [in:] Eeckhout P., Tridimas T. (eds..), Yearbook of European Law, Oxford University Press 2006.
  • Einarsson O.J., ‘EC Competition Law and the Right to a Fair Trial’, [in:] Eeckhout P., Tridimas T. (eds.), Yearbook of European Law, Oxford University Press 2006.
  • Flattery J., ‘Balancing Efficiency and Justice in EU Competition Law: Elements of Procedural Fairness and their Impact on the right to a Fair Hearing’ (2010) 7(1) Competition Law Review.
  • Forrester I.S., ‘Due process in EC competition cases: a distinguished institution with flawed procedures’ (2009) 34(6) European Law Review.
  • Gippini-Fournier E., ‘Legal Professional Privilege in Competition Proceedings Before the European Commission: Beyond the Cursory Glance’, [in:] Hawk B.E. (ed.), Annual Proceedings of the Fordham Corporate Law Institute, New York 2005.
  • Hammond S.D., ‘Recent Developments Relating to the Antitrust Division’s Corporate Leniency Program’, speech at the 23rd Annual National Institute on White Collar Crime, San Francisco, CA (5th March 2009), availabe at http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/speeches/244840.pdf.
  • Hogan G., ‘The use of compelled evidence in European competition law cases’, [in:] Hawk B.E. (ed.), Annual Proceedings of the Fordham Corporate Law Institute, New York 2005.
  • Joshua J., ‘It’s a privilege. Managing legal privilege in multijurisdictional antitrust investigations’ (2007) Competition Law Insight, 11th December 2007.
  • Kowalik-Bańczyk K., The issues of the protection of fundamental rights in EU competition proceedings, z. 39, Centrum Europejskie Natolin, Warszawa 2010.
  • Kroes N., ‘Antitrust and State Aid Control – The Lessons Learned’, speech at the 36th Annual Conference on International Antitrust Law and Policy, Fordham University, New York, 24th September 2009, SPEECH/09/408, availabe at http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/09/408&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en.
  • Król-Bogomilska M., ‘Kary pieniężne w polskim prawie antymonopolowym na tle europejskiego prawa wspólnotowego’ [‘Fines in Polish anti-trust law in the context of the European Community law’] (1998) 7 Państwo i Prawo.
  • MacCulloch A.D., ‘The Privilege against Self-Incrimination in Competition Investigations: Theoretical Foundations and Practical Implications’ (2006) 26(2) Legal Studies.
  • Murphy G., ‘Is it time to rebrand legal professional privilege in EC competition law? An updated look’ (2009) 35(3) Commonwealth Law Bulletin.
  • O’Neill E., Sanders E., UK Competition Procedure. The Modernised Regime, Oxford University Press 2007.
  • Prawo konkurencji. Podstawowe pojęcia [Competition Law. Glossary of basic terms], Warszawa 2007.
  • Riley A., ‘Saunders and the power to obtain information in Community and United Kingdom competition law’ (2000) 25(3) European Law Review.
  • Riley A., ‘The Modernisation of EU Anti-Cartel Enforcement: Will the Commission Grasp the Opportunity?’, CEPS Special Report/January 2010, available at http://www.ceps.eu.
  • Rossi L.S., ‘How fundamental are Fundamental Principles? Primacy and Fundamental Rights after Lisbon’[ in:] Eeckhout P., Tridimas T. (eds.), Yearbook of European Law, Oxford University Press 2008.
  • Schwarze J., Bechtold R., Bosch W., ‘Deficiencies in European Community Competition Law. Critical analysis of the current practice and proposals for change’, September 2008, available at http://www.gleisslutz.com/en/publications/byyear.html?year=2008&offset=1.
  • Slater D., Tomas S., Waelbroeck D., ‘Competition law proceedings before the European Commission and the right to a fair trial: no need for reform?’ (2009) 5(1) European Competition Journal.
  • Stawicki A., Stawicki E. (eds), Ustawa o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów. Komentarz, [The act on competition and consumer protection. The Commentary], Warszawa 2011.
  • Turno B., ‘Prawo odmowy przekazania informacji służącej wykryciu naruszenia reguł konkurencji w orzecznictwie Europejskiego Trybunału Sprawiedliwości’ [‘Privilege against self-incrimination with respect to the EC competition law in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice’] (2009) 3 Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny.
  • Turno B., ‘Zagadnienie tajemnicy adwokackiej na gruncie prawa konkurencji’ [‘Legal Professional Privilege in competition law’], [in:] Banasiński C., Kępiński M., Popowska B., Rabska T. (eds), Aktualne problemy polskiego i europejskiego prawa ochrony konkurencji [Current issues of Polish and European competition law], Warszawa 2006).
  • Turno B. ‘Prawnik prawnikowi nierówny?’ [‘Are lawyers not equal?’] Rzeczpospolia, 24 November 2010.
  • Turno B., ‘Ciag dalszy sporu o zakres zasady legal professional privilege – glosa do wyroku SPI z 17.09.2007 r. w połączonych sprawach: T-125/03 oraz T-253/03 Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd i Akcros Chemicals Ltd przeciwko Komisji WE’ [‘Further dispute on the scope of the principle of the legal professional privilege – commentary on CFI judgment of 17.09.2007 in joined cases: T-125/03 and T-253/03 Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd and Akcros Chemicals Ltd v. Commission’] (2008) 6 Europejski Przegląd Sądowy.
  • Venit J.S., ‘Modernization and Enforcement – The Need for Convergence: On Procedure and Substance’, [in:] Ehlermann C.D., Atanasiu I. (eds), European Competition Law Annual 2006: Enforcement of Prohibition of Cartels, Oxford/Portland, Oregon 2006.
  • Venit J.S., Louko T., ‘The Commission’s New Power to Question and Its Implications on Human Rights’, [in:] Hawk B.E. (ed.), Annual Proceedings of the Fordham Corporate Law Institute, New York 2005.
  • Vesterdorf B., ‘Legal Professional Privilege and The Privilege Against Self-incrimination in The EC Law: Recent Developments and Current Issues’[in:] Hawk B.E. (ed.), Annual Proceedings of the Fordham Corporate Law Institute, New York 2005.
  • Wils W.P.J., ‘EU Anti-trust Enforcement and Procedural Rights and Guarantees: The Interplay between EU Law, National Law, the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the EU and the European Convention on Human Rights’ (2011) 34(2) World Competition.
  • Wils W.P.J., ‘The Increased Level of EU Antitrust Fines, Judicial Review, and the European Convention on Human Rights’ (2010) 33(1) World Competition.
  • Wils W.P.J., ‘Self-incrimination in EC Antitrust Enforcement: A Legal and Economic Analysis’ (2003) 26(4) World Competition.
  • Wils W.P.J., ‘Powers of Investigation and Procedural Rights and Guaranties’ (2006) 29(1) World Competition.
  • White R.C.A., ‘The Strasburg Perspective and its Effect on the Court of Justice: Is mutual Respect Enough?’, [in:] Arnull A., Eeckhout P., Tridimas T. (eds), Continuity and Change in EU Law, Oxford University Press 2008.
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.desklight-3f6ca135-9688-4559-8a30-da9c1801b9fc
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.