July 28, 2014

Brussels Court of Appeal Rules that Legal Professional Privilege Applies to In-house Counsel


In October 2010, the Belgian Competition Authority (BCA) carried out a dawn raid following a complaint by two competitors of Belgacom alleging that Belgacom was abusing its dominant position in the high speed asymmetric digital subscriber line market.  The BCA seized numerous electronic files, including the email correspondence of Belgacom’s in-house lawyers.  In March 2011, relying principally on Belgian law relating to the creation and governance of the Belgian Institute of In-House Counsel (BIIC), Belgacom initiated proceedings against the BCA, challenging the BCA’s denial of LPP in relation to the documents seized.  

The Judgment

On the basis of Article 5 of the Law of 1 March 2000, which provides expressly for the confidential treatment of legal opinions given by in-house lawyers, the Court of Appeal ruled that in-house counsel who are subject to the BIIC rules are to be accorded LPP. 

In reaching its decision, the Court placed emphasis on the autonomy of the Member States (subject to the EU principles of equivalence and effectiveness) when laying down rules of procedure.  In this instance, Belgian law provided for clear, statutory protection of correspondence between in-house lawyers and their internal clients. 

This is in contrast to the stance taken by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd and Akcros Chemicals Ltd v European Commission [2010].  In Azko, (and prior to Akzo in AM & S Europe Ltd v Commission of the European Communities [1982] ), the EU courts examined whether there was  a uniform view on the issue of LPP across Member States.  Following a comparative assessment of the rules in place in different Member States, the Court decided not to extend legal professional privilege to in-house counsel.


Notwithstanding the possibility of an appeal by the BCA to the Belgian Supreme Court, the following main points should be noted:

  • In relation to national investigations, where national law states that correspondence between in-house counsel and their internal clients should be treated as confidential, LPP applies.
  • In relation to investigations by the European Commission, the attitude towards LPP as developed by the EU courts applies: in-house counsel do not benefit from LPP.  
  • Investigations where a national competition authority assists the European Commission in carrying out dawn raids will fall within the remit of the EU rules and LPP will therefore not apply to in-house counsel. 

Samuel Buyoya, a trainee solicitor in the Brussels office, contributed to this article. 

© 2014 McDermott Will & Emery

About the Author

David Henry is an associate in the international law firm of McDermott Will & Emery, based in its Brussels office.  His practice focuses on European competition law including merger control, cartels and abuse of dominance, and his clients include companies in the air transport, chemicals, electronics and semi-conductor products, food retailing and digital map industries.  He also advises clients in proceedings before the European courts. 

32 2 282 35 69

About the Author


Wilko van Weert is a partner in the international law firm of McDermott Will & Emery, based in its Brussels office.  His practice focuses on EU competition, EU regulatory and EU trade law, with a particular emphasis on the interface between competition and intellectual property law.  This is reflected in his significant representation of clients in the media and broadcasting sector, as well as those in industries such as high-tech electronics, automotive, aviation, biotechnology, oil and paper.


Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.