TY - JOUR
AU - Federico
AB -  Common Market Law Review 48: 581­602, 2011. © 2011 Kluwer Law International. Printed in the United Kingdom. , Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd and Akcros Chemicals Ltd v. European Commission, Judgment of the European Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of 14 September 2010, nyr. Introduction It is well known that in AM & S the European Court of Justice affirmed the confidentiality of certain communications between lawyers and undertakings suspected of having breached Articles 101 and 102 TFEU.1 In reaching this conclusion, it relied on the "principles and concepts" resulting from the laws of the Member States.2 However, the absence of common rules of professional ethics and discipline led to the elaboration of an autonomous and rather restrictive notion of legal professional privilege. The privilege will operate only inasmuch as: a) the correspondence relates to the client's defence; b) the lawyer is entitled to practise in one of the Member States and is not employed by the firms under investigation.3 The personal scope of legal professional privilege (hereafter LPP) was questioned again in Akzo Nobel where the General Court refused to extend the scope of application of the privilege to in-house lawyers.4 This position has now been confirmed by 
TI - Case C-550/07 P, Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd and Akcros Chemicals Ltd v. European Commission Judgment of the European Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of 14 September 2010
JF - Common Market Law Review
DA - 2011-04-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/kluwer-law-international/case-c-550-07-p-akzo-nobel-chemicals-ltd-and-akcros-chemicals-ltd-v-Kwfbz8VNLy
SP - 581
EP - 602
VL - 48
IS - 2
DP - DeepDyve
ER -