<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1994 (3) TMI 378 - EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168717</link>
    <description>Written communications between an independent lawyer and client made for the purposes of the client&#039;s defence are protected by legal professional privilege in competition proceedings, including communications after the initiation of proceedings and earlier correspondence connected with the subject matter; internal notes that merely report the content of those protected communications within the undertaking are also covered. Confidentiality remains an exception to disclosure only where justified by balancing business interests against interveners&#039; need for information. The requested direction that documents supplied to interveners be used only for the proceedings had no procedural basis and was refused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2015 12:42:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=379468" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (3) TMI 378 - EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168717</link>
      <description>Written communications between an independent lawyer and client made for the purposes of the client&#039;s defence are protected by legal professional privilege in competition proceedings, including communications after the initiation of proceedings and earlier correspondence connected with the subject matter; internal notes that merely report the content of those protected communications within the undertaking are also covered. Confidentiality remains an exception to disclosure only where justified by balancing business interests against interveners&#039; need for information. The requested direction that documents supplied to interveners be used only for the proceedings had no procedural basis and was refused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168717</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>