The most recent developments regarding legal privilege relate to competition law infringements. In this sense, contrary to article 39 of the General Statute on the Spanish Legal Profession (Estatuto General de la Abogacía Española, EGAE), the Spanish Competition Authorities have rejected the application of legal privilege to communications from in-house counsels based on the case law of the European Court of Justice (specifically the Akzo ruling dated 14 September 2010).
On the other hand, the Spanish Competition Authorities have applied EU case law on attorney-client legal privilege, which is fairly well established and detailed. Effectively, the Spanish Competition Authorities have recognized that correspondence exchanged with an external lawyer who practices within the European Economic Area "for the purpose and the interests of the client's rights of defense" is covered by legal privilege. The protection of legal privilege also covers "internal memoranda which are confined to reporting the text or the content" of communications exchanged with external lawyers.
Although EU case law on attorney-client legal privilege has been applied by the Spanish Competition Authorities in the course of a competition law investigation, it is not clear whether the same principles will be applicable in a straightforward manner in the course of other kinds of investigations conducted by other authorities.
In relation to criminal matters, recent developments focus on the relationship between professional secrecy and attorney-client privileged communications when the client is imprisoned. In this regard, Spanish courts have declared that, according to the Spanish Penitentiary Act, communications between a lawyer and a client, even when the client is imprisoned, are protected by professional secrecy. Judges may only intercept their communications if two requirements are satisfied: (i) the defendant is charged with an offense of terrorism; and (ii) the intervention is authorized by the prison authority and approved by the judge on the basis that it is necessary to ascertain the truth of the case.