Featured documents
R (Greyhound Board of Great Britain Ltd) v Welsh Ministers [2026] EWHC 670 (Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling reinforces the constitutional divide between the courts and the legislature. It explains that the scheme and framework of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (GWA 2006) embody that separation of powers, and that any judicial attempt to recognise and enforce a common law obligation on Welsh Ministers to consult prior to introducing legislation in the Senedd would trespass upon that boundary. This is not a departure from established principle; case law has already upheld comparable rules for lawmakers in Scotland and at Westminster. However, this is the first express confirmation of the position for Welsh lawmakers, and the first time this dimension of the GWA 2006 has been analysed in such depth. The court examined earlier
The solution arrived through the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC), a quasi‑judicial body handling mass claims, created under UN Security Council Resolution 687. By addressing environmental harm—most notably via its ‘F4’ claim class—the UNCC set a seminal benchmark shaping how international law and contemporary arbitral panels allocate financial responsibility for wartime ecological devastation. With present-day wars in areas such as Eastern Europe and the Middle East bringing dam breaches, strikes on chemical facilities, and the burning of farmland, the UNCC’s legacy endures as an essential reference point for states, global investors, and companies engaged in post‑conflict arbitration. The F4 claims: Quantifying the unquantifiable Prior to the 1990s, mechanisms in international law for war reparations overwhelmingly favoured property loss, foregone earnings, and bodily injury. The natural world was commonly treated as a mute, non-compensable victim of armed hostilities...
Understanding the farming business as a business Many farms still use long-standing structures that arose by habit, not strategy. Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common. While once effective, such setups can cause major issues around succession, tax planning and involving the next generation. A corporate team can take a fresh, business-led view of the farm, asking: Who owns the land and other critical assets? Who manages daily operations? Who carries the risk and who enjoys the return? What is the enduring plan for succession? From this review, the team can confirm whether the current setup is fit for purpose or if an alternative — for example an updated partnership agreement, a company, a limited liability partnership, or a blended model — would better meet the family’s aims. Tax efficiency through joined-up advice Tax sits at the centre of most
Most recent News
Teva BV; Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC , Joined Cases C-119/22 and C-149/22 The decision confirms that, for the purposes of Regulation ( EC) 469/2009 (the SPC Regulation), a medicine composed of two active substances, A+B, is to be treated as a distinct ‘product’ from the corresponding single-ingredient monotherapies. Consequently, it is permissible to obtain separate SPCs, on the same patent, for both (i) monotherapy A and (ii) the combined therapy A+B. Nevertheless, the judgment overlays an ‘invention test’ on the grant of combination SPCs. Hence, to secure an SPC for the A+B pairing, it must now be shown that the combination constitutes a feature necessary to resolve the technical problem addressed by the basic patent... Teva v Merck Sharp & Dohme and Merck Sharp & Dohme v Clonmel Healthcare , Joined Cases C-119/22 and...
EU AI Act could drive a rise in M& A arbitration activity As the EU Artificial Intelligence Act ( EU AI Act) begins to take hold, parties that prefer arbitration for resolving disputes in their M& A agreements would be well advised to weigh how that choice can function as a tool for risk management and mitigation in practice. Accordingly, deal participants selecting arbitration in their M& A deal agreement should take time to consider its use as a means of risk management. EU AI Act The long-awaited EU AI Act entered into force on 1 August 2024, with the bulk of its rules commencing in August 2026. The legislation is wide in scope and broadly affects EU-based companies that use or supply AI systems anywhere, international companies operating in the EU, and any company producing AI content that is used within the EU. The Act sorts AI...
Draft political statement In a preliminary political text, EU countries urge the Commission to assess whether certain online platforms should face additional rules as part of the forthcoming AVMSD review, scheduled to conclude by 2026. A revision does not automatically require amendments to the legal framework; nonetheless, the Commission has already signalled its intention to reopen the AVMSD and has requested input from EU countries. The paper, dated 6 January 2025 and seen by MLex, is the first draft prepared by Poland, currently holding the Council of the EU's rotating presidency, drawing on bilateral talks with other Member States, and national representatives will debate it on 16 January 2025. At a Brussels conference in December 2024, Anna Herold, head of the Commission's Audiovisual Policy Unit, said the exercise would concentrate on the creators' economy, ensuring a level playing field with other...
Our observations so far suggest the Unified Patent Court’s approach to inventive step is more all-encompassing, concentrating on whether the skilled person would have been prompted to contemplate the claimed solution and adopt it as a natural progression from the prior art. Further, in contrast to the EPO’s problem–solution methodology, the UPC does not yet appear persuaded that a reasonable expectation of success must be shown to establish obviousness. Given these differing frameworks, there is scope for divergent outcomes on identical facts. Even so, both the UPC and the EPO seem conscious of the danger of inconsistent rulings between the two systems. In this piece, we consider four EPO practices which, though not invariably applied today, may gain traction in the interests of harmonisation, as they arguably align more closely with the UPC’s stance on inventive...
On 8 January 2025, EU judges ruled that the Commission must pay compensation to a user of one of its websites after personal data was sent to the US without the necessary safeguards in place. German consumer Thomas Bindl argued that his personal details, including his IP address, were unlawfully transferred to the US after he registered for an event on its website using a service that lets users log in via Facebook. In 2022, he brought legal action against the EU’s executive arm for employing the US cloud service, Amazon Cloud Front, to move personal data from its websites to the US, in breach of a 2020 judgment designed to prevent US surveillance authorities from accessing EU citizens’ data. He said the Commission’s website on the Conference on the Future of the EU, and a separate website for a ' Go Green' event,...
In this issue: EU fundamentals Corporate Competition and state aid Data protection Dispute resolution Financial services Energy Environment Insurance and reinsurance IP Regulatory TMT International trade Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content EU fundamentals Polish Presidency of Council of the EU publishes presidency programme The Polish Presidency of the Council of the EU has released its plan for 1 January–30 June 2025, with a core aim of reinforcing Europe’s security. It will champion EU enlargement, reinforce defence and energy security, press ahead with migration and asylum reform, and maintain backing for Ukraine against Russian aggression. Legislative work will prioritise digital transformation, green energy, health resilience, and labour rights. The presidency also plans to streamline regulation, boost competitiveness, and build global partnerships on trade,...
Meril Life Sciences PVT Ltd & others v Edwards Lifesciences Corporation UPC- Co A-551/2024 Background In late October 2023, Edwards commenced infringement proceedings against Meril, relying on its Unitary Patent ( EP 3,769,722), before the Nordic‑ Baltic RD. The patent had been granted in June 2023 and, in March 2024, Meril lodged an opposition, shortly before submitting a revocation counterclaim within the UPC action. Together with those revocation counterclaims, Meril also applied in the infringement case, asking the court to stay the proceedings pending a decision by the EPO’s Opposition Division on the validity of the EPO. Neither side sought expedition of the EPO proceedings. Nevertheless, following UPC notification to the EPO of the corresponding infringement case on 20 March 2024, the EPO fast‑tracked the matter, listing the hearing for 17 January 2025 and shortening the period for final written submissions from the...
Protéines France and Others v Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de la Souveraineté industrielle et numérique, Case C-438/23, ECLI: EU: C:2024:826 What are the practical implications of this case? The Court of Justice’s judgment in Case C-438/23 carries substantial practical consequences for food law practitioners, regulatory advisers and food business operators. In practice, it shapes day-to-day advice and compliance strategies. It confirms that, absent a defined legal designation for plant-based foods, Member States may not enforce national prohibitions on meat-associated terms for such products under domestic law. The harmonisation achieved through the FIC Regulation aims to deliver uniform consumer information throughout the EU and to avert market fragmentation. For advisers, the decision highlights the need to steer clients towards compliance with EU-wide rules, while still identifying any potentially conflicting national measures and scrutinising their validity against the framework of EU harmonised law. The Court’s ruling...
In this issue: EU fundamentals Commercial Data protection and cybersecurity Free movement, immigration and employment Financial services Energy Environment Insurance and reinsurance IP Life sciences Regulatory TMT International trade Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Trackers Latest Q& A EU Law Highlights 2024/2025 EU fundamentals European Commission releases December 2024 infringement package The European Commission has unveiled its December 2024 infringement package, identifying the Member States facing action for breaches of obligations under EU law. The notice outlines where obligations have not been met. This round includes letters of formal notice to Sweden over non-compliance with Directive 2000/60/ EC (the Water Framework Directive), and to Bulgaria for breaches of Directive 2014/24/ EU on public procurement, as well as the Digital Services Act. Reasoned opinions were also addressed to Poland concerning Directive 2006/7/ EC (the Bathing Water Directive); to Croatia, Poland, Slovenia and Sweden for not transposing Directive ( EU) 2021/1883 (the EU Blue Card Directive); and to Sweden for...
Urgency requirement Recent jurisprudence underscores that patentees must move quickly once they learn, or become aware, of infringing conduct. If the patentee does not respond without delay, preliminary measures are unlikely to be granted by the court. The authorities have not been entirely uniform on how swiftly an applicant must proceed in this context. In Ortovox v Mammut ( UPC_ CFI_452/2023), the court concluded that, once the applicant holds all information and documentation that credibly supports a promising legal action, there is a one‑month window in which to act. By contrast, in Dyson v Shark Ninja ( UPC_ CFI_443/2023), the allowed period was assessed as two months in which to take steps. That approach was subsequently confirmed in Hand held Products v Scandit ( UPC_ CFI_74/2024), where the court observed that filing the application for a preliminary injunction on the very day on which...
The EU AI Act prohibits AI applications from being placed on the EU market that are considered to create an unacceptable threat to individuals’ safety and fundamental rights. In November 2024, the Commission opened a consultation to shape guidance that will spell out the prohibitions (see: LNB News 13/11/2024 69). At the same time, it has closely worked with EU Member States via the European AI Board. A board subgroup focused on the bans met on 29 November 2024, and national governments were urged to put forward concrete and pertinent examples. AI Board update On 10 December 2024, the Commission briefed the board’s senior representatives, for the first time flagging the examples under review for forthcoming guidance in a presentation seen by MLex. That presentation indicated the new guidance will be accessible for non-specialists, clearly define the scope and key notions, and set out a broad...
The EU’s AI Act All entities that create or deploy AI must, under the EU’s AI Act, make sure—so far as they reasonably can—that staff and any other people operating or using such systems for them have adequate AI literacy. This duty, which captures virtually every organisation employing AI, begins to apply on 2 February 2025. However, Member States have until August 2025 to designate the market surveillance authorities tasked with policing this obligation. At the European AI Board’s meeting on 10 December 2024, the Commission shared a progress update on work to put this rule into practice. To date, it has indicated that its efforts have focused on mapping literacy requirements, obstacles, and leading practices for AI builders and users, within the framework of the AI Pact—the voluntary scheme through which tech firms can get ahead on meeting the Act’s demands. This...
In this issue: Commercial Competition and state aid Data protection and cybersecurity Free movement, immigration and employment Financial services Energy Environment IP Life sciences Regulatory TMT International trade Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Trackers Commercial Court of Justice rules on the concepts of average consumer and aggressive or unfair commercial practice ( Compass Banca Sp A/ Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato ( AGCM)) The Court of Justice explains that the notion of the ‘average consumer’ is not confined to someone reasonably well-informed, observant and circumspect; it must also reflect that a person’s ability to decide can be constrained (for instance, by cognitive biases) and other comparable constraints. It further finds that presenting, at the same time, a personal loan alongside a separate...
The main impact of DORA DORA DORA is reshaping the financial services landscape, altering how organisations manage operational risk and keep critical operations going during disruption. The regulatory focus has shifted from protection to resilience — a broader idea that spans preventing disruption, mitigating incidents, addressing consequences and recovering from disruptive events. For financial entities, DORA introduces a structured set of requirements that will compel organisations to re‑evaluate: data, cyber and contractual governance risk management policies and processes technology estates and testing methods incident management framework technology and data contracts These organisations already operate under extensive regulation, but DORA’s fresh requirements will bring further scrutiny and operational adjustment, adding another layer of rigour and cost. DORA also has wide reach, applying to both intra‑group and external information and communication technology ( ICT) service providers and creating a...
Compass Banca Sp A v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, Case C-646/22, ECLI- EU- C-2024-957 What are the practical implications of this case? The Court of Justice reiterates that the average consumer is reasonably well-informed, reasonably observant and circumspect. As a result, the assessment of commercial practices must focus on a notional, typical consumer. This is an objective yardstick, uninfluenced by any specific knowledge or information held by particular individuals. Nevertheless, the Court of Justice acknowledges that such a practice may still materially distort the economic behaviour of that notional consumer where there is a lack of information on his or her part. Accordingly, traders are under a duty to ensure consumers are fully informed about the implications of their actions, enabling decisions taken with complete awareness of all pertinent facts. In practical terms, this may require the inclusion of clear and...
Speaking at the International Artificial Intelligence Summit on 4 December 2024, Renate Nikolay, the deputy Director‑ General of the Commission’s digital department, confirmed the initiative is scheduled for launch in 2025. She noted the Commission has widely consulted stakeholders and will now press ahead with the proposal, which is expected to be included in the EU executive’s ‘work programme’, the document that sets out its plans for the next five‑year term that began on 2 December 2024. ‘ We will definitely come forward with our initiative on the Digital Networks Act to get the regulatory framework fit for the future’, she said. ‘ I think there is considerable momentum to move to the next step, and we really hope the Commission will present the blueprint next year’, Nikolay added......
According to records held by the courts, a judicial review seeking to contest the €91m penalty for breaching the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, Regulation ( EU) 2016/679 ( EU GDPR), was lodged with the Irish High Court on 29 November 2024, via Meta’s legal representative in Ireland, the law firm A& L Goodbody. The claim is brought against the Irish DPC and also against Ireland’s Chief Legal Officer, the Attorney General. That positioning signals Meta may additionally point to shortcomings in Irish legislation, or argue that the state has failed to protect its rights within the proceedings. The court system does not specify the precise subject of the challenge, but MLex understands it relates to the fine and the reprimand issued in the......
In this issue: Competition and state Data protection and cybersecurity Free movement, immigration and employment Financial services Energy Environment Insurance and reinsurance Life sciences Regulatory TMT International trade Lex Talk®EU Law: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Trackers Competition and state Mergers- Commission withdraws Article 22 guidance The Commission has rescinded its 2021 communication that offered direction on the application of the Article 22 EUMR referral mechanism to particular categories of cases (the Guidance). Following a review of the EUMR’s turnover-based jurisdictional thresholds, the Commission issued the Guidance in March 2021, outlining a revised approach to Article 22. This approach permitted any Member State to invite the Commission to scrutinise a merger without an EU dimension where it nonetheless (i) affects trade within the Single Market and (ii) threatens to significantly affect competition within the territory of the Member State(s) making the request. See News Analysis: EU Competition law—daily round-up...
The EU’s General Court held that the European Commission’s updated cartel penalty on HSBC was not out of time, as the bloc’s competition watchdog had filed an appeal that paused the limitation period. In December 2016, the Commission imposed a €33.6m fine on HSBC after concluding it had joined a cartel to influence a benchmark interest rate. The authority stated that several banks (including Crédit Agricole and JPMorgan Chase & Co) shared commercially sensitive data in breach of antitrust rules, following a five-year probe into aspects of the European Interbank Offered Rate, or Euribor. In September 2019, the General Court set aside HSBC’s fine because the Commission’s reasoning was insufficient, and the Commission appealed that judgment to the General Court. The Commission later recalculated the penalty to €31.7m in June 2021 and the following month ( July 2021) withdrew its appeal. HSBC...
In this issue: EU fundamentals Competition and state aid Data protection and cybersecurity Financial services Energy Environment IP Life sciences TMT Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Trackers EU fundamentals Council of the EU and European Parliament approve EU's 2025 budget Both the European Parliament and the Council of the EU have now signed off the EU’s general budget for 2025. Commitments stand at €199.4bn and payments at €155.21bn, a 6% rise on 2024, representing an additional €10bn. The Council stressed that the 2025 plan advances EU priorities while safeguarding careful stewardship of taxpayers’ money. With the twin votes concluded, the fifth annual budget under the 2021–2027 multiannual financial framework has been formally adopted. See: LNB News 26/11/2024 10 and LNB News 28/11/2024 10. European Parliament approves von der Leyen's second...
Popular documents
When evaluating a general damages claim, the practitioner ought initially to refer to the Judicial College Guidelines (JCG)...
This Practice Note This Practice Note reviews mechanisms used in settling litigation. A Tomlin order consists of a consent order paired with a schedule. It operates to stay proceedings on terms that have been agreed. The provisions contained in the schedule may remain confidential. This Practice Note describes the scope of confidentiality attaching to the schedule and sets out how it differs from a standard consent order. Sample wording for a Tomlin order is included, alongside links to precedents, as well as guidance on court approval. It also addresses varying, setting aside and enforcing a Tomlin order, including the considerations the court will take into account when handling applications for each. Further guidance is provided on interpreting and applying the relevant provisions of the CPR; however, some courts and divisions impose very specific requirements for both drafting and approval, and for approaching the schedule and confidentiality issues. Accordingly, you must consider the particular rules and court guide provisions in the forum where your claim is proceeding when drawing up the Tomlin order...
Date [ date ] Parties [ name of Landlord ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Landlord) [ name of Tenant ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Tenant) [ [ name of Guarantor ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Guarantor) ] [ [ name of Mortgagee ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Mortgagee) ] Definitions Within this Deed, the terms below shall be interpreted as follows: [ Annual Rent • the annual sum reserved under the Lease; ] [ Insurance Rent • the Tenant’s share of the Landlord’s costs of insuring the Property (as set out in the Lease); ] Lease • the lease of the Property dated [ date ], entered into between (1) [ the Landlord OR [ name ...
I, [ name ], of [ address ], solemnly and sincerely state that: [ Matters to be verified, set out in numbered paragraphs ] I make this solemn statement in good conscience, believing it to be true, and pursuant to the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835. DECLARED at [ details ] this [ day ] day of [ month and year ] Before me ................................................................................ [ signature of the person before whom the declaration is made ] A [ commissioner for oaths OR [ solicitor OR [ insert other qualification ] ] authorised to administer oaths ]...
Discover more from LexisNexis
