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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
In this issue: EU fundamentals Commercial Competition and state aid Corporate Data protection and cybersecurity Free movement, immigration and employment Financial services Environment Insurance and reinsurance IP Life sciences Regulatory TMT International trade Lex Talk®EU Law: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Trackers New and updated content EU fundamentals European Commission releases April 2024 infringements package The European Commission has unveiled its April 2024 infringements package, identifying the EU Member States facing action for breaches of obligations under EU law. This round includes letters of formal notice sent to France for incorrect transposition of Directive 2008/98/ EC on waste, as amended by Directive ( EU) 2018/851 (the EU Waste Framework Directive); to Austria for failing to properly transpose Directive 2011/92/ EU, as amended by...
According to an EU assessment, two decisions from the bloc’s highest court indicating that national data protection authorities enjoy minimal leeway over the imposition of fines are set to be mirrored in other matters. A note dated 2 April, viewed by MLex and prepared by the Council of the EU, reviews two fresh Court of Justice judgments on how regulators should calculate GDPR fines......
Social media companies face two possible restrictions on the way they can process data for personalised ads if judges follow a legal opinion issued for the EU’s top court on 25 April 2024 A non-binding opinion by Advocate General Athanasios Rantos for the Court of Justice, in the dispute between Meta Platforms and Austrian privacy advocate Max Schrems, signals two curbs on how platforms handle data for personalised advertising. He indicated that EU privacy rules bar firms from processing such data indefinitely, and that the mere fact information is public does not automatically justify its use for targeting ads. Data minimisation under the EU GDPR means companies cannot run targeted advertising with open-ended scope, either in duration or in the breadth of data involved, ruling out processing ‘without restriction as to time or type of data’. The case also examines whether...
The non-binding view delivered by Szpunar, an Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the EU, examined whether the General Data Protection Regulation ( EU GDPR) can be interpreted as permitting a competitor to seek an injunction before the civil courts, mirroring what had been possible under the predecessor regime, the 1995 Data Protection Directive. He indicated on 25 April 2024 that an injunction claim brought by a business against a rival, relying on that rival’s breach of the GDPR’s provisions, may sit alongside the remedies set out in the GDPR. Selling medicine online The dispute stems from questions put to the EU court by German judges in a case between two pharmacists, in which one attempted to sue a competitor for unfair competition on the footing of GDPR violations, namely the handling of health data through online sales of...
The earlier regime on geographical indications (granting holders the sole entitlement to state that a product comes from a defined region, such as Champagne) forced producers in three sectors to apply through distinct processes. However, the updated rules, released on 11 April 2024, introduce a 'unitary and exhaustive system'. Associations of producers and industry bodies may now decide that specified sustainability measures are compulsory for members who wish to keep labelling their goods with a premium designation. Tackling climate change, moving towards a circular economy, and championing rare seeds and indigenous plant varieties are all allowable aims, according to......
At first reading, the European Parliament formally approved the legislative proposal for a directive of the European Parliament...
In this issue: EU fundamentals Commercial Competition and state aid Corporate Data protection and cybersecurity Financial services Free movement, immigration and employment Energy Environment Insurance and reinsurance IP Life sciences Regulatory TMT Daily and weekly news alerts Trackers New and updated content EU fundamentals European Commission releases April 2024 infringements package The Commission has unveiled its April 2024 infringements package, identifying EU Member States subject to action by the Commission for breaching obligations under EU law. The April 2024 package comprises reasoned opinions, referrals to the Court of Justice of the EU, and formal notices, such as letters to France for failing to correctly transpose Directive 2008/98/ EC on waste as amended by Directive ( EU) 2018/851 (the EU Waste Framework Directive); to Austria for not properly transposing Directive 2011/92/ EU as amended by Directive 2014/52/ EU into domestic law (the EU Environmental Impact Assessment Directive); and to Lithuania for incorrectly incorporating Directive ( EU) 2015/2193 into national...
In this matter, the claimant created an image using the DALL- E software application. The instruction read: 'produce a depiction of two parties signing a commercial contract in a formal environment, such as a conference room or a law firm office in Prague. Show only hands'. The claimant subsequently uploaded the resulting image to their own website. The defendant took the image from the claimant’s site and published it on their own. The claimant objected and, asserting authorship of the AI-generated picture, thereafter required that it be removed and not any longer shared or distributed or otherwise made available without their permission as author......
The Commission engaged with firms on a set of eight principles designed to curb the prevalence of cookie banners shown to people on their first visit to sites, aiming to make cookie choices more straightforward for users. EU Justice Commissioner Didier Reynders unveiled the pledge in March 2023 and was due to confirm which companies would sign up at a consumer summit in Brussels. Although businesses broadly embraced the initiative, a Commission spokesperson said in an e-mailed statement that most stakeholders involved judged a voluntary path on digital advertising to be premature, given the very recent roll-out of new rules in this area, including the Digital Markets Act and the Digital Services Act......
The German e-commerce company was labelled a VLOP a year back, together with platforms such as Facebook, You Tube and Tik Tok. Roughly 20 services have to date been identified as VLOPs, placing them under the toughest obligations. It further means they fall under direct commission enforcement, and they are required to pay a levy that funds the commission’s policing of the rules. The bar for being named a VLOP is at least 45 million average monthly users. The commission stated last year that Zalando counts 83 million, a figure the company is challenging at the EU’s lower-tier General Court, arguing it wrongly captures visitors to its retail operation. Zalando has since submitted a new legal action at the General Court. The latest filing, entered on 15 April 2024, relates to the method by which the commission has computed Zalando’s...
The EU General Court has affirmed a decision by the European Intellectual Property Office ( EUIPO) refusing to register Escobar’s name as a trade mark for Escobar Inc, a holding firm owned by the late Colombian drug lord’s family. It sided with the EUIPO’s Fifth Board of Appeal that, although he was never criminally convicted in Colombian, American or European courts, the Spanish public regard him as ‘an offensive symbol of organised crime causing a great deal of suffering’. The decision added that ‘the fact that Pablo Escobar had never been criminally convicted... did not prejudice the fact that, in view of the image created by literature and films, he was nevertheless perceived... as the leader of a criminal organisation responsible for numerous crimes’. Escobar Inc — a company......
In this issue: EU fundamentals Competition and state aid Financial services Free movement, immigration and employment Energy Environment Life sciences Regulatory TMT International trade Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Trackers EU fundamentals European Commission publishes 2024 State of Schengen report The European Commission has issued its State of Schengen assessment, spotlighting achievements, challenges and developments across the area over the last 2023–24 cycle. As the world’s most visited destination in 2023, Schengen made a significant impact on the EU economy, with tourism accounting for nearly 10% of the EU’s GDP and supporting about 22.6m jobs. See: LNB News 17/04/2024 30. Competition and state aid Merger— European Commission approves Illumina's divestment of GRAIL The European Commission has cleared Illumina’s proposal to sell GRAIL under the EU Merger Regulation, following remedial measures that require...
In this issue: EU fundamentals Data protection and cybersecurity Financial services Environment IP Life sciences TMT International trade Daily and weekly news alerts Trackers EU fundamentals Law360 notes that discussion about taking the EU beyond its current twenty-seven members is turning the focus to how the bloc votes. There is rising unease that the unanimity rule for tax reforms could prove unworkable with a larger membership. See News Analysis: EU expansion question shines light on tax voting procedure. Data protection and cybersecurity MLex reports that the surge of artificial intelligence may drive politicians to push for a rework of the EU’s data protection framework and a challenge to key pillars of the General Data Protection Regulation. In an interview, EDPS Wojciech Wiewiórowski said a review could land in 2025, and EU officials should be prepared to defend scrutiny of the GDPR’s core principles. See News Analysis: Advent of AI could prompt questioning of GDPR...
Some specialists and smaller EU nations argue that economic gaps between larger and smaller members mean the current set-up, which usually requires unanimous consent among EU countries on tax matters, safeguards the smaller states. Other analysts, along with the EU’s executive branch, say the voting system should be reworked, particularly if the EU expands, to make decision-making nimbler. With more countries able to block deals on their own, it would become harder for the bloc to function and to take decisions on areas such as taxation and foreign policy where unanimity still applies, said Apostolos Thomadakis of the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels. That differs from qualified majority voting, used for most other questions. Under that approach, a proposal is adopted if at least 55% of EU member countries support it and they represent at least 65% of the EU...
Mergers The Commission issued the public version of its decision on Omers/ ABP/ Kenter ( M.11233)—see further, decision The Commission released the public version of its decision on EQT Future/ AM Fresh/ SNFL/ IFG ( M.10783)—see further, decision NOTE— For every ongoing merger investigation before the Commission, see further, EU mergers—ongoing cases tracker Foreign Subsidies Regulation The Commission published some further questions and answers addressing some of the most frequently asked questions ......
Wojciech Wiewiórowski, the European Data Protection Supervisor Speaking on the sidelines of a conference in Washington, DC, Wojciech Wiewiórowski warned that politicians may attempt to challenge core GDPR tenets, including data minimisation and purpose limitation. He suggested a review could come in 2025, and urged EU officials to be prepared to defend these principles. ‘ We are concerned that when the discussion on GDPR reform begins, it will begin with the principles,’ he said. Data minimisation: a controller should restrict the collection of personal data to what is necessary for a defined purpose. Purpose limitation: personal data ought to be collected for a specific purpose and not subsequently processed for uses that are incompatible with the original purpose......
The response places strong emphasis on artificial intelligence ( AI) safety while seeking to nurture innovation, mirroring the UK’s continuing preference for light-touch oversight of AI when set against other major economies, notably the EU. As in Britain, the EU seeks to advance AI tools and guarantee responsible deployment, yet it has opted for a markedly different regulatory path. The EU AI Act establishes a harmonised EU legal regime to ensure that AI systems introduced to, and operated within, the EU market are safe, subject to risk management, and aligned with EU fundamental rights and values. After the European Parliament formally adopted the EU AI Act on 13 March 2024, and with Council approval expected shortly, the instrument is poised to become the world’s first comprehensive AI statute. The UK’s scope to diverge from EU rules is among the outcomes...
In this issue: Energy Environment Life sciences TMT Lex Talk®EU Law: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Trackers New and updated content Energy Consultations open on Fuel EU Maritime verification and monitoring requirements The European Commission has opened three consultations on the Fuel EU Maritime Regulation, intended to advance the decarbonisation of the shipping sector. The first examines the technical specifications for verification activities that will apply to shipping companies’ emissions. The second presents a template for the plans that companies must submit, explaining how their ships will be verified and how their emissions will be monitored. The third details the methods and criteria for accrediting ‘verifiers’ who will oversee compliance with the monitoring plan and the verification of Fuel EU reports and documentation. The deadline for responses is 24 April 2024. See: LNB News...
What are the practical implications of the case? The case offers significant clarification of the impartiality obligations under Article 41 of the Charter and confirms that substantive links between an expert and the pharmaceutical industry, for example consultancy arrangements or acting as principal investigator in clinical trials, could compromise such impartiality when assessing an application for a marketing authorisation concerning a potentially rival medicinal product, even where no demonstrable bias on the part of the expert can be shown. The judgment provides reassurance for industry in a context where a narrow reading of conflicts of interest has long been regarded as unsatisfactory and proof of actual bias is frequently hard to secure. However, the Court of Justice’s decision appears likely to create difficulties for the EMA and comparable bodies, particularly in rare diseases where there are few well qualified experts and most of these...
On 12 July 2024, Regulation ( EU) 2024/1689, the EU AI Act, appeared in the Official Journal of the EU. It took legal effect on 1 August 2024 and will roll out in stages. Although the rules banning certain AI practices will start to apply from 2 February 2025, most duties, including those concerning high-risk AI systems named in Annex III, will apply from 2 August 2026. As the majority of organisations do not build AI systems themselves but instead deploy them for diverse uses, the consequences of the EU AI Act for ‘deployers’ of AI systems remain a central area of interest for organisations. Below, we outline the obligations the EU AI Act places on deployers of high-risk AI systems, notably the duty to carry out a Fundamental Rights Impact Assessment ( FRIA). The FRIA is intended to reduce potential harms posed by...
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
