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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
Meta Platforms’ Whats App Ireland should be permitted to challenge a decision by a group of EU data protection authorities at the EU courts, because it was ‘directly concerned’ by that decision, a legal opinion for the Court of Justice of the European Union states. Advocate General Tamara Ćapeta of the EU Court of Justice, in a non-binding opinion (see here), advised the EU’s top court should find action for annulment admissible and refer the case back to the General Court. The case arises from a dispute over a decision of Ireland’s Data Protection Commission. In August 2021, the DPC fined Whats App €225m for failing to meet transparency duties under the General Data Protection Regulation. The opinion says ‘the appellant is directly concerned by’ the European Data Protection Board’s decision and ‘the contested decision is of individual concern to the...
Online Safety Code Video-sharing services including You Tube, Tik Tok and Facebook are a little beyond the midpoint of a grace window before Ireland’s new online safety framework begins to bite, and the watchdog has underlined that age assurance will be front and centre once enforcement begins. Coimisiún na Meán, the Irish media commission, unveiled its Online Safety Code in November, with broad ‘ Part A’ rules taking effect almost at once. However, platforms have until 21 July this year to ready themselves for ‘ Part B’ duties, which cover age checks for explicit and adult material, parental controls, and content ratings. The guidance ‘is concentrating very strongly on age assurance, particularly around the under‑18/over‑18 boundary, so that would tackle issues of pornography, and we welcome that’, Online Safety Commissioner Niamh Hodnett told MLex in an interview. The Online Safety Code sets out...
EU lawmakers want to wrap up talks on a draft EU law that would help national data protection authorities to coordinate cross-border privacy cases Yet civil liberties campaigners caution that a hurried timetable could weaken plans to simplify procedural standards. Poland, stewarding the file, says it can wrap up the dossier before its six‑month term as lead negotiator finishes on 30 June 2025. The next trilogue between the European Parliament, member state governments and the European Commission is set for 10 April, when a ‘political’ deal on the text might be struck. The Commission tabled the proposal in July 2023, choosing not to reopen the core of the EU’s flagship General Data Protection Regulation. It would bolster parties’ procedural guarantees, including a right to be heard, oblige regulators to work together more closely, and accelerate enforcement. After only four months of...
Mojzesowicz told the Annual Conference on European Data Protection Law 2025 that the Polish government, which is presently leading the talks, is ‘very committed’ to concluding them within its term chairing the body representing Member States, a mandate running until the end of June 2025. She noted that the Commission shares this goal, saying there is genuine momentum and a broad recognition of how essential this procedural regulation has become, with everyone acutely aware of its necessity. The timetable, she cautioned, is exceptionally tight, with numerous ‘technical trilogues’, pointing to several March 2025 sessions where outstanding technical points might be settled ahead of a final political......
Developers behind the most capable AI systems are encountering an updated EU code of practice that shifts from prescriptive rules to results‑focused expectations. The European Commission’s AI Office issued the third, and penultimate, draft on 11 March 2025, introducing revisions to give providers room in how they achieve the code’s safety aims, while removing key performance indicators. The code is scheduled to be finalised by 2 May 2025. Serving as a compliance tool for organisations such as Open AI and Anthropic that create general‑purpose AI models considered by the EU AI Act to carry ‘systemic risks’, the code obliges providers of general purpose AI ( GPAI) models with systemic risks to put in place a safety and security framework setting out risk assessment, mitigation measures, and governance arrangements. In the latest draft, model providers are asked to define the criteria by which they will judge...
The summary appeal follows. Proceedings lodged on 13 December 2024 — Ryanair v Commission ( Case T-649/24) ( C/2025/1231) Language of the case English Parties Applicant: Ryanair DAC ( Swords, Ireland) (acting through: F.- C. Laprévote, E. Vahida, D. Pérez de Lamo, S. Rating and C. Cozzani, lawyers) Defendant: European Commission Form of order sought The applicant requests that the Court should: set aside the European Commission’s decision ( EU) of 28 June 2024 C(2024) 4623 final regarding the State aid SA. 110687/ SA.110688 ((2024/ N) Sweden) Denmark, Restructuring of SAS Group (1); and direct the European Commission to pay the costs Pleas in law and main......
The current regime applicable to AI-related products—the EU product liability directive The governing product liability framework for AI-related products is Directive 85/374/ EEC, the EU Product Liability Directive ( EU PLD). In addition, claimants may pursue claims based on contractual liability or other forms of non-contractual liability that fall outside the scope of the EU PLD. Directive ( EU) 2024/2853, the revised EU Product Liability Directive ( Revised EU PLD), will apply to products first placed on the market or put into service after 9 December 2026. Products placed on the market before that date will remain subject to the existing EU PLD until its repeal takes effect on 9 December 2026. Under the EU PLD, consumers can obtain redress where they prove a defect in a product, personal damage or property damage (excluding the product itself), and a causal connection between the defect and the...
Germany and France call for a broader review of the AVMSD Germany and France are urging a more extensive, in‑depth reassessment of the EU’s Audiovisual Media Services Directive ( AVMSD) to secure a genuine level playing field across the market, irrespective of intermediaries or distribution channels. In remarks on the latest draft political statement designed to shape the European Commission’s forthcoming AVMSD revision, Germany argued for ‘an even more far‑reaching and fundamental mandate’ to address fairness in light of shifting market realities. Poland, which is steering talks in the Council of the EU, is assembling the statement with contributions from other member states, ahead of the review due next year. Adopted in 2010 and updated in 2018, the directive’s initial statement draft floated bringing video‑sharing platforms such as You Tube, Instagram and Tik Tok within scope of additional obligations, while the second and most recent text...
Social media platform X is challenging Ireland’s Online Safety Code X contends the rules overlap with, and go beyond, EU instruments like the DSA, undermining moves to standardise regulation across the bloc. MLex flagged the challenge in December (see here). The matter was referenced in the High Court in Dublin today, with the next hearing scheduled for 3 June 2025. Brought in by Ireland in October 2024, the code creates fresh duties for social networks, such as stopping harmful content, applying age checks, and bolstering parental controls (see here)......
MLex understands all online traders and services may fall within the remit of an EU prohibition on platforms, including social networks, that aim advertising at children, to be set out in a forthcoming EU rule dubbed the Digital Fairness Act. The proposal arises from a European Commission review of consumer provisions for digital firms (see here). Consumer organisations and several EU member states urged the Digital Services Act’s advertising-targeting prohibition should cover ‘all traders’......
US technology giants will continue to be obliged to comply with EU digital laws Speaking after threats by US President Donald Trump to hit back at jurisdictions that levy penalties or taxes on American tech firms, the EU's competition and trade regulator, the Commission, stressed it can police digital platforms in the EU regardless of where they are headquartered. It said the EU Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act apply in the same way to every significant online player operating within the single market, regardless of their incorporation location or who controls them, in order to guarantee safety, fairness and a level playing field across the EU, according to commission spokesperson Thomas......
Apple today has unveiled revisions to its child safety approach, adding fresh new controls for those under 18, while still continuing to contend that age assurance should be used in place of strict age verification by the app marketplaces. In a white paper, the firm firmly stated that rigorous age checks (such as being asked to present identification to use a service) are largely unnecessary for the majority of apps. ‘ Some services may deem it suitable, or even legally mandated, to implement age verification that confirms a user’s age with high confidence... Yet most apps do not’, the paper explains. ‘ Hence, the proper venue for tackling the risks of age-restricted material online is the smaller group of sites and applications that actually carry such content’, Apple added. The company further maintained that ‘demanding age verification at the app store level is not data...
A group of nine EU lawmakers in the European Parliament have written to the European Commission, backing its move to scrap a proposal to regulate licensing of standard-essential patents made by it According to the letter, the Commission should stand firm in its resolve and complete the withdrawal of the measure in full, while anticipating workable, pragmatic alternatives that benefit every stakeholder; it was addressed to EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Commissioner Stéphane Séjourné, who is responsible for the EU’s industrial strategy as such MLex reports the letter was led by Finnish MEP Aura Salla of the parliament’s right-wing European People’s Party therein......
What is the Deepseek AI model? Deep Seek AI is a cutting-edge artificial intelligence system built by Deep Seek, a company based in China. The organisation’s mission centres on stretching the limits of AI to deliver tools that empower enterprises and elevate human capability, while keeping advanced AI accessible, ethical and meaningful. Established in 2023, Deep Seek rose swiftly through the AI ranks by releasing free, open-source language models. Most recently it unveiled two high-end models: V3, aimed at broad use cases such as chat-style applications, and R1, tailored for reasoning-heavy work, including programming and maths challenges. R1 has drawn notable media interest by offering cost-conscious AI performance when set against leading US counterparts. Why is it having a big impact on technology markets around the world? Deep Seek AI is reshaping global tech markets largely through its cost efficiency. Reports suggest the company trained its system for...
A recent judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union ( CJEU) ( Case C-416/23 Österreichische Datenschutzbehörde v FR) clarifies the bar for when submissions to a data protection supervisory authority qualify as manifestly excessive, a ruling also relevant to controllers assessing the scope of their obligations regarding data subject right requests. Background In April 2020, Austria’s supervisory authority (the DSB) declined to proceed with a complaint from the data subject ( FR), deeming it excessive. Over a 20‑month period, FR had filed 77 similar complaints against different controllers and had frequently called the DSB to make additional requests. Under Article 57(1)(e) GDPR, supervisory authorities must provide data subjects, on request, with information about their rights under the GDPR. Article 57(1)(f) requires those authorities to handle complaints submitted to them. Article 57(4) GDPR creates an exemption: where requests are manifestly unfounded or...
Legal texts attached. Files included: OJ_ L_202500302_ EN_ TXT.pdf OJ_ L_202500301_ EN_ TXT.pdf Issuer: European Commission Document type: Legislation......
The EU AI Act adopts a layered regime for AI systems, imposing transparency duties on every model and reserving stricter risk‑management obligations for the most potent ‘systemic’ ones. These obligations are being hammered out through a code of practice intended as a key compliance tool for model providers. Yet that code could prove marginal if models are not correctly classified for systemic risk Under the Act, a model is chiefly deemed systemic when its training consumed more than 10^25 floating‑point operations. According to research institute Epoch AI, several flagship systems have already crossed this line, including: Open AI’s o1 Anthropic’s Claude 3.5 Sonnet Mistral AI’s Large 2 These are commonly viewed as ‘frontier’ models, pushing the limits of this disruptive technology. Nonetheless, recent developments increasingly call into question whether the volume of compute used in the pre‑training stage is the most...
Article 45 of the DSA Article 45 of the DSA provides that, when significant systemic risks arise under Article 34(1) (which sets out the duty on very large online platforms ( VLOPs) and very large online search engines ( VLOSEs) to identify, analyse, and assess systemic risks), and affect multiple VLOPs or VLOSEs, the Commission may ask those VLOPs and VLOSEs to help draft codes of conduct, with commitments to adopt risk mitigation measures and to report on those measures and their results. The Code of Conduct+ was adopted in this context. VLOPs’ and VLOSEs’ adherence to the Code of Conduct+ can count as a mitigation measure under Article 35 of the DSA; however, participation in and implementation of the Code of Conduct+ does not, by itself, amount to compliance with the DSA ( Recital 104)......
Key elements of the AI system definition Given the wide variety of AI systems, the guidance cannot offer a complete list. Each system must be evaluated on its own particular characteristics. The EU AI Act adopts a lifecycle-oriented approach and characterises an AI system as: a machine-based system designed to operate with differing degrees of autonomy that may show adaptability after deployment and, for explicit or implicit aims infers from the inputs it receives how to generate outputs such as predictions, content, recommendations, or decisions that can affect physical or virtual environments This seven-part definition spans two main stages: pre-deployment (building phase) and post-deployment (use phase). The seven elements need not be present throughout both stages; some may appear only at one point. The following offers a brief summary of each of the seven points listed...
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
