LegalPost.eu

The EU Court of Justice ruled in Case C-295/23 (Halmer Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft) that a holding by purely financial investors in a law firm may be prohibited. Such a prohibition is justified in order to ensure the independence of lawyers.  A Member State may prohibit holdings by purely financial investors in the capital of a law firm. Such a restriction on the freedom of establishment and the free movement of capital is justified by the objective of ensuring that lawyers can exercise their profession independently and in compliance with their professional conduct obligations.  The German law firm Halmer Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft is challenging before the Higher Bavarian Lawyers’ Court (Germany) a decision of the Munich Bar Association of 9 November 2021 which revoked its registration with the bar association on account of the fact that an Austrian limited liability company acquired shares [1] in it for purely financial purposes. Under the German legislation applicable at the ...

The case of X and Others v. Slovenia (application nos. 27746/22 and 28291/22) concerned custody decisions and contact rights following the separation of X from her children’s father in 2018. It also concerned the reassignment of X’s court case to a particular judge.  In Chamber's judgment in the case, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, as regards X’s right to a tribunal established by law, and violations of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) with respect both to:  - the applicant children, as regards the order to remove them from X’s (their mother’s) care in March 2020, their not being represented in the contact and custody proceedings, and their not being allowed contact with their mother;  - X, for not being allowed contact with her children.  The Court found in particular that the President of the District Co...

During its latest plenary, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) published  guidelines on Art.48 GDPR  about data transfers to third country authorities and  approved a new European Data Protection Seal. Αs stated in a press release from the EDPB, in a highly interconnected world, organisations receive requests from public authorities in other countries to share personal data. The sharing of data can, for instance, be of help to collect evidence in the case of crime, to check financial transactions or approve new medications. When a European organisation receives a request for a transfer of data from a ‘third country’ (i.e. non-European countries) authority, it must comply with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). In its guidelines, the EDPB zooms in on Art. 48 GDPR and clarifies how organisations can best assess under which conditions they can lawfully respond to such requests. In this way, the guidelines help organisations to make a decision on whether...

In its committee judgment in the case of Nezirić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (application no. 4088/21) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence) of the European Convention on Human Rights.  The case concerned the seizure and examination of a lawyer’s mobile phone in the context of a criminal investigation against him. The Court was particularly concerned about the practical framework for the protection of legal professional privilege in cases such as this. Mr Nezirić’s phone was seized in his office and its entire contents copied, transferred and examined elsewhere, without either Mr Nezirić or a member of the Bar Association present. The data retrieved had subsequently been sifted through, but without any judicial supervision. Moreover, the entire copied contents of the phone had ultimately been submitted as evidence at trial, and not the sifted data. Principal facts  The applicant, S...

In its Judgment in Case T-82/24 (Administration of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine v EUIPO) (RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F**K YOURSELF) the General Court ruled that the figurative sign consisting of the phrase ‘RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F* *K yourself’ in Russian and English cannot be registered as an EU trade mark. That phrase, which has become a symbol of Ukraine’s fight against Russian aggression, is not perceived as an indication of a commercial origin.  The Administration of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine (Kyiv, Ukraine) requests the General Court of the European Union to annul the decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 st December 2023, which refused registration of the following figurative sign as an EU trade mark: ‘RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F* *K yourself’ That mark is a war cry uttered by the Ukrainian border guard on Snake Island on 24th February 2022, the first day of the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine. Registration was sou...

The European Commission decided to refer Germany to the Court of Justice of the European Union for failing to eliminate discriminatory tax treatment of reinvested capital gains on the sale of German real estate. The Commission decided to refer Germany (INFR(2012)4037) to the Court of Justice of the European Union for having failed to remedy the infringement of the free movement of capital ( Article 63 TFEU  and  Article 40 of the EEA Agreement ) due to a discriminatory tax treatment of reinvested capital gains upon sale of real estate located in Germany.  Germany grants a deferral of taxation for reinvested capital gains made on the sale of real estate located in Germany, provided that the real estate has been attributed to the fixed assets of a domestic permanent establishment (Betriebsstätte in Deutschland) for an uninterrupted period of at least 6 years. Corporations established in Germany, even without a business activity therein, are deemed to have such a ...