Author: admin

  • English Language Courts in Austria

    European Commercial Courts are positioning themselves as alternatives to other national courts as they remain closely tied to domestic court systems.

    Recognizing that English is the dominant language for cross-border contracts, several European jurisdictions now recognize English as an official language in court. By offering legal frameworks aligned with the linguistic and procedural needs of international businesses, these jurisdictions have enhanced their competitiveness and positioned themselves as key players in cross-border litigation.

    English-Language Commercial Courts in Europe

    France was one of the first countries to recognize the need for English-friendly commercial courts, launching the International Chamber of the Paris Commercial Court and the International Chamber of the Paris Court of Appeal (CICAP) in 2018. These courts handle complex international disputes, allowing document submissions and witness testimony in English and sworn translations for final judgments issued in French. Following France’s lead, the Netherlands established the Netherlands Commercial Court (NCC) in 2019. Unlike the French model, the NCC conducts entire proceedings in English, including filings, hearings, and judgments. However, participation requires both parties’ explicit written agreement, and court fees are significantly higher than those in standard Dutch courts, raising concerns about accessibility.

    Germany has lately followed the trend with the 2024 Justizstandort-Staerkungsgesetz, a law allowing the German Federal States to introduce English language court proceedings as of January 2025. Newly- established specialized courts will operate within higher regional and select regional courts, addressing concerns over procedural inefficiencies, inconsistent rulings, and rigid contractual interpretations, even offering confidential proceedings to safeguard business interests.

    Enforcement

    One of arbitration’s key advantages over litigation is the quasi-universal enforceability of awards under the New York Convention, making it a preferred option for international businesses. In contrast, European courts rely on the Recast Brussels Regulation for enforcement within the EU, the Lugano and Hague Conventions for additional jurisdictions, and reciprocity agreements in all other cross-border constellations. The Hague Judgments Convention, as it gains broader adoption, may help bridge the enforcement gap by facilitating the recognition of foreign court judgments worldwide – with language playing a facilitative role.

    English-Language Courts in Austria

    Austria’s judicial system currently requires all procedural documents to be in German. This not only increases costs but also introduces potential issues in legal interpretation, as judges rely on translations rather than assessing contract wording and party intent directly.

    Introducing English as an official language in court would enhance efficiency, eliminate interpretation biases, and strengthen the principle of immediacy in judicial proceedings. Beyond translation challenges, the current schedule of court fees impacts international commercial litigation. With first-instance court fees amounting to a baseline of 1.2% of any amount in dispute exceeding EUR 350,000, Austria is less competitive than jurisdictions with lower procedural costs. Additionally, the rather unorthodox statutory requirement under Austrian law to pay levies on settlements makes negotiated/mediated solutions more expensive and thus less attractive. Recognizing these challenges, the President of the Commercial Court of Vienna and other prominent advocates have proposed the introduction of English as an official language in court.  A draft law submitted to the Austrian Ministry of Justice outlines a phased implementation, starting with a pilot project before expanding to all three instances of Austria’s judicial system. The pilot project envisions establishing three English-language departments at the Commercial Court of Vienna, maintaining the same high standards of independence, efficiency, and judicial competence.

    The initiative signifies a pivotal step toward modernizing Austria’s judiciary by eliminating costly translation requirements. The Commercial Court of Vienna has both the legal and human resources to implement English-language departments, making it the ideal starting point. Conducting proceedings in English would further enhance Austria’s position as a neutral, efficient, and globally accessible dispute resolution forum, enhancing its appeal also for international litigation. Furthermore, Austria has a strategic opportunity to compete with other European jurisdictions that have already introduced English as an official language in court. Countries like France, the Netherlands, and Germany have recognized the benefits of accommodating English-speaking litigants, increasing their appeal as global litigation hubs. As these courts offer attractive frameworks for challenging and enforcing English-language arbitral awards, without a similar reform, Austria risks falling behind, losing potential cases to neighboring countries with more accommodating judicial systems.

    To position itself as a prime location for international commercial litigation with evident synergies benefitting its already prominent stance as an arbitration venue, Austria must implement key reforms. Very encouragingly, the draft working program of the incoming Austrian government specifically lists as a judicial policy goal “the strengthening of commercial litigation by international comparison, inter alia via the assessment of the use of the English language in court proceedings.”

    By Anne-Karin Grill, Founder and Principal, and Stefani Funke Rodriguez and Ljubica Mitic, Paralegals, AKG Advisory

    This article was originally published in Issue 12.2 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

  • CEE Legal Matters Issue 12.2

    The CEE Legal Matters team is already in Prague – the stage is nearly set, the final touches are coming together, and we’re gearing up to catch up with friends and colleagues both on and off the clock. But that’s not all – while we fine-tune the last details, here’s something to dive into: the CEE Legal Matters March 2025 issue is out now!

  • CEE Legal Matters Issue 12.2 (Subscribers Only)

    The CEE Legal Matters team is already in Prague – the stage is nearly set, the final touches are coming together, and we’re gearing up to catch up with friends and colleagues both on and off the clock. But that’s not all – while we fine-tune the last details, here’s something to dive into: the CEE Legal Matters March 2025 issue is out now!

    If you are a subscriber, you can log in to access Issue 11.12 here

    Once logged in, you can access the issue at this link or simply navigate to the magazine section again – logged-in users will see the new issue listed.

    If you do not already hold an account, you can register for one here.

    With Market Spotlights on Greece and Austria and an Experts Review section on PPP/Infrastructure, the March 12.2 issue includes:

  • Protecting Companies from Unintentional Engagement in Unfair Trade Practices

    Unfair trade practices refer to deceptive, unethical, or manipulative actions carried out by businesses, that violate consumer protection laws and harm the consumers. These practices contradict professional conduct and significantly distort the economic interests and decision-making of the average consumer, often targeting vulnerable groups.

    Companies often unknowingly engage in such practices, most commonly misleading advertising, deceptive marketing, and aggressive sales techniques. Such violations may occur due to various reasons. The most typical are employee recklessness, inadequate internal oversight, and poor marketing techniques. Nevertheless, even when made unintentionally, it can lead to financial penalties and damage to the reputation of the company.

    What measures can the company take in order to avoid these consequences? The “gold standard” for every company, while structuring its marketing strategy, should be hiring a professional law firm. Preferably a law firm specialized in commercial law. In this way, the company can be sure that its trade practices are in accordance with the positive legal provisions.

    On the other hand, the company itself can take precautions in order to avoid engaging in unfair trade practices.

    First, the company must ensure that employees are well-versed in unfair trade practices, in light of the Consumer protection law. The marketing, sales, and customer service teams should undergo department-specific training and education. The training must go beyond simply informing employees about the legal framework. It needs to be scenario-based, ensuring that the employees will have ethical decision-making skills in future operations. Additionally, the training should be based on real-world case studies to illustrate practical ways in which unfair practices are committed. Most importantly, the training and education must be repeated periodically. This will ensure that the employees are up to date with the newest regulations.

    The company also needs to ensure that internal oversight is adequate to the complexity and scale of its operations. This means implementing mechanisms that systematically monitor consumer interactions and marketing efforts, focusing on identifying potential violations and their compliance with the law. To achieve this, companies should organize specialized compliance departments, with clear responsibilities, supervisory powers, and the ability to audit operations. This will ensure comprehensive control of the overall company operations, but also the responsibility of each employee individually. But, beyond internal measures, the departments should engage with regulatory authorities and consumer advocacy groups. This will help the company to stay ahead of the new legal developments. Ensuring that the company operations are in line with the innovations as the laws come into force.

    The most important segment of company marketing, in the context of unfair trade practices, is the advertising standards. Meaning that it must be accurate, transparent, and free from misleading claims. The company needs to make sure that the products that are advertised are:

    • With quality as claimed and that the products have all the certifications, seals of quality, and endorsements as advertised;
    • In sufficient stock to be able to objectively deliver what is offered in the advertisements;
    • With transparent and clear pricing, avoiding misleading discounts.

    Furthermore, the company needs to respect consumer autonomy. This means it must avoid high-pressure sales tactics which involve forced persuasion of the customers. Also, while advertising, the company can’t prey on the customer’s feeling of security.

                Finally, the advertising needs to be done with clearly defined terms and avoid hidden conditions. This is particularly in relation to customer support and after-sales services. The company must not mislead customers into thinking that they have more rights than they actually do. If a product requires paid maintenance or additional cost, it must be disclosed upfront. Also, regarding the use of customer support, there must be no additional conditions for use or hidden aggravating circumstances.

                In conclusion, preventing companies from engaging in unfair trade practices is an ongoing process that requires a strong commitment. Good intentions alone are not enough. The company should go beyond merely following the letter of the law. It must strive to build a culture of responsibility and ethics. Meaning that businesses should view consumers not just as a revenue source, but as partners who deserve fairness and loyalty. Companies that invest time and resources in the aforementioned measures, will not only avoid financial penalties and reputational damage. They will strengthen the consumer trust, giving them a long-term competitive advantage over the companies who focus solely on maximizing short-term profits.

    By Bogdan Sarovic, Associate, JPM & Partners North Macedonia

  • Montenegro Enacts New Laws on Investment Funds to Align with EU Standards

    Montenegro has enacted two new laws that significantly reform its investment fund sector.

    The Law on Open-Ended Investment Funds with Public Offering and the Law on Alternative Investment Funds came into force on 19 March and 20 March 20 2025, respectively. These laws introduce a comprehensive regulatory framework for the establishment and operation of Open-Ended Investment Funds with Public Offering (UCITS funds), Alternative Investment Funds (AIFs), and their managing companies. 

    Key Highlights:

    • UCITS funds: These funds pool capital raised through public offerings, investing in transferable securities and other liquid financial assets while adhering to risk diversification principles.
    • AIFs: Unlike open-ended funds, AIFs generally collect investor capital for investments based on a defined strategy, sometimes with less focus on joint investments in transferable securities.
    • Regulatory Oversight: The establishment and operation of both types of investment funds, as well as their managing companies, require approval from the Montenegrin Securities Commission. 

    Strengthening Governance and Transparency – A Step Forward for Montenegro’s Financial Sector

    The new laws aim to align Montenegro’s investment fund regulations with EU standards, offering greater legal certainty and fostering investor confidence. These legislative updates also distinguish the governance of investment funds from the existing Law on Investment Funds.

    Generally, these new regulations should mark a significant milestone in modernising Montenegro’s investment fund sector. By aligning its regulatory framework with international standards, Montenegro enhances investor protection, improves market efficiency, and strengthens its position as an attractive investment destination. 

    The information in this document does not constitute legal advice on any particular matter and is provided for general informational purposes only.

    By Marko Culafic, Partner, Karanovic & Partners

  • Intellectual Property Rights of Architects

    Architecture is one of the fields that have a creative dimension, including a scientific side, as well as a cultural-artistic one, making the architect a real artist whose works are protected by intellectual property laws. Thus, Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) play a pivotal role, as they protect the unique creations and concepts of architects in a landscape that is often competitive and innovative.

    The architect – a real artist

    In Romania, the architect profession is regulated by a specific law (Law no. 184/2001 regarding the organization and exercise of the profession of architect), wherein it is stipulated that the activity in the field of architecture is an act of culture of public interest, with urban, economic, social and ecological implications. The architectural creation is intended to functionally and aesthetically organize the built space, having the obligation to insert it harmoniously into the surrounding environment, respecting natural landscapes and real estate heritage. In other words, the work of an architect involves extensive projects, coordinating studies and related documentation prepared by other specialists, research themes and programs, design and competitions, technical documentation, models, surveys and other such activities, which are mainly protected by copyrights by virtue of Law 8/1996 on copyrights and related rights.

    Most common types of IPR of architects

    1. Copyright

    One of the most significant forms of protection for architects is copyright. It covers original works of authorship, including drawings, plans, models, and architectural designs. Once an architect creates a work, they automatically hold the copyright, which allows them to control how the work is used, reproduced, and distributed. Copyright arises automatically, without registration being required, upon the creation of an original architectural work.

    Copyright law provides that the acquisition of ownership of the material support of the work does not in itself confer a right to use the work.

    We specify that the rights in rem associated with the object of the work can be transferred by the author to another party. These rights, which encompass economic copyrights, grant the architect exclusive authority to determine whether, how, and when the architectural work is going to be used. This includes the option to permit others to use the work, and such usage generates various patrimonial rights, including the right to reproduce the work. The author can transfer these patrimonial rights to another entity only in accordance with mandatory legal provisions, with assignment being the most prevalent method. Through assignment, the copyright holder can transfer part, or all of the patrimonial rights linked to their work. The assignment must specify the rights being transferred and their forms of use, the geographical area, the compensation, and the scope of the assignment.

    1. Trademarks

    For architects and firms, trademarks can protect branding elements such as logos, business names, and slogans. This protection helps differentiate the architectural practice from others, ensuring that the brand identity is not misused or exploited by competitors.

    Furthermore, in the context of architecture, under certain circumstances, a trademark can confer protection for a distinctive shape or silhouette of a building or a product.

    1. Designs/ Models

    Design registration protects the appearance of a whole product or a part of it, including its lines, contours, shape, texture or its ornamentation.

    1. Trade Secrets

    Architects might also possess trade secrets, which include any confidential business information that provides a competitive edge. This could encompass proprietary design processes, client lists, or unique methodologies. Protection of trade secrets relies on their confidentiality and the efforts made to keep them secret.

    Ownership and Survival of Rights

    Often, the ownership of IPRs in architectural projects can become complicated. An architect may retain the copyright to their designs, but this can change based on written agreements.

    Here’s how these dynamics typically play out:

    • Contractual Agreements: Many client-architect agreements stipulate terms regarding IPRs, especially concerning who owns the developed designs. It is common for contracts to include clauses that transfer some or all rights to the client upon project completion, especially if the client pays for the services according to the agreed terms (see point 1 above).
    • Attribution Rights: Even if copyrights are transferred, the moral rights remain with the architect, namely (i) the right to decide whether, in what manner and when the work is made public; (ii) the right to claim recognition of the authorship of the work; (iii) the right to decide under what name the work will be made public; (iv) the right to claim respect for the integrity of the work and to oppose any modification, as well as any attack on the work, if it harms his honor or reputation; (v) the right to withdraw the work, compensating, if necessary, the holders of the rights of use, harmed by the exercise of withdrawal. Moral rights cannot be assigned or alienated, and the author cannot renounce them.
    • Impact of Collaboration: In collaborative projects involving multiple architects or design teams, it is very important to clearly define the ownership and licensing of intellectual property upfront. This can prevent disputes later regarding the use of designs.

    Challenges and Considerations

    Architects must navigate various challenges when it comes to IPRs:

    • Infringement: The risk of intellectual property infringement is ever-present, especially in a globalized world where designs can be easily replicated and shared. Architects need to be vigilant in protecting their creations from unauthorized use.
    • Licensing and Usage Rights: Clear licensing agreements must be established to outline how clients and third parties can use architectural designs and works. Failure to do so can lead to legal complications.
    • Cultural Sensitivity: In projects that involve indigenous or culturally significant designs, architects should approach the situation with sensitivity and seek permissions where necessary, respecting the cultural context and protecting the rights of local communities.

    Conclusion

    Intellectual property rights are essential for architects, providing a framework for protecting their creative works and innovations. As the world of architecture continues to evolve, staying informed about IPRs will be crucial for the ongoing success and recognition of architects and their projects.

    By Dariana Istrate, Senior Associate, NNDKP

  • Taylor Wessing Announces Alliance with Orsingher Ortu – Avvocati Associati

    Taylor Wessing has announced an alliance with the Italian law firm Orsingher Ortu – Avvocati Associati.

    Orsingher Ortu – Avvocati Associati, founded in 2007, started as an IP, media, and technology boutique law firm and has since evolved into a full-service one. The firm has offices in Milan and Rome.

    According to Taylor Wessing, this partnership enables the firm to “fully meet the demands of clients for a seamless cross-border service in key areas including corporate/M&A, IP and regulation, and disputes.”

    “We are delighted to extend our European coverage to Italy via this exciting partnership with Orsingher Ortu, which is based on shared long-term commitments to providing outstanding service to our clients across Europe and beyond,” commented Taylor Wessing CEE Managing Partner and member of the Global Board Raimund Cancola. “The collaboration with Orsingher Ortu will allow us to expand our respective client relationships and expertise and leverage synergies in various areas of legal advice while maintaining strong bilateral relationships and striving together to differentiate ourselves from the competition in our core practice areas.”

    “We are honored that Taylor Wessing has chosen us as its partner for Italy,” added Orsingher Ortu Managing Partner Matteo Orsingher. “This confirms our positioning in strategic areas and in industrial fields of great importance and offers us new opportunities for growth.”

  • Schoenherr Advises UniCredit Bank on D&B Refurbishment of Headquarters in Hungary

    Schoenherr has advised UniCredit Bank Hungary on a design-and-build project to completely refurbish its country headquarters in Budapest and assigned to Fitout Zrt. as the developer.

    According to Schoenherr, the project involved upgrading an eight-story office building – partly erected in the 1930s and under partial monumental heritage protection – into a modern workspace with a usable floor area of over 14,000 square meters. 

    The Schoenherr team included Partner Laszlo Krupl.

  • Linklaters and Dentons Advise on Nhood and Ceetrus’ Partnership with Apsys

    Linklaters has advised Nhood and Ceetrus on their partnership with Apsys. Dentons advised Apsys.

    Nhood is a real estate asset management company.

    Ceetrus is a real estate developer.

    Apsys is a commercial property operator.

    According to Linklaters, the partnership is aimed at transforming the commercial market in Poland through innovative and sustainable development projects that deliver value to residents, tenants, local authorities, and non-governmental organizations. With an investment exceeding EUR 200 million, the venture’s flagship project Wilanow Park will combine a shopping center spanning over 50,000 square meters with a public park covering more than 2.2 hectares.

    The Linklaters team included National Managing Partner Janusz Dzianachowski, Managing Associates Tomasz Trystula, Michal Nocon, Wojciech Podlasin, Barbara Wanat, and Piotr Zbyszyński,  Senior Associates Marta Strykowska and Jan Jurga, and Associate Filip Witaszek.

    The Dentons team included Partner Piotr Szafarz and Managing Counsel Jaroslaw Stapel.

  • Alexandru Ciacoi Joins Stratulat Albulescu as Head of Urban Planning and Real Estate Litigation Practice

    Alexandru Ciacoi has joined Stratulat Albulescu as Counsel and will lead the firm’s Urban Planning and Real Estate Litigation Practice.

    Prior to joining Stratulat Albulescu, Ciacoi worked for Popovici, Nitu, Stoica & Asociatii, joining as an Associate in 2015, becoming a Senior Associate in 2017, and a Managing Associate in 2021. Earlier, he worked for Claudiu Brehar Law Office as an Associate between 2013 and 2015. Earlier still, he was an Associate with Podaru Buciuman & Asociatii between 2012 and 2013.

    “We are delighted to welcome Alexandru to the firm,” commented Managing Partner Silviu Stratulat. “With his exceptional expertise and forward-thinking approach, he will be instrumental in helping us to further expand our very successful dispute resolution practice and continue our growth strategy in this area.”