Author: admin

  • GESSEL Advises Avallon on Acquisition of 100% Stake in MPS International

    GESSEL Advises Avallon on Acquisition of 100% Stake in MPS International

    GESSEL has advised the AVALLON MBO FUND II on the acquisition of a 100% stake in MPS International, a Polish manufacturer of cosmetics and household private label customers and packaging, from the Swedish MPS Holding.

    GESSEL’s assistance included the due diligence, preparation and negotiation of a contract to purchase shares in the MPS from the Swedish business owner, work on the investment agreement between the fund and a group of Avallon managers, obtaining financing, and negotiating trade agreements on the further distribution of MPS products after the completion of the transaction. 

    The GESSEL team was led by Managing Associate Maciej Kozuchowski, with the support of Managing Associate Monica Woloszki and lawyers Turko Carolina and Carolina Krzal, among others.

    {simplepopup name=”000” cookie=”30″} If you would like to receive regular updates on CEE cases, deals, lateral moves and promotions, and legal awards or if you want to sign up to receive a hard copy of our upcoming magazine please subscribe here. {/simplepopup}

  • LEXTAL Sponsors ELSA Estonia for 2014/2015

    LEXTAL Sponsors ELSA Estonia for 2014/2015

    LEXTAL signed a cooperation agreement with the European Law Students Association (ELSA) in Estonia to become the group’s main sponsor for the 2014/2015 academic year.

    ELSA connects 38,000 students from 42 European countries, including from about 300 universities. ELSA’s mission is to contribute to legal education, to foster mutual understanding and to promote social responsibility of law students and young lawyers. The association is now 31 years old.

    According to LEXTAL, “in cooperation with ELSA there will be taking place various interesting and useful events for law students both in Tartu and Tallinn.”

    {simplepopup name=”000” cookie=”30″} If you would like to receive regular updates on CEE cases, deals, lateral moves and promotions, and legal awards or if you want to sign up to receive a hard copy of our upcoming magazine please subscribe here{/simplepopup}

  • Interview: CG at TATRA TRUCKS

    Interview: CG at TATRA TRUCKS

    CEE Legal Matters sat down with the General Counsel of TATRA TRUCKS, one of the oldest vehicle manufacturers in the world, which has always been situated in Koprivnice, a town in the eastern part of the Czech Republic, the Moravia-Silesia region.

    Libor Vojtek, General Counsel, TATRA TRUCKS

       

    Libor Vojtek, General Counsel, TATRA TRUCKS

     CEELM: To start, please tell our readers a bit about your career leading up to your current role with TATRA TRUCKS.

    L.V.: I graduated from the Law Faculty of the Jan Evangelista Purkyne University (today Masaryk University) of Brno, Czech Republic. Probably, as most young lawyers I could see my future career in the justice system; I found the idea of big and of course successful court battles very attractive. Therefore, after I finished my studies, I joined a law office as an attorney´s clerk. At that time it was not easy at all to get this position as advocacy work was subject to strict state regulation. Maybe I was lucky. However, after a short time my circumstances changed and I found myself at another place. I joined an industrial company and started primarily dealing with industrial ownership law. After another few years, at the age of 30, I was lucky again, and I was catapulted to the position of a CEO´s legal advisor. I learned a lot thanks to this jump. Later, I was trying to change to sales for some time; however, it did not last long and I returned to “genuine” law. New times brought new room for law as well as new challenges in law. So, I decided, finally, that law was the right way for me. In 1996 I became the head of the legal office of the TATRA motor company, which meant taking over managing 15 colleagues and coordinating the company´s activities with external law offices. As time passed by, the number of in-house lawyers was decreasing. The number of cooperating small law offices was going down as well, as we were changing to larger and more renowned law firms, which offered a wider portfolio of quality legal services under one roof.  

     CEELM: You have spent over 18 years with the company – probably one of the longest spans of all the GCs we interviewed. What is it about the company that has kept you there for such a long time?

    L.V.: Actually, I have spent my entire life working for the same company. Although I have worked for more employers, their common denominator was always the production and distribution of TATRA trucks. I suppose that motor fans in Central and Eastern Europe know this brand. TATRA trucks have been around for more than 100 years; and the tradition of continuous production of vehicles dates back to the middle of the 19th century. I think it is worth being part of something like this. Definitely, it has not been monotonous or boring work because everything around is developing and changing and the constant movement and vortex of events makes you develop yourself, it makes you move forward, you don´t have a chance to stop. Yes, I am a patriot and I am proud of that. 

     CEELM: What does a regular day in the office look like? What takes up most of your time?

    L.V.: Throughout my working life, I have relied on my colleagues, their expertise, and their ability to act and decide independently. Therefore, I have had time for my own legal work. It may seem that the everyday life of an industrial company cannot generate very interesting legal issues, but the opposite is true. Everyday life is very eventful. Every day you deal with issues from all legal areas – from issues of corporate nature, labor law, property and information protection, property administration to sales issues. I suppose I spend most of my time writing various contractual sales documents. The TATRA TRUCKS company employs experienced and qualified people, so when they need some legal help, it is usually an issue which does not have an easy and quick answer. You need to think and support your opinion with proper legal argumentation, sometimes by very extensive searches. We are lucky we have an electronic system of legal information and the Internet, which facilitate our work to a great extent. I cannot imagine working without these tools. Although our subsidiaries deal with their legal issues independently, it is necessary to coordinate these activities within the group and prepare data for one consistent legal view, if possible. 

     CEELM: What type of legal work do you prefer assigning to you in-house team as opposed to externalizing to law firms?

    L.V.: Legal issues of a sales nature are dealt with internally. Goods, sales contacts, and the  company´s everyday life have their own specific features and to introduce someone external into this complex state is too complicated and very time-consuming, considering the fact that business does not like waiting. In my opinion it is good to have external attorneys dealing with issues relating to contentious issues: first, due to the experience of professionals well- versed in relevant procedures, second, for a certain distance of external attorneys from the case; I think they may come up with different points of view on contentious issues. 

     CEELM: When do you need to outsource work, what are the main criteria you use in selecting the external counsel you will work with?

    L.V.: We have been cooperating with external law offices for the entire existence of our company. In the past we cooperated with a large number of small law offices, or independent attorneys, maybe because of lower costs and also due to an informal and usually quick response; gradually, however, we have changed to bigger law firms which offer full legal service and can rely on perfect and broad background. Usually, we can also cooperate with such a law firm abroad, which, considering the many business activities of ours, is a great advantage. An advantage of these law firms is their stability, high standards, and their portfolio of services – and last but not least their perfect knowledge of languages. The risks, of course, may involve less introspection and self-analysis and, of course, higher costs. These firms sometimes do not offer the same level of services in the area of non-contentious and contentious issues. I admit that as regards disputes, we tend to choose specialized, i.e. smaller partner law firms. They seem more suitable in terms of direction and also they act more swiftly. We use different ways to find our partners; we use tenders for long-term cooperation as well as for particular issues; sometimes, a good recommendation plays a role in our decisions. The offer is wide. I know many good lawyers and law offices in the Czech Republic… 

     CEELM: Commercial territories for the company range considerably, including Russia, the former CIS countries, Israel, India, the countries of the Arab peninsula, Australia, the U.S.A., and Europe. What specific challenges does that give rise to for you as the person responsible for legal matters?

    L.V.: If you have sales activities in so many different territories, as our company does, you cannot get along without a reliable partner for individual countries or legal areas. No one can globally manage all legal issues. If you combine your basic specialization, a reliable local partner, a choice of legal institutes and tools with the adequate amount of humility and caution, you will see results. However, despite careful preparation, which everything is based on, yet you have to face uncertainty in a lot of cases. Life is unpredictable…

     CEELM: According to your company´s profile, the Czech Army is your largest domestic client. Does that impact you works in any way?

    L.V.: The Czech Army is not the only business partner of ours but, in principle, due to cooperation with local partners, the armed forces of other countries are our customers as well. I wouldn’t say that this fact substantially influences law services. An army is a customer too, and all customers expect that they will be taken care of perfectly, they will get a perfect product or be provided a perfect service, and they will pay as little as possible. Armies just require more detailed descriptions, nothing can be skipped or left out, all their “boxes” have to be “ticked”… but this rather is a joke. 

     CEELM: A year ago, the buzz-word in the Czech market used to be the New Civil Code. To what extent did it affect your business and have things calmed down in the interim?

    L.V.: The recodification of civil law is still a very topical issue and influences everyday legal issues in the Czech Republic very much. I think it will still take a long time until not only lawyers but also the entire nation gets used to changes and new things; it is not only about the new Civil Code, it is also about dozens or hundreds of new and amended legal regulations – lives of all lawyers are influenced by them. First, it was necessary to read these new standards, study regulations and new professional books, and take in opinions that were changing almost every day. Subsequently, it was necessary to review and modify fundamental corporate documents and adjust all contractual standards. It was necessary to gradually inform company employees as well as to adjust internal processes and relationships. It has been six months now and we are far from finished in dealing with all these things. 

    I do not wish to evaluate the recodification of the Czech civil law. First, I do not feel I am the right person to do that, second, you need to do it after some time – as you do with each historical event. And, without any doubt, the recodification of the Czech law is a historical event; it is a huge piece of work of extraordinary importance. Maybe, at the final stage, things were finished too quickly, as if political ambitions overtook legal argumentation, but, who knows, if this had not happened, would there be any recodification soon? The entire issue just needs time – from a historical point of view, six months means basically nothing. Let me remind you that the former Civil Code, including many amendments and changes, was effective for more than fifty years. 

     CEELM: On the lighter side, if you had to pick any other industry to work in as a General Counsel, what would it be? What about the flip-side, which one would you definitely avoid?

    L.V.: Although I am not a technician, I love, said in the archaic language and language of literature, the smell of petrol. Therefore, I cannot really imagine myself working in a different industry.  There are good and bad things about everything, you cannot separate them. You need to take things as they come. 

  • Interview: Libor Vojtek, General Counsel at TATRA TRUCKS

    Interview: Libor Vojtek, General Counsel at TATRA TRUCKS

    CEE Legal Matters sat down with the General Counsel of TATRA TRUCKS, one of the oldest vehicle manufacturers in the world, which has always been situated in Koprivnice, a town in the eastern part of the Czech Republic, the Moravia-Silesia region.

    Libor Vojtek, General Counsel, TATRA TRUCKS

       

    Libor Vojtek, General Counsel, TATRA TRUCKS

     CEELM: To start, please tell our readers a bit about your career leading up to your current role with TATRA TRUCKS.

    L.V.: I graduated from the Law Faculty of the Jan Evangelista Purkyne University (today Masaryk University) of Brno, Czech Republic. Probably, as most young lawyers I could see my future career in the justice system; I found the idea of big and of course successful court battles very attractive. Therefore, after I finished my studies, I joined a law office as an attorney´s clerk. At that time it was not easy at all to get this position as advocacy work was subject to strict state regulation. Maybe I was lucky. However, after a short time my circumstances changed and I found myself at another place. I joined an industrial company and started primarily dealing with industrial ownership law. After another few years, at the age of 30, I was lucky again, and I was catapulted to the position of a CEO´s legal advisor. I learned a lot thanks to this jump. Later, I was trying to change to sales for some time; however, it did not last long and I returned to “genuine” law. New times brought new room for law as well as new challenges in law. So, I decided, finally, that law was the right way for me. In 1996 I became the head of the legal office of the TATRA motor company, which meant taking over managing 15 colleagues and coordinating the company´s activities with external law offices. As time passed by, the number of in-house lawyers was decreasing. The number of cooperating small law offices was going down as well, as we were changing to larger and more renowned law firms, which offered a wider portfolio of quality legal services under one roof.  

     CEELM: You have spent over 18 years with the company – probably one of the longest spans of all the GCs we interviewed. What is it about the company that has kept you there for such a long time?

    L.V.: Actually, I have spent my entire life working for the same company. Although I have worked for more employers, their common denominator was always the production and distribution of TATRA trucks. I suppose that motor fans in Central and Eastern Europe know this brand. TATRA trucks have been around for more than 100 years; and the tradition of continuous production of vehicles dates back to the middle of the 19th century. I think it is worth being part of something like this. Definitely, it has not been monotonous or boring work because everything around is developing and changing and the constant movement and vortex of events makes you develop yourself, it makes you move forward, you don´t have a chance to stop. Yes, I am a patriot and I am proud of that. 

     CEELM: What does a regular day in the office look like? What takes up most of your time?

    L.V.: Throughout my working life, I have relied on my colleagues, their expertise, and their ability to act and decide independently. Therefore, I have had time for my own legal work. It may seem that the everyday life of an industrial company cannot generate very interesting legal issues, but the opposite is true. Everyday life is very eventful. Every day you deal with issues from all legal areas – from issues of corporate nature, labor law, property and information protection, property administration to sales issues. I suppose I spend most of my time writing various contractual sales documents. The TATRA TRUCKS company employs experienced and qualified people, so when they need some legal help, it is usually an issue which does not have an easy and quick answer. You need to think and support your opinion with proper legal argumentation, sometimes by very extensive searches. We are lucky we have an electronic system of legal information and the Internet, which facilitate our work to a great extent. I cannot imagine working without these tools. Although our subsidiaries deal with their legal issues independently, it is necessary to coordinate these activities within the group and prepare data for one consistent legal view, if possible. 

     CEELM: What type of legal work do you prefer assigning to you in-house team as opposed to externalizing to law firms?

    L.V.: Legal issues of a sales nature are dealt with internally. Goods, sales contacts, and the  company´s everyday life have their own specific features and to introduce someone external into this complex state is too complicated and very time-consuming, considering the fact that business does not like waiting. In my opinion it is good to have external attorneys dealing with issues relating to contentious issues: first, due to the experience of professionals well- versed in relevant procedures, second, for a certain distance of external attorneys from the case; I think they may come up with different points of view on contentious issues. 

     CEELM: When do you need to outsource work, what are the main criteria you use in selecting the external counsel you will work with?

    L.V.: We have been cooperating with external law offices for the entire existence of our company. In the past we cooperated with a large number of small law offices, or independent attorneys, maybe because of lower costs and also due to an informal and usually quick response; gradually, however, we have changed to bigger law firms which offer full legal service and can rely on perfect and broad background. Usually, we can also cooperate with such a law firm abroad, which, considering the many business activities of ours, is a great advantage. An advantage of these law firms is their stability, high standards, and their portfolio of services – and last but not least their perfect knowledge of languages. The risks, of course, may involve less introspection and self-analysis and, of course, higher costs. These firms sometimes do not offer the same level of services in the area of non-contentious and contentious issues. I admit that as regards disputes, we tend to choose specialized, i.e. smaller partner law firms. They seem more suitable in terms of direction and also they act more swiftly. We use different ways to find our partners; we use tenders for long-term cooperation as well as for particular issues; sometimes, a good recommendation plays a role in our decisions. The offer is wide. I know many good lawyers and law offices in the Czech Republic… 

     CEELM: Commercial territories for the company range considerably, including Russia, the former CIS countries, Israel, India, the countries of the Arab peninsula, Australia, the U.S.A., and Europe. What specific challenges does that give rise to for you as the person responsible for legal matters?

    L.V.: If you have sales activities in so many different territories, as our company does, you cannot get along without a reliable partner for individual countries or legal areas. No one can globally manage all legal issues. If you combine your basic specialization, a reliable local partner, a choice of legal institutes and tools with the adequate amount of humility and caution, you will see results. However, despite careful preparation, which everything is based on, yet you have to face uncertainty in a lot of cases. Life is unpredictable…

     CEELM: According to your company´s profile, the Czech Army is your largest domestic client. Does that impact you works in any way?

    L.V.: The Czech Army is not the only business partner of ours but, in principle, due to cooperation with local partners, the armed forces of other countries are our customers as well. I wouldn’t say that this fact substantially influences law services. An army is a customer too, and all customers expect that they will be taken care of perfectly, they will get a perfect product or be provided a perfect service, and they will pay as little as possible. Armies just require more detailed descriptions, nothing can be skipped or left out, all their “boxes” have to be “ticked”… but this rather is a joke. 

     CEELM: A year ago, the buzz-word in the Czech market used to be the New Civil Code. To what extent did it affect your business and have things calmed down in the interim?

    L.V.: The recodification of civil law is still a very topical issue and influences everyday legal issues in the Czech Republic very much. I think it will still take a long time until not only lawyers but also the entire nation gets used to changes and new things; it is not only about the new Civil Code, it is also about dozens or hundreds of new and amended legal regulations – lives of all lawyers are influenced by them. First, it was necessary to read these new standards, study regulations and new professional books, and take in opinions that were changing almost every day. Subsequently, it was necessary to review and modify fundamental corporate documents and adjust all contractual standards. It was necessary to gradually inform company employees as well as to adjust internal processes and relationships. It has been six months now and we are far from finished in dealing with all these things. 

    I do not wish to evaluate the recodification of the Czech civil law. First, I do not feel I am the right person to do that, second, you need to do it after some time – as you do with each historical event. And, without any doubt, the recodification of the Czech law is a historical event; it is a huge piece of work of extraordinary importance. Maybe, at the final stage, things were finished too quickly, as if political ambitions overtook legal argumentation, but, who knows, if this had not happened, would there be any recodification soon? The entire issue just needs time – from a historical point of view, six months means basically nothing. Let me remind you that the former Civil Code, including many amendments and changes, was effective for more than fifty years. 

     CEELM: On the lighter side, if you had to pick any other industry to work in as a General Counsel, what would it be? What about the flip-side, which one would you definitely avoid?

    L.V.: Although I am not a technician, I love, said in the archaic language and language of literature, the smell of petrol. Therefore, I cannot really imagine myself working in a different industry.  There are good and bad things about everything, you cannot separate them. You need to take things as they come. 

  • Dechert Represents Allergopharma in Its Licensing Agreement With S-TARget

    Dechert Represents Allergopharma in Its Licensing Agreement With S-TARget

    Dechert has represented Allergopharma, in its recently announced exclusive licensing agreement with S-TARget therapeutics (S-Target), an Austrian biotechnology company which develops therapeutic preparations for all forms of allergies.

    The focus of this cooperative agreement is the use of S-Target’s “S-TIR” technology and the associated development of a new generation of products for the casual treatment of allergies. Terms of the agreement and financial details are confidential.

    Allergopharma was founded in 1969 and since 2013 has been an integrated part of Merck. The unit is primarily based on hypoallergenic, high-dose preparations which can be used pre-seasonally or throughout the year.

    Rudiger Herrmann and Monika Richter provided counsel to Allergopharma on this matter.

    Editorial Note: Herbst Kinsky has confirmed that it advised S-TARget therapeutics on its exclusive licensing agreement with Allergopharma. The firm’s team was led by Partner Philipp Kinsky and Attorney Sonja Hebenstreit.

    {simplepopup name=”000” cookie=”30″} If you would like to receive regular updates on CEE cases, deals, lateral moves and promotions, and legal awards or if you want to sign up to receive a hard copy of our upcoming magazine please subscribe here. {/simplepopup}

  • Does European Union citizenship impact upon national sovereignty?

    Does European Union citizenship impact upon national sovereignty?

    In each issue of their magazine, the editorial team of our friends at Lawyr.it selects the article they felt was the best submission to their peer-reviewed legal journal. Below is the article they selected from their last issue.

       

    Francesca Esposito

    Citizenship was introduced by the European Union Treaty (Consolidated Version of the Treaty on Functioning of the European Union [2012] OJ C326/47). Article 20(1) intends to give the ordinary citizen a deeper and more tangible sense of belonging, in compliance with the fundamental aim of integration at the heart of the European Union (EU). Citizenship encompasses the notion of uniting people by going beyond nationality in order to achieve peace, prosperity and solidarity (Schuman Declaration, 1950). However, there is an assertion in literature that citizenship is part of the emergence of a supranational state, thereby encroaching upon national sovereignty (Shaw 1997, p.4). Conversely, intergovernmentalists view Member States as playing a more prominent role within the Union, viewing them as the gatekeepers who ultimately possess power (Kostakopoulou 2007, p.626). Before examining these two conflicting views, this essay must first establish what the concept includes, and then examine its relationship with the Member States as exhibited in case law and portrayed throughout literature.

    Historically, the market citizenship approach has prevailed. Consequently, Article 45 was interpreted narrowly, yet this reductionist view regarded individuals as merely economic actors, which effectively stripped them of identity and personality. Therefore, a rights-based approach has emerged as a critique – ‘the Migrant Worker is not to be viewed as a mere source of labour, but as a human being’ (Case 7/75 F v Belgian State [1975] ECR 679). However, free movement is in clear conflict with the interests of Member States, which are keen to assert that the entry of individuals into their Community falls within their sovereign prerogative and often enact regulations to control levels of migration. 

    The introduction of citizenship was a significant step towards creating transnational solidarity by eliminating barriers to free movement. The four special rights conferred by the Union citizenship clearly attempt to fulfil this aim. However, the rights conferred are rather limited, partially diluting the revolutionary impact of such an introduction, compounded by the uncontroversial and nebulous nature of the provisions. It has been claimed that this is ‘a purely decorative and symbolic institution’ (Kostakopoulou 2007, p.623), arguably amounting to a mere codification of existing rights. Thus surely this empty concept poses little threat to national sovereignty as it is seemingly a label devoid of substance. Indeed, an intergovernmentalist perspective may advance the view that citizenship is ‘an example of pure symbolic gesture politics which does not actually strike at the heart of national sovereignty’ (Shaw 1997, p.3). 

    However, an analysis of the case law reveals that it is absurd to suggest that citizenship is merely decorative. One cannot escape the fact that ‘citizenship encompasses strengthened rights, with regard to free movement and residence and prohibition on discrimination on grounds of nationality…’ (Craig & De Búrca 2011, p.819).  Despite the fact that competence as to nationality is ‘jealously guarded by Member States’, (O’Keeffe 1996, p.358) this has not prevented intervention by the ECJ (European Court of Justice). There have certainly been a number of cases in which the ECJ has challenged ‘core aspects of Member States’ migration policies’ (Craig & De Búrca 2011, p.832), as exhibited in Sala (C-85/96 Maria Martínez Sala v Freistaat Bayern [1998] ECR I-2691). In this matter, the ECJ was willing to ‘explode the linkages’ (O’Leary, p.77) which had previously been required to apply the principle of non-discrimination Given the fact that they were EU citizens, they were entitled to equal access to social benefits available to nationals solely on basis of nationality (Craig & De Búrca, p.836). The ECJ has displayed a willingness to override the views of the Member States – in Grzelcyk (Case C-184/99 Rudy Grzelcykv CPAS [2001] ECR I-6193). The influence of EU citizenship on the outcome of the case was once again crucial (Craig & De Búrca, p.837), and, most fundamentally, legal rights have been expanded even in the face of vocal Member State opposition (Craig & De Búrca, p.837). 

    Citizenship conveys notions of identity and Community belonging as it exhibits the notion of a political bond based on residence and transcending nationality completely. It is clear that many provisions are enacted with the aim to ‘facilitate their mobility within the Community’ (Case C-315/94 Peter de Vos v Stadt Bielefeld [1996] ECR I-1417), subsequently regarding individuals as fully integrated into the fabric of society. Indeed, they are no longer regarded as aliens or guests, but are entitled to receive full equality of treatment (Case C-321/87 Commission v Belgium [1989] ECR 997). Thus, despite the lack of the conferral of duties, EU citizenship still negatively impacts upon national sovereignty. 

    Nonetheless, there is a danger of overstating the impact that citizenship has had upon national sovereignty. Certainly, joining the EU implied a loss of sovereignty (Kostakopoulou, p.628), perhaps constituting ‘a novel and dangerous invasion by a Community institution of the sovereignty of the UK Parliament’ (Case C-213/89 Factortame I [1990] ECR I-2433). But this was arguably ‘based on a misconception’ (Factortame) any limitation was ‘entirely voluntary’ (R v Secretary of State for Transport Ex p. Factortame Ltd (No.2) [1991] 1 AC 603) when the UK entered the EU when it passed the European Communities Act 1972. Supremacy ‘should by no means be confused with any kind of all-purpose subordination of member-state-law to Community law’ (MacCormick, p.117). Consequently, the general form of consent granted by the Member States when they joined the EU also entails consent to any provisions enacted thereafter, suggesting that the introduction of citizenship does not further impact upon national sovereignty. Perhaps there is even merit in the view that ‘nationality and citizenship complement one another. Without a common national identity, there is nothing to hold citizens together…’ (Miller, p.85). There is no reason why the two of them cannot co-exist, and provide a ‘shared platform’ in which individuals can assert their parallel identities (O’Keeffe, p.374). Perhaps EU citizenship is over-arching, but not necessarily intrusive upon Member States; it should be regarded as an invitation to join other networks (Preuss, p.280). This appears to recognise that citizenship should not seek to undermine, or to compromise attachment to an individual’s national state. 

    However, much of the threat to national sovereignty arguably lies not in what citizenship confers at the present moment, but in what it has the potential to. Perhaps the importance of citizenship lies in the fact that the first step has been taken (O’Keeffe, p.374). There are certainly two opposing paths that could be ventured – citizenship may either ‘remain what it actually appears to be, namely a terminological pooling of the few rights which the individual enjoys…’ (Preuss, p.268) or it ‘could ultimately even pave the way for the transition to a European Federal State’ (Preuss, p.268). While it may currently be difficult to discern which path will be taken, there is no doubt that citizenship has matured as an institution (Kostakopoulou, p.624), and is certainly ‘dynamic’ in nature (O’Keeffe, p.350).

    To conclude, upon its introduction, many feared that citizenship would lead to a dilution of national sovereignty. Yet upon further examination, many have argued that the introduction of citizenship was purely symbolic, due to the absence of duties and the limited conferral of rights, therefore having very little impact on national sovereignty. However, the abundance of case law illustrates the importance of citizenship in its strengthening of rights, particularly with regards to free movement. It truly demonstrates a shift from citizens being regarded as economic actors to individuals with rights, ambitions and aspirations. In conferring such rights, the courts have often overridden the interests of Member States even in the face of strong vocal opposition (Craig & De Búrca, p.837). While ‘European citizenship was nothing more than a pale shadow’ (Kostakopoulou, p.625), arguably it is now emerging from the shadows, and posing a threat to national sovereignty. Moreover, its future may be uncertain, but it is clear that the evolution of citizenship, and thus the impact on the sovereignty of Member States cannot be underestimated. Many have confidently asserted the view that there is no doubt that this ‘embryonic concept’ (Lodge, p.380) will continue to grow. 

    By Francesca Esposito

    Bibliography

    • European Communities Act 1972
    • Case C-321/87 Commission v Belgium [1989] ECR 997
    • Case C-213/89 Factortame I [1990] ECR I-2433
    • Case 7/75 F v Belgian State [1975] ECR 679 
    • C-85/96 Maria Martínez Sala v Freistaat Bayern [1998] ECR I-2691
    • Case C-315/94 Peter de Vos v Stadt Bielefeld [1996] ECR I-1417 
    • Case C-184/99 Rudy Grzelcykv CPAS [2001] ECR I-6193
    • Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union [2012] OJ C326/14
    • Consolidated Version of the Treaty on Functioning of the European Union [2012] OJ 326/47TFEU
    • Craig P & De Burca G., EU Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011)
    • Duff A., `The Main Reforms’, in A Duff, J Pinder and R Pryce (eds.), Maastricht and Beyond. Building the European Union (London: Routledge: 1994) 29
    • Kostakopoulou T., ‘Nested “Old” and “New” Citizenships in the EU: Bringing Forth the Complexity’ [1999] 5 CJEL 389
    • Kostakopoulou T., ‘Ideas, Norms and European Citizenship: Explaining Institutional Change’ [2005] 68 MLR 233
    • Kostakopoulou T., ‘European Union Citizenship: Writing the Future’ [2007] 13 ELJ 623
    • Lodge J, `Towards a Political Union’, The European Community and the Challenge of the Future (London: Pinter 1993) 
    • MacCormick N., Questioning Sovereignty: Law, State and Practical Reason (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999)
    • Miller D., ‘Community and Citizenship’ in S Avineri and A de-Shalit (eds) Communitarianism and Individualism (Oxford University Press, 1992) 
    • O’Keeffe D., ‘Reflections on European Union Citizenship’ [1996] 49 CLP 347
    • O’Leary S., ‘Putting Flesh on the Bones of European Union Citizenship’ [1999] 24 ELR 68, 77
    • Preuss U., ‘Problems of a Concept of European Citizenship’ [1995] 1 ELJ 267 
    • R v Secretary of State for Transport Ex p. Factortame Ltd (No.2) [1991] 1 AC 603Schuman R, The Schuman Declaration (9 May 1950) 
    • Shaw J., ‘Citizenship of the Union: Towards Post-National Membership?’ (http://centers.law.nyu.edu, April 10, 1997) <http://centers.law.nyu.edu/jeanmonnet/archive/papers/97/97-06–III.html> [accessed April 1, 2013]
    • Treaty on European Union, Declaration on Nationality of a Member State, annexed to the Final Act of the Treaty on European Union, OJ 1992 C 19

    This article was first published by our friends at Lawyr.it. You can find the original article here

    {simplepopup name=”000” cookie=”30″} If you would like to receive regular updates on CEE cases, deals, lateral moves and promotions, and legal awards or if you want to sign up to receive a hard copy of our upcoming magazine please subscribe here. {/simplepopup}

  • Partners Meet in Vienna to Discuss Law Firm BD and Marketing in Austria

    On September 2, Partners from 8 leading law firms in Austria met in Freshfields’ Vienna Office for a CEE Legal Matters Round-Table on law firm Business Development and Marketing approaches.  

       

    The Round-Table participants represented a good mix of international firms, Austrian firms with a strong CEE regional presence, and firms operating exclusively in the Austrian market.

    They included:

    • Friedrich Jergitsch (Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer)
    • Willibald Plesser (Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer)
    • Christoph Moser (Weber & Co.)
    • Jasna Zwitter-Tehovnik (DLA Piper)
    • Christian Dorda (Dorda) 
    • Horst Ebhardt (Wolf Theiss)
    • Peter Huber (CMS Reich-Rohrwig Hainz)
    • Markus Piuk (Schoenherr)

    The conversation touched on topics including: best practices in shaping the marketing function in Austria and adapting it to the specific culture of the country; various approaches to law firm advertising and assessing the ROI of the different channels used; and strategies of developing the rain-makers of tomorrow, or how to build a culture of BD and offer the skills sets necessary to foster client relations amongst associates. 

    Willibald Plesser, Freshfield’s co-head of the CEE/CIS region, a country partner for Turkey and head of the energy sector group in Vienna, considered the event a success: “It was interesting to note that Austrian business culture still is predominantly built on personal relationships so marketing is perhaps less important than in other markets.” Despite the fact that they are considerably less valuable than direct contact and relationship building, the general consensus was that both advertising and making sure a firm is ranked in international directories were “a must” for law firms. Plesser stated: “Rankings in the leading directories are important – everyone focuses heavily on getting a good ranking in the usual directories because they can’t afford not to be there.”

    A full summary of the discussion will be included in the October issue of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine

  • Schoenherr and Dorda Brugger Jordis Advise bauMax Lender Syndicate on Sale of Essl Art Collection

    Schoenherr has advised the lender syndicate of bauMax on the sale of the “Sammlung Essl” art collection to a company controlled by the Haselsteiner Group. 

       

    Essl Museum (Martin Dworschak / Shutterstock.com)

    The collection, which was founded by bauMax’s family owners, was sold by for a purchase price exceeding EUR 100 Million.

    “A particular challenge in this transaction was the extreme time pressure created by the purchasers,” said Misiam Sima, a member of the Schoenherr team advising the lender syndicate. “The entire deal was negotiated and carried out in under two weeks.” 

    The Schoenherr team consisted of Partners Wolfgang Holler and Martin Ebner, as well as Simsa and Attorney Stefan Paulmayer. 

    The private foundations of the Haselsteiner and Essl families were represented by Dorda.

    {simplepopup name=”000” cookie=”30″} If you would like to receive regular updates on CEE cases, deals, lateral moves and promotions, and legal awards or if you want to sign up to receive a hard copy of our upcoming magazine please subscribe here. {/simplepopup}

  • DLA Piper, Reed Smith, and Sarantis Advise Weidenhammer Packaging Group on Share Sale

    DLA Piper, Reed Smith, and Sarantis Advise Weidenhammer Packaging Group on Share Sale

    The Moscow office of DLA Piper contributed to the firm’s multi-jurisdictional advice to the shareholders of Weidenhammer Packaging Group on sale of all of their shares in the company to the US-listed Sonoco Products Company.

    In Greece DLA Piper was supported by the Sarantitis law firm. The purchase price amounts to EUR 286 million in cash, subject to net debt and working capital adjustments. The transaction is still pending regulatory approval by the relevant cartel offices.

    Weidenhammer Packaging Group is Europe’s leading provider of composite cans, composite drums and rigid plastic containers for customers in the foods, tobacco, personal care, pharmaceuticals, and home and garden products markets. The company has approximately 1,100 employees at twelve production facilities in Germany, Belgium, France, United Kingdom, The Netherlands, Greece, the United States, Chile and Russia. Its customers comprise international brands such as Nestle, Unilever, Kellogg Company, Mondelez, Rugenwalder Muhle, Imperial Tobacco and BAT.

    Sonoco is a global provider of consumer-related packaging, industrial products, and protective packaging with annualized net sales of approximately USD 4.9 billion and 19,000 employees. Sonoco serves some of the world’s best known brands in some 85 nations.Sonoco intends to create a global leadership within the rigid paper packaging through this transaction and to significantly increase its global annual sales, particularly within the European market.

    “We appreciate the efficient and focused approach of DLA Piper’s team of law experts,” said Ralf Weidenhammer, shareholder and managing director of Weidenhammer Packaging Group. “The DLA Piper team has significantly contributed to the overall coordination of the transaction, has clear-sightedly negotiated with the buyer side and has promoted the conclusion of this complex cross-border transaction within a tight time-frame as regards the size of this transaction. DLA Piper has not only accompanied the process, but has assumed an important and adequate lead in areas which are key for a family business. Besides the profound legal expertise this has formed a prominent aspect of our cooperation.”

    The DLA Piper team in Germany was led by Partner Isaschar Nicolaysen, and included Partners Benjamin Parameswaran, Kai Bodenstedt, and Michael Holzhauser, Counsels Dr Jens-Peter Eickhoff, Thilo Streit, Guido Kleve, and Annemarie Bloss, and Associates Christopher Albien, Matthias Graumann, Semin O, and Dr Astrid Schnabel.

    The DLA Piper team also incorporated Atlanta-based Partner Joseph Silver and Associates Jeremy Corcoran and Jeff Friedman, Paris-based Partners Xavier Norlain and Philippe Danesi and Associates Guillaume Boitel, Emilie Vuillin, and Stephanie Schindler, Brussels-based Partners Dirk Caestecker and Erwin Simons and Associates Alexia Vervisch and Kristof Slootmans, Moscow-based Partner Steffen Kaufmann and Associates Lyubov Paskar and Zhanna Elik, and Amsterdam-based Partners Hendrik Bennebroek Gravenhorst and Jasper Berkenbosch and Associates Mirre Vermeer and Mervyn Odink. 

    The Sarantitis team was led by Partner Dorotheos Samoladas, assisted by Associate Dolly Kostara. 

    Sonoco was advised by Reed Smith, led by Partners Lex Eley in Washington and Constantin Conrads in Munich.

    {simplepopup name=”000” cookie=”30″} If you would like to receive regular updates on CEE cases, deals, lateral moves and promotions, and legal awards or if you want to sign up to receive a hard copy of our upcoming magazine please subscribe here{/simplepopup}

  • Greenberg Traurig Advises on Agreement Concerning First Nuclear Power Plant in Poland

    Greenberg Traurig Advises on Agreement Concerning First Nuclear Power Plant in Poland

    Greenberg Traurig has advised in the preparations of the final agreement between PGE and KGHM, TAURON, and ENEA, concerning their acquisition from PGE of 30% of the shares in the special purpose company known as PGE EJ 1, responsible for building and operating Poland’s first nuclear power plant.

    KGHM, TAURO and ENEA will acquire 10% of PGE EJ 1 shares each. The purchase of the shares is contingent on the approval of the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection for the concentration. The first Polish nuclear power plant is supposed to have a capacity of approximately 3000 MWe.

    According to the Shareholders Agreement signed September 3rd, all parties are obliged, proportionally to their interest, to fund the Initial Phase of building the nuclear power plant. The Initial Phase’s objective is to determine such elements as strategic partner, technology suppliers, contractors, nuclear fuel suppliers, and financing of the project.

    The Greenberg Traurig team was led by Warsaw Managing Partner Jaroslaw Grzesiak and Partners Michal Bien and Tomasz Kacymirow, as well as Senior Associates Anna Cienkus and Antoni Bolecki, and Associate Michal Slizewski.

    {simplepopup name=”000” cookie=”30″} If you would like to receive regular updates on CEE cases, deals, lateral moves and promotions, and legal awards or if you want to sign up to receive a hard copy of our upcoming magazine please subscribe here{/simplepopup}