Author: admin

  • Rymarz Zdort Maruta and SK&S Advise on PGE Polska Grupa Energetyczna’s Baltica 2 Offshore Wind Farm Finalization

    Rymarz Zdort Maruta has advised PGE Polska Grupa Energetyczna on the implementation of the Baltica 2 investment project involving the construction of an offshore wind farm in a joint venture with Orsted Group. Hengeler Mueller and SK&S advised Orsted.

    The planned capacity of Baltica 2 is approximately 1.5 gigawatts.

    Denmark-based Orsted operates in the offshore wind market.

    According to Rymarz Zdort Maruta, the Baltica 2 Baltica 2 offshore wind farm is scheduled for commissioning in 2027 with the total budget “estimated at around PLN 30 billion. The purpose of forming the JV was to implement an offshore program to build an offshore wind farm with a total capacity of about 2.5 gigawatts by 2030, to be implemented in two stages. Phase I – Baltica Wind Power Plant-3 with a capacity of about 1 gigawatt and Phase II – Baltica Wind Power Plant-2 with a capacity of about 1.5 gigawatt.”

    In 2024, PGE and Orsted executed a lease agreement for the Gdansk T5 terminal (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on October 11, 2024). The Baltica 2 cable line connection development also began in 2024 (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on January 25, 2024).

    The Rymarz Zdort Maruta team included Partners Marek Durski, Marek Maciag, Jakub Krzemien, Iwona Her, and Marcin Serafin, Counsel Lukasz Lech, Senior Associates Adrian Augustyniak, Andrzej Granat, Klaudia Kasztelewicz, and Tomasz Bakowski, and Associates Barbara Gawin, Weronika Iskierska, Maksymilian Kaszubowski, and Sebastian Stepinski.

    The Hengeler Mueller team included lawyers in Frankfurt, Berlin, and Duesseldorf.

    The SK&S team included Partners Krzysztof Cichocki and Tomasz Mlodawski and Senior Counsel Witold Kurek.

  • Kalo & Associates Advises EBRD on Agreement with Raiffeisen Bank Kosovo

    Kalo & Associates has advised the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development on a partnership with Raiffeisen Bank Kosovo under the Norway Western Balkans Growth Support Program.

    According to Kalo & Associates, “this regional initiative aims to enhance access to finance for small and medium-sized enterprises through an unfunded portfolio guarantee of up to EUR 25 million. With this transaction, RBKO becomes the first EBRD partner financial intermediary in a loss risk cover arrangement under the program. Through this partnership, EBRD will cover up to 50% of the credit risk on RBKO’s EUR 25 million loan portfolio.”

    The Kalo & Associates team included Special Counsel Jona Bica Kacinari and Senior Associate Leonora Beka-Mehmeti.

  • 7 Common (and Completely Avoidable) Mistakes Law Firms Make on Their Websites

    Let’s be honest – most law firm websites aren’t exactly thrilling. In theory, they should exude expertise, professionalism, and credibility. In reality? Many are riddled with outdated designs and buzzword-filled copy that says a lot without actually saying anything. 

    Legal professionals pay close attention to how they present themselves to prospective and current clients: sharp outfits, polished shoes, neat haircuts, and tasteful accessories. I would argue that in this day and age, when so much of the first impression is created by the online presence, the digital space of a law firm deserves the same level of attention to detail.

    As a marketing advisor at Five-o-eight, I browse through websites of law firms on a regular basis. Here are some of the most common mistakes I encounter.

    1. Absent or expired SSL certificates: This digital certificate verifies the security of a website by authenticating its identity and establishing an encrypted connection. An expired or absent SSL certificate screams, “We don’t take data privacy seriously!” That’s not exactly the message law firms want to send to potential clients. Modern browsers even slap a big fat security warning on unsecured sites.
    2. The lack of meta tags: Meta tags might sound like tech jargon, but they do some heavy lifting for a site’s visibility. Two examples that don’t require any specialized knowledge of search engine optimization (SEO) include: (1) link previews impact click-through rates (e.g., the way the preview information like the featured image, page title, and meta description appear when a link to a page is posted on LinkedIn); (2) meta tags impact how a page appears in search engine results pages.
    3. Heavy images and videos: Page speed is an important factor for user experience. Unfortunately, many law firms fail to optimize their images and videos, which then results in slow page load times. Displaying past clients’ logos, awards, and professional headshots of employees is important. However, do they really need to be the size of a billboard?
    4. Infrequent page updates: In around 50% of the cases (yes, the number is that high!), law firms do not update such basic info as the copyright year. Sometimes, it is off by a year or two. In most instances, it’s from 10 years ago, which is probably when the website was built or redesigned. Similarly, I notice too many websites where law firms display their dynamic content like firm news where the latest post is from three years ago. A website should feel alive – not like an abandoned time capsule.
    5. Little to no marketing strategy in the user journey: A lonely contact form tucked away on the “Contact Us” page is not a marketing strategy. It’s important to engage and nurture users. Adding a newsletter subscription that’s displayed prominently on the blog/insights/thought leadership section would be Step 1. Step 2? Customizing the calls-to-action based on the subject/industry/practice area – e.g., “Receive legal updates in the M&A market directly in your inbox.”
    6. An outdated, unresponsive design: Here, I’m referring to websites that look like they were created in the early 2000s: newsletter-style boxed layouts with a grey background, clunky navigation, uninspired templates with barely any customization, lack of alignment or balance between graphics and text, autoplaying creatives like videos and carousels, etc. Plus, many fail to optimize their website for various screens such as mobiles and tablets. In 2025, it’s the bare minimum that users expect.
    7. The lack of clear value propositions and social proof: The legal industry, more so than most others, I would argue, is an expertise-specialization-based business. Clients want experts with years, if not decades, of experience. The stakes are too high. Unfortunately, most law firms use this as their literal messaging with vague, cookie-cutter statements like “We are a leading law firm in [insert industry] with 70+ years of combined experience”. There is no differentiation, no clear social proof in the form of testimonials, case studies, or thought leadership pieces.

    A law firm’s website isn’t just a digital business card – it’s often the first test of credibility. If it’s outdated, slow, or stuffed with generic messaging, potential clients will bounce faster than you can say “leading, client-focused, and results-driven.” 

    The good news? These mistakes are all fixable.

    By Steve George, Marketing Advisor, Five-o-eight

  • AI-Generated Content: Copyright Implications

    As artificial intelligence (“AI”) technology develops, its capacity to create original works in a wide variety of fields such as literature, music, mass – media, complex art, and even software has become more apparent. This remarkable ability raises significant questions on whether these works may be protected by copyright, and the broader implications for both creators and consumers.

    1. Authorship and Ownership

    One of the most debated issues in the realm of AI-generated content is the question of authorship. Traditional copyright law, built around the idea that a work must have a human author, faces challenges when applied to creations generated by machines. In many jurisdictions, copyright is granted only to works produced by human beings, raising the question: Who owns the rights to works created by AI?

    Some argue that ownership is retained by the programmers or companies behind the AI since  they invest substantial resources – time, money, and expertise, into developing these systems. Others believe that works generated entirely by an AI should belong to the public domain, since without human creativity, there should be no copyright protection.

    This debate gets even more complex in cases where humans and AI collaborate to produce works. For example, if an artist uses AI to generate a base for a painting and then adds his/her own touch, who should hold the copyright—the artist, the AI, or both? Determining the balance of contributions between human and machine complicates the question of ownership further.

    1. Original creations

    Under Romanian Law No. 8/1996 on copyright and related rights (“Copyright Law”), copyright protection is granted to works that are original intellectual creations. This requirement for originality remains the biggest challenge in the field of works created with AI and the core of the ongoing debate surrounding AI-generated content: can AI-generated works be deemed original?

    AI systems typically learn from vast datasets composed of existing works, leading to the question of whether anything they produce can truly be considered original. Critics argue that AI merely remixes existing data and thus lacks the creative spark that defines human artistry. On the other hand, some argue that AI can generate new combinations and unique outputs that would have not arisen from human creativity alone, challenging traditional definitions of authorship and originality.

    Further on, under the Copyright Law, the author must be the natural person/persons who created the work. When AI is used as a tool within the creative process—such as assisting a human artist in generating new content—the resulting work may still receive copyright protection, provided the human contribution meets the originality requirement.

    Meanwhile, the recent DABUS case reinforced the principle that only natural persons can be named as inventors under patent law.

    1. Current legislative landscape[1]

    The intersection of copyright and generative AI may give rise to the following issues:

    • Potential copyright infringement by developers of generative AI tools, resulting from the use of copyrighted materials to train their algorithms through a process known as “data mining”.
    • Uncertainty regarding the copyright protection of works generated by, or in collaboration with, generative AI tools, as well as questions about ownership of such copyrights.

    The European Union has addressed the first point. The Directive 2019/790/EU on copyright in the Digital Single Market (“DSM Directive”) introduced a legal definition of data mining and established certain exceptions or limitations that apply specifically to the training of AI systems.

    Under EU law, data mining is deemed lawful in these circumstances:

    • As an exception under Articles 5(a) and 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC, Article 2 of Directive 2001/29/EC, and Article 15(1) of the DSM Directive, for reproductions and extractions conducted by research organizations and cultural heritage institutions for scientific research, provided they have lawful access to the works they intend to mine (stated in Article 3 of the DSM Directive).
    • As another exception under the same articles, for reproductions and extractions of lawfully accessible works by any institution, as long as the mined text was accessed legally, and the copyright owner has not explicitly prohibited such use (Article 4 of the DSM Directive).

    The above-mentioned exceptions must also adhere to Article 5(5) of Directive 2001/29/EC, which specifies that these limitations or exceptions are applicable only in “certain special cases that do not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work or other subject matter and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rights holder.”

    The “Artificial Intelligence Regulation” adopted by the EU Parliament and set to be fully effective by 2026, provides a comprehensive framework for developing and using AI tools. While this legislation does not specifically address copyright issues, its recitals (105 to 109) highlight the significance of the data mining exceptions established by Directive 2019/790 and mention that providers of AI generative models must furnish detailed summaries of the content used for training.

    It therefore results that the current EU legislative framework still does not resolve the question of ownership concerning works created using generative AI tools.

    Conclusion

    As technology advances, our legal frameworks must evolve to ensure that they adequately reflect the complexities of AI-generated works. Engaging in these discussions is essential for shaping a future in which both AI and human creativity can coexist, thrive, and contribute meaningfully.

    [1] https://intellectual-property-helpdesk.ec.europa.eu/news-events/news/artificial-intelligence-and-copyright-use-generative-ai-tools-develop-new-content-2024-07-16-0_en

    By Dariana Istrate, Senior Associate, NNDKP

  • New Mandatory Contractor’s Professional Liability Insurance Rules from 2025

    The legislator recently introduced a number of implementing regulations for the Architecture Act and more are expected in the near future. In this article, DLA Piper Hungary’s lawyers outline the key details of the new, generally mandatory contractor’s professional liability insurance, taking into account that contractors must have such insurance from 15 January 2025.

    Background

    Act C of 2023 on Hungarian Architecture (“Architecture Act”) stipulates that a government decree shall provide the professional liability insurance required to carry out building contractor’s activities. This government decree, namely Government Decree No. 286/2024 (IX. 30.) on the amendment of certain government decrees related to construction in connection with the entry into force of Act C of 2023 on Hungarian Architecture (“Government Decree“), entered into force on 1 October, amending the Construction Code, i.e., Government Decree No. 191/2009 (IX. 15.) on building contractor activities.

    Under the new mandatory provisions, building contractors are required to have professional liability insurance starting from 15 January 2025.

    Previous legislation

    The Architecture Act replaced, among others, Act LXXVIII of 1997 on the Formation and Protection of the Built Environment (“Former Architecture Act). The previous rules of the Former Architecture Act did not require liability insurance for contractors, and the provisions of the Construction Code only required it in a limited scope: the rules on the contents of the construction contract, the handover of the construction site, the opening of the construction log, and the commencement of construction activities referred to the contractor’s obligation to have the mandatory professional liability insurance specified in the government decree on the simple notification of the construction of residential buildings. Professional liability insurance was only mandatory for the main contractor for the construction of new residential buildings with a net floor space not exceeding 300 square meters or the expansion of existing residential buildings to a net floor space not exceeding 300 square meters.

    New general rules for the mandatory professional liability insurance

    As mentioned above, the Government Decree amends the Construction Code (primarily the new provisions of Sections 21/B to 21/G and Art. (5) of Section 46 of the Construction Code are relevant).

    As per the new legislation, building contractors are required to take out professional liability insurance to cover damages resulting from their construction activities. The Construction Code does not define the term of “building contractor”, but frequently uses it. Therefore, in our opinion, the definition provided in the Architecture Act is applicable (since this Act is the superior law compared to the Construction Code). According to this definition, the main contractor, the client contractor and the subcontractor are all considered to be building contractors.

    The Government Decree specifies the cases to which mandatory professional liability insurance must extend. These include personal injury and property damages, as well as grievance awards in connection with non-material harms related to personal injury. The contractor is liable for damages and is obliged to pay grievance awards as provided by law.

    In addition, the liability insurance shall cover damages resulting from the activities of persons employed by the insured building contractor, persons having other employment-related relationships with the insured contractor and subcontractors engaged to carry out the building contractor activities and services for which the insured contractor is liable.

    The Government Decree also sets out a tiered system for the amount of coverage that liability insurance must provide per insured event and per year.

    Administration and audit

    The administration and sanctioning activities related to professional liability insurance are mainly carried out by the Hungarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (“HCCI“). Notification of the conclusion of a professional liability insurance contract and of the termination of the liability insurance relationship must be made to the HCCI. The existence of the insurances is also verified by the HCCI: if the building contractor does not have professional liability insurance, it first prohibits the building contractor from continuing its professional activity, then, if the grace period has expired without result, it deletes the contractor from the register. Additionally, the construction authority can also sanction the building contractor by prohibiting building contractor activities if it finds that the contractor is not listed in the HCCI’s register as having the required insurance.

    In line with the previous rules regarding simple notification, the liability insurance’s policy number or the building contractor’s declaration must be included in construction contracts.

    Who exactly needs to obtain insurance and when?

    The Government Decree provides that the building contractor must have liability insurance from 15 January 2025.

    Specifically, according to the Government Decree, the provisions on professional liability insurance must be applied to construction plans handed over, construction contracts concluded, and building contractor activities carried out after its entry into force (i.e. 1 October). Therefore, contracts and activities that were concluded or started before 1 October do not require mandatory professional liability insurance. However, if the building contractor concludes a new contract or starts new construction activities from now on, they are obliged to conclude a professional liability insurance contract.

    By Viktor Romsics, Senior Associate, and Kalman Kelemen, Junior Associate, DLA Piper

  • Clifford Chance Advises Ares on European Hotel Portfolio Recapitalization

    Clifford Chance has advised Ares Management Real Estate Secondaries funds on its joint venture with Cedar Capital Partners and on the European Hotel Portfolio recapitalization by the joint venture.

    According to Clifford Chance, the portfolio consists of “five leading lifestyle hotels in European gateway cities and will be owned by Cedar Investment Partners III SCSp, a Cedar-managed fund.”

    The Clifford Chance team included Prague-based Partner Emil Holub, Counsel Milan Rakosnik, Senior Associate Tereza Rehorova, and Associate Ondrej Dolensky as well as further team members in London, Luxembourg, Amsterdam, and Milan.

    Clifford Chance could not provide additional information on the matter.

  • Ellex Appoints Counsel Merlin Liis-Toomela as Head of Data Protection & IT Law

    Ellex has appointed Counsel Merlin Liis-Toomela as its new Head of Data Protection & IT law in Estonia.

    According to Ellex, Liis-Toomela focuses on data protection, intellectual property, and IT law. She has been with the firm since 2017 when she joined as an Attorney at Law. Earlier, she was with Eversheds Sutherland as a Lawyer between 2014 and 2016.

    “The field of data protection and IT law is becoming more complex every day,” said Liis-Toomela. “As the head of the practice, my priority is to offer clients practical and effective solutions. I believe that our team’s experience and knowledge will enable clients to navigate the complex legal landscape with confidence.”

  • Martina Gavalec and Natalia Janoskova Promoted to Partner at CMS

    CMS has promoted Martina Gavalec and Natalia Janoskova to Partner at the firm’s Slovakia office.

    Gavalec focuses on corporate and M&A. She has been with CMS since 2020 when she joined as a Senior Associate. Earlier, she was a Senior Lawyer with EY Law between 2019 and 2020. Earlier still, she was a Junior Lawyer with Hillbridges between 2014 and 2019.

    Janoskova specializes in banking and finance and real estate. She has been with the firm since 2020 when she joined as an Attorney at Law. Earlier, she was an Associate with Eversheds Sutherland between 2015 and 2019 and its legacy firm Dvorak, Hager & Partners between 2014 and 2015.

    “The promotions of Martina Gavalec and Natalia Janoskova to Partners reflect their exceptional legal skills and dedication to client success,” commented Managing Partner Oliver Werner. “Martina’s understanding of both the Slovak and international legal landscape, coupled with her expertise in M&A, life sciences, and AI, will continue to be an asset to our team and clients. Natalia’s track record in banking and finance and real estate, along with her client-focused approach, reinforces our firm’s capabilities to deliver top-tier legal services.”

  • Oppenheim, Invicta, Havel & Partners, and Forgo, Damjanovic & Partners Advise on JRD Energo Group’s Sale of PV Plant to Obton

    Oppenheim and Invicta have advised JRD Energo Group and its co-investors on the sale of JRD’s Hungarian photovoltaic power plant portfolio with a 29.440 kilowatt built-in capacity to the Hungarian subsidiary of Obton. Forgo, Damjanovic & Partners and Havel & Partners advised Obton.

    JRD Energo Group is a Czech Republic-based investor in the renewable energy sector engaged in the development, construction, and operation of solar, battery, and wind parks in the CEE region.

    Obton is an investment and development company that targets land and rooftop owners, developers, and financial institutions with the goal of building a broad and risk-diverse portfolio of assets in the field of renewable energy.

    The Oppenheim team included Partner Peter Horvai-Hillenbrand, Counsel Zoltan Kolodzey, and Associates Patrik Pazmandi and Gergely Szecsenyi.

    The Invicta team included Managing Partner Martin Mladek and Associate Marek Plojhar.

    The Forgo, Damjanovic & Partners team included Partners Zsofia Fuzi and Reka Bali, Associate Eszter Bedo, and Trainee Lawyers Bence Spisak, Dora Kisszabo, and Matyas Komlosi.

    The Havel & Partners team included Partner Jan Koval and Managing Associate Petra Tomsu.

  • PRK Partners Advises Barcelo on Sale of Five-Star Hotel in Brno to Czech Inn Hotels Group

    PRK Partners has advised Barcelo on the sale of a five-star hotel in Brno to the Czech Inn Hotels Group.

    Barcelo is a hotel chain.

    Czech Inn Hotels Group operates 26 hotels in the Czech Republic.

    The PRK Partners team was led by Partner Roman Pecenka.

    PRK Partners did not respond to our inquiry on the matter.