Category: Austria

  • Taylor Wessing Advises myClubs on Sale to Urban Sports Club

    Taylor Wessing has advised the shareholders of myClubs on the sale to Urban Sports Club.

    myClubs is a sports aggregator in Austria and Switzerland. Since 2014, it has been offering sports subscriptions and access to various sports and boutique studios. According to Taylor Wessing, “myClubs offers highly popular B2C memberships and innovative corporate fitness products for employees of over 300 companies such as EY, Samsung, and Pfizer.”

    Berlin-based Urban Sports Club offers corporate fitness to companies.

    The Taylor Wessing team in Vienna included Partners Philip Hoflehner, Andreas Schuetz, and Martin Eckel, Senior Associates Silvia Schenner and Christopher Bakier, and Associate Vanessa Gerbasich.

    Taylor Wessing did not respond to our inquiry on the matter.

  • BPV Huegel Appoints Paul Pfeifenberger to Partner

    BPV Huegel has promoted former Attorney at Law Paul Pfeifenberger to Partner.

    Pfeifenberger has been with BPV Huegel since 2015.

    According to BPV Huegel, Pfeifenberger’s focus is on “non-profit property developers as well as real estate developers and industrial companies in transactions with project properties and the entire value chain of property development projects” and he also “advises on labor and employment with a focus on corporate transactions.”

    “I am particularly pleased that Paul Pfeifenberger started at BPV Huegel as an Associate,” commented Co-Managing Partner Christoph Nauer. “He has done outstanding work in recent years and has made a significant contribution to our success. We are delighted that he is now one of the partners in our firm.”

  • CHG Rechtsanwaelte Launches Data & Technology Practice Group

    CHG Rechtsanwaelte has launched a new practice group focusing on data and technology.

    The firm reports that the new group will focus on IT law, e-commerce & digital markets, data & data privacy, compliance & cyber security, digitalization, and intellectual property.

    The new practice group will be led by Partner Clemens Handl and will also include Attorney at Law Stefan Humer and Associate Marco Ladner. 

    Handl has been with CHG for almost ten years, having joined as an Associate in 2015 and making Partner in 2021 (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on January 26, 2021).

  • E+H and CMS Advise on Sale of Althan Quartier Project

    E+H has advised Baustoff + Metall, RPR Privatstiftung, and Stefan Schoenauer on the acquisition and refinancing of the Althan Quartier in Vienna. CMS advised the sellers – a banking consortium led by Raiffeisen Bank International and including Oberbank, Raiffeisenlandesbanken Steiermark and Oberoesterreich, Volksbank Wien, Sparkasse, VKB, and Hypo Vorarlberg.

    The transaction remains contingent on regulatory approval.

    According to CMS, “the takeover by the new consortium and the overall debt restructuring have secured the financing of the major project until its planned completion in 2025.” Furthermore, the firm reports that the Althan Quartier is “currently being developed on the 2.4 hectare site above the Franz-Josefs railway station in Vienna. With a total gross floor area of approximately 130,000 square meters, Althan Quartier will offer offices, retail, restaurants, leisure, and cultural facilities as well as high-quality apartments, hotel rooms, and parking spaces.”

    The E+H team included Senior Partner Alric Ofenheimer, Partners Peter Winkler, Karoline Hofmann, Laurenz Liedermann, Josef Schmidt, and Judith Feldner, Attorney at Law Helena Neuner, and Associates Anna Friedrich, Alexander Koschell, Sandra Leutl, Yvonne Handler.

    The CMS team included Partners Stefan Paulmayer, David Kohl, Mariella Kapoun, and Nikolaus Weselik, Attorney at Law Wolfgang Hellsberg, and Associates Ramona Mujanovic, Valentin Oelz, Clemens Macho, and Maximilian Uidl.

  • Dorda Advises DLH on Sale of Industrial Campus Vienna East to DEKA

    Dorda has advised Deutsche Logistik Holding Austria on the sale of Industrial Campus Vienna East to DEKA.

    Industrial Campus Vienna East is a 150,000-square-meter logistics campus in Austria.

    According to Dorda, “with this acquisition, DEKA now owns Austria’s largest logistics park in Enzersdorf an der Fischa, located approximately 5 kilometers south of the Vienna Airport.”

    In 2020, Dorda advised DLH Real Estate Austria on the acquisition of property in Future Zone East (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on December 11, 2020) as well as on a sale of a section of Industrial Campus Vienna East (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on December 9, 2020). In 2019, Dorda advised on DLH Austria’s sale of logistics objects to DEKA (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on December 30, 2019).

    The Dorda team included Partner Stefan Artner and Associates Vivien Lux and Philipp Proske.

    Dorda did not respond to our inquiry about the matter.

  • Austria: EU Nature Restoration Law Has Come Into Force

    The Regulation (EU) 2024/1991[1], known as the “Nature Restoration Law” (“NRL“), represents a significant EU initiative aimed at reversing ecosystem degradation. The NRL requires Member States to restore degraded ecosystems and enhance biodiversity and resilience across land and marine areas. Effective from 18 August 2024, the NRL imposes binding targets for ecosystem restoration, presenting both opportunities and challenges. This article analyses the NRL’s potential impacts on the private sector, highlighting significant concerns and legal issues.

    Nature Restoration Law

    The NRL defines “restoration” as the process of assisting the recovery of degraded, damaged or destroyed ecosystems to restore their natural functions, services and biodiversity. This involves actions that aim to bring ecosystems back to a healthy state. Restoration under the NRL includes reforestation, wetland rehabilitation and the re-establishment of natural habitats, with the goal of reversing the decline in biodiversity and mitigating climate change impacts.

    To achieve the EU’s ambitious objectives, the NRL establishes binding restoration targets and obligations for various ecosystems. By 2030, the restoration measures should cover at least 20 % of the EU’s land and sea areas, including terrestrial, coastal and freshwater, forest, agricultural and urban areas. By 2050, the measures should extend to all ecosystems “requiring restoration”.

    To reach these targets, the NRL contains more specific requirements, such as:

    • the restoration of at least 30 % of ecosystems covered by the NRL from a poor to a good condition by 2030, increasing to 60 % by 2040 and 90 % by 2050. Until 2030, priority should be given to Natura 2000 sites; 
    • the restoration of agricultural ecosystems with a focus on two of the following indicators: butterfly and farmland bird populations, soil organic carbon or high-diversity landscape features;
    • the restoration of the natural connectivity of rivers and natural functions of the related floodplains, obliging Member States to remove artificial barriers to the connectivity of surface waters, such as “obsolete” barriers that are no longer needed for renewable energy production, inland navigation, water supply or flood protection;
    • the prevention of net loss in the total national area of urban green space and of urban tree canopy cover in urban ecosystem areas.

    Member States must adopt “restoration plans” detailing how they intend to achieve these targets and ensure that the restored areas do not significantly deteriorate. In preparing the national restoration plans, Member States shall involve several stakeholders, such as local and regional authorities, landowners, civil society organisations, farmers, fishers, foresters, investors and the general public, at all stages of development, review and implementation.

    When drawing up their national restoration plans, Member States may use the various examples of restoration measures listed in Annex VII of the NRL, such as renaturalising riverbeds by removing artificial bed fixation, halting or reducing the use of chemical pesticides or increasing urban green spaces.

    NRL’s impact on the private sector and its challenges

    The NRL is controversial, as it raises concerns about how it will be put into practice and its effects on the economy and land use.

    • Terminology issues: What is noticeable at first is that the NRL is plagued by unclear terminology. For example, the term “restoration” is defined, but “restoration measures” are not. Instead, there is a non-exhaustive list of examples in the Annex. However, as the examples are kept very general, it is not possible to predict whether the recovery objectives can be achieved at all or whether much more serious interventions will be necessary.

      For example, achieving the NRL target of improving or restoring 20 % of land and marine areas in smaller, landlocked countries like Austria seems unfeasible. This goal would likely require permanently removing areas from agricultural and operational use. The renaturation measures for restoring riverbeds and lakes, which involve removing bed fixations and structures that span across rivers, could even lead to the deconstruction of urban areas.
       

    • Conflicts with economic activities: This creates a potential conflict between restoration efforts and economic activities. For example, restoration measures may require the use of land that is currently being used for agriculture or other forms of development. This could lead to tensions between environmental goals and the interests of landowners, farmers, industry and local communities.

      Areas that are subject to restoration measures must achieve good status and good status must not deteriorate significantly. It remains unclear whether Member States will be able to approve new projects that might cause any deterioration. In our opinion it would be highly problematic if those new projects were automatically deemed inadmissible.

      An exception to this prohibition of deterioration only exists in certain cases, e.g. caused by force majeure or by plans and programmes of overriding public interest where no less damaging alternative solutions are available, which is determined on a case-by-case basis.
       

    • Challenges related to renewable energy projects: In this context, however, the EU legislator recognises (only) the importance of renewable energy projects and considers them to be of overriding public interest. Moreover, the NRL enables the Member States to exempt renewable energy projects from the requirement of less damaging alternative solutions if they have been subject to a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) or an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

      Despite the attention paid to renewable energy projects, the NRL may still hinder the achievement of renewable energy targets by creating bottlenecks to developing new projects. For instance, PV plants, while classified as renewable energy projects, are not subject to an EIA. If no SEA was carried out either (and this is not necessarily required), the exemption rule would not be applicable. These ambiguities mean that a simplification of the approval procedures – at least from an Austrian perspective – is not yet in sight. It is also worth questioning whether renewable energy projects are truly necessary if no new or modified projects are allowed under the NRL.
       

    • Implementation issues: It will also be interesting to see how federalist Member States like Austria, where legislative authority for nature conservation generally lies with the provinces, will approach restoration plans and measures. Inconsistencies and varying priorities in their implementation can be expected across the EU.

      Lastly, the NRL mentions the possibility of access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters in a recital, referring to the Aarhus Convention and the Treaty on European Union. Member States must ensure that their restoration plans are subject to public and judicial review with the possibility to contest. The choice of legal framework for restoration plans could, however, clash with the intended access to public and judicial review, as the possibilities for challenging laws, ordinances and permits vary between Member States and are often restricted.

    Conclusion

    In conclusion, the impact of the NRL largely depends on how Member States implement it. Although the NRL is directly applicable across the EU, a directive might have offered a more flexible approach. The use of ambiguous terminology may either push for ambitious goals or necessitate future adjustments. The challenges highlighted could hinder economic growth, delay renewable energy projects and create inconsistencies in NRL implementation across Member States.

    Member States have until 1 September 2026 to draft their restoration plans. It is crucial for the private sector to engage in this process, stay informed and prepare for the forthcoming changes.

    [1] Regulation (EU) 2024/1991 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2024 on nature restoration and amending Regulation (EU) 2022/869.

    By Sarah Wolf, Attorney at Law, and Isabel Bruckmoser, Associate, Schoenherr

  • Wolf Theiss, Clifford Chance, and Schoenherr Advise on Cellnex Telecom’s Sale of its Austrian Telecommunications Tower Assets

    Wolf Theiss, working alongside Clifford Chance, has advised Cellnex Telecom on the EUR 803 million sale of its Austrian telecommunications tower assets to a consortium comprising Vauban Infrastructure Partners, EDF Invest, and MEAG. Schoenherr, working with the Paris and London offices of Hogan Lovells, advised the buyers.

    Cellnex Telecom is a European operator of telecommunications towers and infrastructure. According to Wolf Theiss, it has been operating in Austria since early 2021, when it finalized the acquisition of CK Hutchison’s sites in the country as part of the agreement to acquire CK Hutchison’s infrastructure portfolio in six European countries, including Austria. Cellnex currently manages 4,600 sites in Austria.

    Vauban Infrastructure Partners, headquartered in Paris with subsidiaries in Luxembourg and NYC and a branch in Munich, is an infrastructure asset manager focused on European core infrastructure investments

    EDF Invest is the investment arm of EDF.

    MEAG is the asset manager of Munich Re and ERGO.

    The Wolf Theiss team included Partners Sarah Wared, Karl Binder, Robert Wagner, Marika Lomashvili, Matthias Unterrieder, Niklas Schmidt, and Roland Marko, Counsels Harald Strahberger, Christopher Juenger, Stefan Horn, and Markus Taufner, Senior Associates Lukas Ploesch, Elisabeth Poetscher, Anna Schwamberger, Phillip Wrabetz, and Sandra Seldte, Consultants Melanie Dimitrov and Karin Spindler-Simader, and Associates Caroline Brunnmayer, Jonathan Gruber, Paul Samonig, Florian Sesztak, Miranda Ellison, Angelika Lange, Dorothea Arlt, Philipp Richter, and Johannes Sekanina.

    The Schoenherr team included Partners Maximilian Lang, Christian Herbst, Constantin Benes, Volker Weiss, Guenther Leissler, and Teresa Waidmann, Attorneys at Law Beatrix Schima, Christoph Jirak, Janos Boszormenyi, and Alexander Pabst, and Associates Philipp Staudigl, Hanna Elisabeth Kirschner, Markus Fasching, and Stefan Dietrich.

  • Schoenherr Advises EBG MedAustron on Expansion of MedAustron Cancer Treatment and Research Centre in Wiener Neustadt

    Schoenherr has advised EBG MedAustron on the expansion of the MedAustron cancer treatment and research center in Wiener Neustadt. 

    According to Schoenherr, this involved “obtaining the EIA permit for the addition of a new irradiation room (IR5 for short), which will be operated exclusively by a new particle accelerator. The approved extension is expected to enable the treatment of 1,200 patients per year. The aim is also to create additional treatment options for tumors that cannot be treated successfully at the moment and to make ion therapy accessible to a larger number of patients at the same time. The additional synchrocyclotron-based accelerator facility enables the increased use of carbon ions in addition to treatment with protons, thereby expanding the range of indications for tumors to be irradiated.”

    In 2022, Schoenherr advised MedAustron on an EIA for its treatment room (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on May 24, 2022).

    The Schoenherr team included Partner Christian Schmelz, Attorneys at Law Christoph Jirak and Sarah Wolf, and Associate Valentin Dignos.

  • Austria: Blood, Tissue, Cells and More – New EU Regulation on Substances of Human Origin

    In Austria, almost 1,000 units of stored blood are needed every day; in Germany, it is around 15,000 units. Blood is an important emergency medication in the event of accidents, childbirth, surgeries or serious illnesses. It has a shelf life of only 42 days and cannot be produced artificially.

    In recent years, there has been an increasing and often criticised shortage of blood donations throughout Europe. A continuing decline in plasma donations is also making it more difficult to provide therapies and produce medicines. Plasma, in particular, often has to be imported from third countries like the United States. This jeopardises the reliability of the European health care system in both (emergency) medical care and pharmaceutical production, increases competition for these substances between companies and organisations involved and affects the attractiveness of the European Union as business location for companies.

    Currently, effective incentives for potential donors are very limited at best and subject to national law. The demand for blood and blood components is at odds with donor protection and vice versa. This is also subject of ongoing political discussions. Austria is currently, based on a Supreme Court decision of 2020 (4 Ob 183/20w), one of the few Member States permitting lump-sum compensation for plasma donors and additional bonuses for repeated plasma donations, thereby encouraging donations. On the other hand, for further donor protection, the Austrian Ministry of Health intends to adapt the Blood Donor Regulation (Blutspenderverordnung) based on new scientific studies in fall 2024: The maximum amount of blood donated per person per year is to be reduced significantly to prevent potential iron deficiency. To (at least partly) counter the expected reduction in blood donations, the regulation now allows for all people, regardless of their gender identification, to donate in accordance with the medical guidelines provided.

    The result of EU-wide intense discussions on this issue is the Regulation (EU) 2024/1938 on standards of quality and safety for substances of human origin intended for human application (“SoHO Regulation”), which was published on 17 July 2024 in the Official Journal of the European Union. This regulation seeks to harmonise and enhance the protection of donors and recipients of substances of human origin as well as children born from medically assisted reproduction and to facilitate cross-border circulation of those substances to increase supply reliability. Also, scientific and technical innovation should be promoted by increasing legal flexibility. It will enter into force on 7 August 2027, with an extra year for certain provisions.

    1. Background

    According to the European Commission’s data from 2023, each year 15 million people donate blood and plasma, 4.6 million units are transfused to patients, more than 200,000 babies are born from medically assisted reproduction and 36,000 stem cell transplants for blood cancers are carried out.

    The existing Directives 2002/98/EC and 2004/23/EC on blood, blood components, tissues and cells resulted from increasing transmission of communicable diseases in the 1980s and 1990s. Considering the data above and the still increasing need for SoHO, this legal framework is no longer up to date, meaning that patients, donors and children born from donated eggs, sperm or embryos are not fully protected from avoidable risks. Additionally, divergent national supervisory systems often hinder cross-border exchanges of substances of human origin and related innovations. A sufficiently solid, transparent, up-to-date and sustainable legal framework was required.

    On 19 July 2022, the European Commission presented the long-awaited proposal for a regulation on quality and safety standards for substances of human origin for human use, also taking lessons learned from the recent COVID-19 pandemic into account. The SoHO Regulation was then adopted by the Council on 27 May 2024, approved by the European Parliament on 24 April 2024 and officially published on 17 July 2024. The SoHO Regulation is going to replace both directives.

    2. What does “SoHO” mean?

    Due to scientific and technical innovation, donation and human application of substances other than human blood, blood components, tissues and cells are increasingly common. Thus, the SoHO Regulation broadens its scope to substances of, generally, human origin (“SoHO”), meaning any substance collected from the human body, whether it contains cells or not and whether those cells are living or not, including SoHO preparations resulting from processing such substances. As a result, it also covers donated breast milk, intestinal microbiota, blood preparations that are not used for transfusion and any other substances that might be applied to humans in the future. The latter enables a future-proof, automatic adaption to technological advancements, without requiring amendments to the SoHO Regulation. Specific provisions of the SoHO Regulation further apply to substances used in manufactured products (e.g. medical devices or medicinal products). However, solid organs for transplantation are explicitly excluded from the definition of SoHO and remain regulated in Directive 2010/53/EU.

    The SoHO Regulation further covers a wide range of activities having direct impact on the quality, safety or effectiveness of SoHO, including registration and testing of donors, collection and processing, quality control, distribution, import, export, human application and clinical-outcome registration of SoHO (“SoHO activities”).

    3. Key objectives

    3.1 Safety above all?

    A highly emphasised topic in connection with, and in the SoHO Regulation itself, is the high standard of quality, safety and effectiveness of SoHO and the protection of SoHO donors, recipients and children born from medically assisted reproduction. While safety in general is undoubtedly of great importance, it must be considered that more blood and plasma are currently needed for medical care and pharmaceutical production than is available in the EU. Therefore, the requirements for guaranteeing the aspired safety standard must be well balanced with the requirement to maintain a sufficient number of donors.

    3.1.1 Securing high standards

    As to high quality, safety and effectiveness standards for SoHO, the SoHO Regulation provides a variety of rules for entities carrying out SoHO activities (“SoHO entities”) with the aim of mitigating transmission risks of communicable and non-communicable diseases as well as pathogens, toxins and genetic conditions. If none of these rules apply to particular (e.g. new) procedures, guidelines established by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control and the European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines & HealthCare of the Council of Europe should be considered instead. The aim is to keep technical rules and reinforced expertise up to date and to open the doors to new developments. In any case, Member States may still decide to introduce more stringent requirements through their national laws.

    3.1.2 Principle of voluntary and unpaid SoHO donations

    The SoHO Regulation creates specific rules for protecting donors. To avoid donor exploitation and donor health risks, financial incentives or inducements to SoHO donors or any persons granting consent on a donor’s behalf are prohibited.

    On the other hand, considering the increasing need for SoHO, the willingness to donate must be encouraged. In practice, calls for donation and related advertising alone have not had enough impact, but four Member States (Austria, Germany, Hungary and the Czech Republic) have achieved a significantly higher number of donations than others – due to offering (limited) compensation for donations. The Austrian Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that a lump-sum compensation for plasma donors and additional bonuses for repeated donations are permissible (OGH, 26 November 2020, 4 Ob 183/20w). The new SoHO Regulation follows this basic idea. Therefore, all forms of compensation (including flat-rate compensation) or reimbursement are acceptable, subject to national law. The donor should be placed in a financially neutral position, meaning they should neither have to bear a loss nor make a profit from her/his willingness to donate.

    3.2 EU-wide authorisation and assessment procedures for innovative SoHO preparations

    Another key aspect to facilitate innovation and to simplify requirements for companies using SoHO is the possibility of EU-wide authorisation for SoHO preparations. Such authorisations will be granted by independent and impartial SoHO competent authorities, designated by the Member States, to applicant SoHO entities located in their territory. They carry out risk-based assessments and authorise SoHO preparations, prior to their release and distribution, to ensure that a high level of quality, safety and effectiveness is achieved consistently throughout all intended SoHO activities.

    For new collecting, testing or processing methods, the safety and efficacy or functionality for SoHO recipients shall be demonstrated by collecting and reviewing additional data on clinical outcomes to an extent appropriate to the risks identified. In case of negligible risk or a high certainty of positive benefit-risk-assessment, meeting the SoHO Regulation’s requirements for vigilance should be sufficient. This particularly applies to well-established and used SoHO preparations being introduced in a new SoHO entity. If scientific evidence and clinical data provided for the benefit-risk assessment are not sufficient or the risk associated with SoHO preparations is considered more than negligible, further requirements must be met. Depending on the risk identified, additionally to the mandatory continuous vigilance reporting, proactive clinical follow-ups, clinical studies with monitoring of pre-defined clinical end-points or even SoHO clinical studies including a comparison to a standard therapy may be required.

    Authorisations granted are valid throughout the European Union. Where a Member State has adopted a more stringent requirement related to a specific SoHO preparation, that Member State may decline to recognise the validity of the SoHO preparation authorisation of another Member State until compliance with its more stringent requirement has been demonstrated.

    3.3 National supervision

    Each SoHO entity must be registered with their competent national authority, either in a national register or on the EU SoHO Platform, prior to commencing SoHO activities. SoHO entities are obligated to establish, maintain and keep up to date a quality management system as well as a traceability system and a system for detecting, investigating and recording information concerning adverse reactions and adverse events. Emergency plans including respective notification procedures to the SoHO competent authorities of, for example, adverse events related to SoHO or sudden shortages of critical SoHO, must be implemented. Further, SoHO entities must collect and report annually respective SoHO activity data to the EU IT platform.

    SoHO entities carrying out both processing and storage as well as release, import or export of SoHO are SoHO establishments and must obtain a specific authorisation of their SoHO competent authority. Even if a SoHO entity does not fall within the definition of SoHO establishments, SoHO competent authorities may decide that, due to the significant influence on SoHO safety and quality or involvement with multiple SoHO establishments, this SoHO entity requires such an authorisation, nonetheless. Being qualified as a SoHO establishment brings along additional obligations related to the specific SoHO activity carried out.

    Thus, SoHO competent authorities not only assess and authorise SoHO preparations, but verify the effective compliance by SoHO entities with the SoHO Regulation’s requirements (also through inspections) and, by doing so, ensure independent and transparent supervision of SoHO-related activities, while ensuring a more efficient use of resources, on a national basis.

    3.4 SoHO coordination board

    At the EU level, a new SoHO coordination board (“SCB”) has been established. It is hosted by the European Commission and consists of Member States’ representatives. The SCB facilitates coordination between Member States, in particular with regards to the implementation of the regulation, by assisting competent national authorities. This includes the liaison for the exchange of experiences and best practices, support of joint inspections of SoHO entities and clarification of the regulatory status of certain existing substances, products or activities upon request, also consulting experts if needed. Additionally, the SCB plays an important role regarding supply continuity. Member States are obliged to establish emergency plans if the supply situation of critical SoHO may cause serious risk to human health. A summary of these plans and related major reviews shall be presented within the SCB. In case of cross-border issues, the SCB is responsible for supporting a coordinated approach to ensure the implementation of the national SoHO emergency plans, communicating and collaborating with relevant international organisations and authorities.

    3.5 Digital central communication hub: the EU SoHO Platform

    To limit administrative burden and to promote communication and transparency, an online platform, the so-called EU SoHO Platform, has been established. On the one hand, it serves a secure and time-efficient communication channel, for SoHO competent authorities to launch SoHO rapid alerts and for communication with SoHO entities regarding documents related to the authorisation procedure and reports on their SoHO activity data. SoHO competent authorities are then provided with an annual aggregated report. Thus, administrative processes are streamlined, communication is accelerated and resources are conserved.

    Furthermore, the platform enables public access to information regarding, for example, registries of SoHO entities, approved clinical studies and authorised SoHO preparations (in compliance with data protection), list of the regulatory status of substances, products and activities requiring an opinion on their regulatory status, best practices by SCB and the work of SCB and national authorities.

    4. Summary

    The new SoHO Regulation strives to meet the aspiration and requirement for a high-quality, safe and efficient health care system in the European Union. Therefore, rules have been established to ensure a high level of safety and quality for the benefit of donors, recipients and children born from medically assisted reproduction, including up-to-date technical guidelines, extended protective measures and a harmonised supervisory system for SoHO entities. At the same time, however, companies operating as SoHO entities are given certain simplifications to carry out their SoHO activities, including EU-wide authorisation of SoHO preparations and the establishment of coordination and communications platforms like the SCB and the EU SoHO platform. This will significantly facilitate cross-border exchange and access to SoHO, improve patient access to therapies they need and ensure reliable supply of critical SoHO within the European Union. In addition, scientific and technical innovation is promoted, and the SoHO Regulation can be considered future-proof in many aspects due to its legal flexibility. As a result, it contributes to the EU’s strategic autonomy and independence from third countries regarding the supply of SoHO in the future. However, whether the SoHO Regulation can fulfil its significant potential depends very much on the willingness of the Member States to comply and cooperate

    By Sarah Rosenthaler, Associate, Schoenherr

  • Hule Bachmayr-Heyda Nordberg Advises ParityQC on Financing Round

    Hule Bachmayr-Heyda Nordberg has advised ParityQC on a financing round with B & C Innovation Investments.

    ParityQC is an Austrian quantum architecture company.

    B&C Innovation Investments is an Austria-based venture capital firm that invests in technology-based growth companies.

    According to Hule Bachmayr-Heyda Nordberg, B & C Innovation Investments invested in ParityQC via a capital increase, “raising its valuation into the three-digit million range.”

    The Hule Bachmayr-Heyda Nordberg team included Partners Christian Nordberg and Martin Frenzel.

    Hule Bachmayr-Heyda Nordberg did not respond to our inquiry on the matter.