Category: Czech Republic

Havel & Partners, working with Jones Day, has advised T-Mobile on European Commission proceedings relating to a potential restriction of competition.

According to Havel & Partners, “the EC conducted an investigation into the suspicion of a possible restriction of competition due to T-Mobile’s agreement with Cetin and O2 to share mobile network infrastructure and has now adopted a decision approving the commitments proposed by T-Mobile Czech Republic, Cetin, and O2 Czech Republic, thus finally closing the six-year-long proceedings.”

“The proceedings were closed by adopting commitments that lead to improved cooperation mechanisms between mobile operators, guaranteeing effective competition in the future, and thus creating a stable legal basis for operators to operate a high-quality mobile network,” the firm informed. “This all for the benefit of end consumers, who can benefit from the implementation of new technologies that enable faster data speeds and better-quality connections.”

“The proceedings are the first of their kind in which the European Commission has commented in detail on the competition law limits to mobile network sharing,” Havel & Partners Partner Robert Neruda commented. “This is of fundamental importance not only for this case but also for future cooperation between operators across Europe. The clarification of cooperation rules in the case of Czech network sharing thus contributes to greater legal certainty regarding network sharing, which is crucial for the further development of telecommunications in Europe.”

The Havel & Partners team included Neruda, Counsel Ivo Simecek, and Senior Associate Jakub Kocmanek.

Former Managing Associate Pavel Vintr has been promoted to Partner with BPV Braun Partners.

Specializing in M&A, energy law, banking and finance, family law, and public support law, Vintr has been an Attorney-at-Law with BPV Braun Partners since 2010. Before joining the firm, he was a Junior Associate with Hogan Lovells, where he spent four years from 2005 to 2009. Vintr graduated from Charles University in Prague in 2005.

“With his excellent knowledge, informal but still absolutely professional approach, and his long and successful career at BPV Braun Partners, Pavel Vintr has contributed significantly to building our firm’s reputation and is clearly the right person for the job,” BPV Braun Partners Managing Partner Arthur Braun commented. “He has the perfect qualifications to be a Partner and I am delighted to welcome him among us. We are all looking forward to further cooperation and I wish it to continue in the same spirit.”

Kocian Solc Balastik has advised British architecture firm William Matthews Associates on the agreements for the new Prague headquarters project for Sprava Zeleznic, the Czech National Railway Administration.

According to the firm, WMA won the international competition to design the new headquarters complex, that “will house the NRA’s entire organization, which includes several thousand employees who currently occupy a number of buildings in Prague and elsewhere. The aim is to create a modern work environment for NRA staff that is strategically located in the expanding center of Prague.”

KSB’s team included Partner Vaclav Rovensky and Lawyers Dana Jackova and Tomas Travnicek.

Havel & Partners has advised venture capital funds Atmos Ventures, Lighthouse Ventures, and Tera Ventures on an EUR 18 million investment round into Czech logistics-focused fintech company 4Trans. Mavericks Legal advised 4Trans.

According to Havel & Partners, “in this round, 4Trans also attracted private investors from Silicon Valley and is thus aiming to become a leader in logistics companies financing.” The investment round was led by Atmos Ventures.

4Trans is a Czech company that provides financing for small and mid-sized companies in the logistics industry.

Atmos Ventures is a fund specializing in supporting the development of artificial intelligence and deep technology for data use. Lighthouse Ventures is a Czech fund that focuses on venture capital and start-up acceleration. Estonian fund Tera Ventures specializes in investing in digital start-ups.

“4Trans intends to use the funds for further expansion into foreign markets, strengthening its teams, software development, and expanding its range offer to include additional financial and insurance services,” Havel & Partners informed.

The Havel & Partners team included Partner Vaclav Audes, Senior Associate Juraj Petro, and Associate Jan Krejci.

The Mavericks team was led by Partner Jaroslav Mencik.

Taylor Wessing has advised S+B Gruppe developer company S+B Plan & Bau Prag on the redevelopment of the Via Una office building in Prague.

According to the firm, “investor CRI NP 33, a member of the Commerz Real group, appointed S+B to manage the project.”

S+B Gruppe specializes in construction projects planning, construction management, commercial control, and marketing, with offices in Bucharest, Prague, Vienna, and Warsaw.

The Via Una project in Prague involves the conversion of a former bank into a mixed-use administrative and commercial development. The building is listed as cultural heritage.

“The S+B Gruppe specializes in the development of top-quality real estate projects,” S+B Head of Leasing and Marketing Czech Republic Hana Scholzova commented. “Via Una is a high-class office and retail building that meets all the expectations of a modern business building combined with the noble, historical flair of Prague. The refurbishment and construction works will be completed soon and we are happy to be able to welcome the first tenants in the building shortly.”

The Taylor Wessing team was led by Partner Marketa Cvrckova and included Senior Associate Adela Kucerova and Associate Monika Bartosova.

Weinhold Legal has advised the Jamp Group on the share deal acquisition of the 2747 Konevova Street building in Prague from Raiffeisen Stavebni Sporitelna. Havel & Partners reportedly advised the sellers.

According to Weinhold Legal, “Konevova is the exclusive owner of the no. 2747 on Konevova Street in Prague 3 – Zizkov, the former headquarters of Raiffeisen.” The property includes flats, in addition to office premises and other commercial premises.

Weinhold Legal’s team included Partner Martin Lukas, Managing Associate Jakub Nedoma, Senior Associate Jiri Kvacek, and Junior Associates Petra Karabut and Jaroslav Denemark.

Editor’s Note: After this article was published, Havel & Partners confirmed it had advised the sellers. The firm’s team included Partner Lukas Syrovy and Managing Associate Albert Tatra.

Former Counsel Martin Raz and Managing Associate Dalibor Kovar have been promoted to Partner at Havel & Partners, as of July 1, 2022.

Specializing in the real estate and construction, litigation, public sector, and regulatory areas, Raz has been with the firm since 2013, having first joined Havel Holasek & Partners as a Senior Associate. He was promoted to Senior Attorney in 2015 and then to Managing Associate and Counsel in 2018 and 2019, respectively. Before joining his current team, Raz spent over ten years at Weil Gotshal & Manges, as a Junior Associate from 2004 to 2007 and, later, as a Senior Associate from 2007 to 2013.

Kovar specializes in electronic legal acts, digital transformation in law, IP law, IT, e-commerce, law-making, and contract law. He joined the firm in 2013 as an Associate and was later promoted to Senior Associate in 2017 and Managing Associate in 2020. Earlier, Kovar was an Associate with PRK Partners, from 2011 to 2013, and with Gide Loyrette Nouel in 2010. He also worked as a Paralegal – for his current firm from 2007 to 2008 – and for Vyskocil Kroslak & Spol, from 2005 to 2006.

“Only excellent lawyers can keep a leading law firm at the top,” Havel & Partners Managing Partner Jaroslav Havel commented. “That is why we, at Havel & Partners, develop our motivation system with a clear vision of career growth, which is often much faster than that of our competitors. Martin Raz and Dalibor Kovar, who are expanding the law firm’s management, are significant pillars of our legal teams and their benefit to Havel & Partners has been crucial for a long time.”

In July last year, the new Building Act No. 283/2021 Coll. came into force. It’s the result of a reform of public building law that had been in preparation for several years. But it’s not certain that builders will follow it in its current form.

An amendment to the Building Act is being discussed in the Chamber of Deputies of the Czech Parliament, which is intended to postpone its entry into force, which was due to happen on 1 July 2023. This is not a substantive change to the Act, but it’s meant to give time to reopen the political and professional debate on the appropriateness of the outcome of the reform.

What are the main discussion points?

Two themes in particular are at the forefront; the replacement of the system of state construction administration by another structure based on the principle of a mixed model, and retreating from the integration of the authorities concerned into the construction authorities. The considerations on the concept of state construction administration are tipping the scales back towards maintaining the construction authorities at the municipal level and creating state administration only from the second level.

The core of the proposed amendment is the establishment of a transitional period from 1 July 2023 to 30 June 2024, by which the effectiveness of large parts of the new Building Act is postponed. The deputies will discuss an amendment that will postpone the entry into force of the Building Act only partially, as the provisions concerning the consideration of constructions of national importance, the reserved constructions, will become effective. The question is whether it would be more appropriate to postpone the entry into force of the Building Act as a whole. If the draft law on postponing the entry into force for one year passes the approval process, regional construction authorities will not be established from 1 July 2023, and only the Specialised and Appellate Construction Authority will be established to decide on reserved constructions listed in Annex 3 of the new Building Act. The function of the Supreme Construction Authority should be performed by the Ministry of Regional Development in relation to the established Specialised and Appellate Construction Authority.

This two-track system will have its pitfalls

In particular, the legal uncertainty regarding the applicable procedures of the building authority for both authority staff and builders is crucial. The amendment establishes a different regime for buildings by bringing them under different legal provisions. Dedicated buildings will be dealt with according to the new provisions of the Building Act. But other buildings will not be subject to these provisions and the current Building Act No 183/2006 Coll. will apply. Compliance with the spatial planning documentation will not be assessed by the spatial planning authority, but by the Specialised and Appellate Building Authority in the procedure for the authorization of the project. 

Under the new Building Act, offences would also be dealt with in relation to reserved buildings and there would be special provisions for judicial review with a one-month time limit for bringing an action and priority consideration of the action if it is granted suspensive effect. What’s completely lacking is coherence with related legislation. Amendment Act No 284/2021 amended more than 50 special laws and brought them in line with the new Building Act. These are set to integrate the authorities concerned into the decision-making of building authorities, rather than a dual regime and the issuing of different forms of administrative acts in different processes. In the case of decision-making on reserved constructions, the affected authority should be directly involved in the decision-making within the framework of integration. In the case of other constructions, it will issue separate administrative acts, mostly binding opinions, which does not contribute to the plausibility of the procedure. The time difference in the effectiveness of the new construction authority will have practical implications, in particular in relation to staff transfers between authorities, and the organization of files to be transferred to the newly created authority.

Do the benefits outweigh the complications?

The success of the implementation of the new Building Act depends on the realisation of the facts conditioned by the Act, which include, apart from the establishment of new institutions, the issuance of implementing decrees, the creation of technical conditions and environment for the digitalisation of processes, and the provision of personnel. Some of these processes are already under preparation. Somewhat demotivating for these efforts may be the clear signal from the government that the new construction law in its current form is not supposed to see the light of day in the construction world. Not all of the complications are foreseeable, and it’s questionable whether they are outweighed by the expected benefits. 

The two pilot principles – the creation of a central system of construction administration and integrated decision-making – are being abandoned. This denies one of the main objectives of the adopted reform, namely the separation of building authorities from municipal governments. The pros and cons of this have been intensively discussed in the past. The integration of the authorities was supposed to reduce the negotiations with the authorities and the need to obtain the necessary stamps on project documentation. According to the government’s statement, it’s being considered to replace it with procedural integration. This would involve decision-making involving officials who otherwise ensure the performance of the activities of the authority concerned. The specific conditions are not known.

The postponement of the effective date by one year may not be sufficient for the adoption of a new and high-quality concept of public construction law. The proposed amendment only addresses the postponement of the effective date. Therefore, builders will have to wait until the new substantive draft of the Building Act is available, when it will be clear where the public construction law will go.

By Milena Hegenbartova, Senior Associate, DLA Piper

The Supreme Court dealt with the liability of the insolvency administrator and the debtor’s managing director (CEO) after the declaration of bankruptcy and their obligations to proceed with due managerial care.

The insolvency administrator is obliged to proceed with professional care when performing the function. In the event of a declaration of bankruptcy on the debtor’s property, the right to dispose of the property passes to the insolvency administrator, and the existing statutory body thus effectively loses this right. However, this does not mean that it is relieved of the obligation to act with due managerial care and, therefore, it is necessary to examine all its actions taken even after the declaration of bankruptcy.

The Supreme Court thus confirmed that it cannot be easily concluded that liability for damage to property is always borne by the insolvency administrator and the liability of a member of the statutory body is thus excluded. The court must therefore always take into account all the circumstances of the case.

By Tomas Richter, Counsel and Marek Pume, Junior Associate, PONTES 

Weinhold Legal has advised Prague-based litigation financier LitFin on its entry into a strategic investment partnership with a US-based fund.

According to Weinhold Legal, “LitFin has been joined by a strategic partner, a fund from the US which invests exclusively in the litigation sector. It is one of the most prestigious funds in this area. It has over USD 1 billion under management.”

Prague-headquartered LitFin is a CEE-based litigation finance provider, covering various jurisdictions including the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, and Hungary. The company focuses on disputes ranging from commercial disputes and arbitrations to group litigation/class action claims in employment and family law cases.

The Weinhold Legal team was led by Partner Martin Lukas and included Managing Associate Tomas Cermak and Senior Associate Karin Konecna.

Weinhold Legal was unable to disclose further information on the deal.