Category: Slovakia

  • Dentons and Kinstellar Advise on China’s CNIC’s Acquisition of Large Slovakian Logistics Park

    Dentons and Kinstellar Advise on China’s CNIC’s Acquisition of Large Slovakian Logistics Park

    Dentons’ Bratislava office has advised CNIC Corporation Ltd., an investment company owned by the Chinese government, on its acquisition of Prologis Park Galanta-Gan in Slovakia from Prologis. Kinstellar advised Prologis on the deal.

    According to Dentons, “the park is the largest logistics asset, both by area and investment volume, ever sold in the CEE region. Prologis Park Galanta-Gan [consists of] 240,000 square meters of class A logistics space across four facilities, all of which are fully leased. The sale includes the BTS 7,000 square meter development, which is currently under construction, for a logistics provider offering industrial recycling services. The park is situated in Western Slovakia, which has gained a reputation as the production and manufacturing hub of CEE. Strategically located near route E571, it has easy access to Bratislava, Austria, Hungary, and the Czech Republic.”

    The Dentons team was led by Partner Peter Kubina and Counsel Martin Mendel, working with Associate Miroslava Jesikova. Counsel Katarína Pecnova and Associate Tatiana Mergesova performed due diligence on the deal.

    Kinstellar’s Bratislava-based team was led by Partner Roman Oleksik, supported by Managing Associate Miroslav Kapinaj and Associate Michaela Nemethova.

  • Squire Patton Boggs Victorious for Frucona Kosice in European Court of Justice

    Squire Patton Boggs Victorious for Frucona Kosice in European Court of Justice

    Squire Patton Boggs has won a victory for Frucona Kosice in the European Court of Justice, which denied an appeal brought by the European Commission regarding its decision to block Slovak Republic aid to the alcoholic spirits company.

    The EU General Court had found in favor of Frucona Kosice in March 2016 but the European Commission appealed the decision up to the ECJ.

    According to Squire Patton Boggs, “dating back more than a decade regarding a tax settlement between Frucona Kosice and the local tax office in October 2004, the European Commission had previously found a write-off of tax debt to be incompatible with EU state-aid rules. A complaint was lodged with the Commission alleging unlawful state aid. While the Court had previously ruled in Frucona Kosice’s favor, it sent the decision back to the General Court for a further assessment. The Commission then adopted a new decision that sought to correct the errors identified by the Court. After a victory for Frucona Kosice in the General Court in March 2016, the Commission again appealed to the European Court of Justice. The Commission was previously ordered to cover its own costs, as well as those of Frucona Kosice, including any costs incurred in connection with the proceedings for interim measures, which has been upheld along with the appeal’s dismissal.”

    Tatiana Prokopova, Managing partner of Squire Patton Boggs’ Bratislava office, said: “This has been a long journey to finally put this matter to rest for Frucona Kosice. After a decade of work on this case, we are delighted to have been successful in protecting the interests of our client. This complex case, with many of its twists and turns, demonstrates our ability to combine our local legal expertise with that of our colleagues in Brussels to ensure a truly winning formula. We look forward to continuing to represent the interests of our clients in Slovakia and across the EU.”

    The Squire Patton Boggs legal team on the case was led by Partners Brian Hartnett, global co-chair of the firm’s Competition-Antitrust Practice, and Oliver Geiss, both in Brussels, supported by Will Sparks and Anthony Bochon. In the firm’s Bratislava office, overseeing the work in the Slovak Republic, the team was led by Tatiana Prokopova, with support from Associate Jakub Kamenicky.

    According to Squire Patton Boggs, Frucona Kosice is a long-time client of Partner Lubos Tichy in the firm’s Prague office.

  • Kinstellar Announces New Head of Real Estate and Banking & Finance in Slovakia

    Kinstellar Announces New Head of Real Estate and Banking & Finance in Slovakia

    Kinstellar has announced that Vladimir Policka has joined its senior team in Slovakia as Managing Associate and head of the local banking & finance and real estate practices.

    According to Kinstellar, Policka “is a highly regarded lawyer in Slovakia with more than 17 years of experience in banking and finance, real estate and development, and general corporate and business law. He previously worked an in-house attorney at ING Group – a leading European banking and financial services corporation – and at Vseobecna Uverova Banka (Intesa Sanpaolo Group) – one of the largest Slovak commercial banking services providers.” In addition, the firm reports, “Vladimir has advised significant clients, including private equity funds and financial institutions (acting as lenders, arrangers and agents), on numerous acquisition financing projects in the CEE region, as well as on numerous corporate law matters.”

    In addition to the four years he spent with ING (from 2000-2004) and the three and a half years Policka spent with VUB (2004-2008), he spent over three years in private practice with PRK Partners (2008-2011) and another six with Skubla & Partneri (2011-2017). Policka graduated from Comenius University in Bratislava in 2000 and is a member of the Slovak Bar Association.

    Adam Hodon, Kinstellar’s Bratislava-based Partner, commented that: “We are pleased to welcome Vladimir on board. He is a great addition to our team and brings significant experience, relationships and vigor to our banking & finance and real estate practices.”

    Simultaneously, Kinstellar also announced that Slovakian Managing Associate Miroslav Kapinaj was leaving the firm “to pursue a new career in Luxembourg.”

  • Jana Cernakova Promoted to Partner by Cechova & Partners

    Jana Cernakova Promoted to Partner by Cechova & Partners

    Cechova & Partners has promoted Employment lawyer Jana Cernakova to Partner.

    Cernakova is a 2006 graduate of the Faculty of Law at the University of Pavol Jozef Safarik in Kosice, Slovakia and received her PhD. from the Faculty of Law at the Trnava University in Trnava, Slovakia in 2016. She joined Cechova & Partners in 2011. According to the firm, “her practice focuses on the areas of employment and labor law, data protection, litigation, and … white collar crime and compliance. Apart from her day-to-day employment agenda Jana specializes in working time issues, employment of foreigners, and collective bargaining. She also regularly covers employment law issues in complex cases involving M&A and restructuring projects, including transfer of undertaking. Jana is an experienced litigator and has obtained successful rulings for the clients mainly in the area of employment law, transport law, and in the area of life sciences. With the increased impact of data protection regulations, Jana more frequently advises on these issues, focusing on data processing and transfer within multinational group of companies.”

    “We are honored to welcome Jana to the partner team, and fully expect that she will continue to use the experience, skill and work ethic she has demonstrated since joining our firm to achieve the best results for our clients,” says Tomas Rybar, Managing Partner.

    Cernakova contributed an article on Dispute Resolution in Slovakia to the August 2017 issue of the CEE Legal Matters magazine.

  • Taylor Wessing Slovakia Advises Arkon on Acquisition of Territory of Former Slovenka Factory

    Taylor Wessing Slovakia Advises Arkon on Acquisition of Territory of Former Slovenka Factory

    Taylor Wessing’s lawyers have advised investment and development company Arkon, a.s. on its acquisition of the real estate area of the former Slovenka factory in Banskaa Bystrica, Slovakia, from Dituria a.s. Attorney Robert Esek advised the sellers on the deal. Financial terms were not disclosed.

    According to Taylor Wessing, “based on the proposed structure of the transaction, the client shall step by step acquire the land with an area of approximately 46- thousands square meters close to the Silver Square in Banska Bystrica. The transaction was realized as an asset deal and the first phase, which took place in June 2017, covers an area about 17 thousand square meters. The client’s intention is to progressively build a new residential and multifunctional ‘heart’ of Banska Bystrica at this lucrative place. After all work is done, the original industrial complex shall contain, in addition to the apartments and offices, complete public facilities and park areas designed for rest and relaxation.”

    Arkon was established in 2010 and deals with development activities and investing in various kinds of manufacturing and trading companies. According to Taylor Wessing, “through its direct and indirect investments, the Arkon group employs approximately 450 people with total assets under management value of EUR 50 million. The company has realized various development projects, such as Emporia City Residence, Zvolen; Lucenec Gallery, Lucenec and Residence Hron, Zvolen. It is currently involved as an important investor in start-ups.”

    In a press release distributed by Taylor Wessing, Andrej Konkol, Head of the Executive board of Arkon, commented that “for a long time, Banska Bystrica has been a city to us where we naturally wanted to expand our development activities, because we are a company from the Zvolen region. As we believe in this region, it was only a question of a time to find an appropriate place to build a new and modern residential and multifunctional center for the Banskobystricians. This complex project required a relatively large and experienced team of attorneys, where due to the short time each member of the team exactly knew what to do and how to do.”

    Juraj Frindrich, Taylor Wessing Partner, commented that: “For us as lawyers, it is a real pleasure to work for a client who has a clear business idea, the transaction process maintains in the necessary dynamics’ and in the professional matters believes to its advisers. We have been working for Arkon for a couple of years and we understand each other humanly very well. It was a significant contribution to this project as well. For the client we achieved to analyze the project in a relatively short time and then to negotiate and contractually secure the progressive use of all four hectares of the former production site.”

    The Taylor Wessing team consisted of Partners Andrej Leontiev and Juraj Frindrich and Associates Andrea Vancelova and Juraj Vivoda.

  • Quicksand of the Slovak Fight Against Illegal Employment: Businesses Face Overkill

    Currently, a heavily-discussed topic in Slovakia is the “overkilling” interpretation and application of the concept of illegal employment by state authorities. In Slovakia, illegal employment does not only cover the classical scenario of the factual employment of a worker without the proper establishment of a labor-law relationship, but also a situation where the employment contract was duly executed, but the employer did not register the employee in the country’s social insurance system until the employee actually commenced working. 

    Based on the strict statutory wording and with the aim to show effective enforcement, Slovak labor inspection authorities have adopted a practice of “revealing” illegal employment in cases where an otherwise clearly honest employer registered the employee with a delay of only a few days, or even just one. According to this practice, employment is qualified as being “illegal” even if the official registration stated the correct date of the first working day, but itself was only made after the commencement of employment. The inspection would also not take into account the fact that the employer duly performed all other obligations concerning payments of salary, taxes, and insurance. This slavish interpretation and draconian application of the definition of illegal employment violates both constitutional interpretation and the legislator’s intent and purpose in creating the Act on Illegal Employment. 

    Reveal, Prohibit, and Sanction

    According to the explanatory report to the Act on Illegal Employment, the purpose of its adoption was to “reveal, prohibit, and sanction cases when there is no labor-law relationship between the employer and the employee established by an employment contract and the employer fails to register the employee into the Social Insurance Agency in order to avoid paying the insurance.” It follows that in order to conclude whether a late registration of the employee should be qualified as illegal employment, the relevant authority must take into account also material aspects – i.e., all the factual circumstances of the case. Despite the fact that this view has been confirmed by several recent decisions of the courts, labor inspectors continue to apply a purely formalistic interpretation that has disproportionately harmful effects on all employers.

    These effects are aggravated by the fact that a qualification of the employment as being “illegal” has direct serious consequences on the legal position of the employer. Illegal employment does not only result in the payment of fines. The employer is automatically entered into a publicly available list of illegal employers who are barred from receiving any type of state aid and subsidies (including EU funds) and from participating in any public tenders. These consequences can have a disastrous effect on large investors as well as on municipal entities.

    Amendment on the Way

    As this situation is not sustainable, an amendment of the Act on Illegal Employment is currently being prepared to moderate the definition of illegal employment in order to remove the inappropriate severity of the legal regulation. Only cases in which the employee is not registered into the system of social insurance by the time the inspection is conducted shall be regarded as illegal employment, and a long-stop period within which an employee must be registered will be introduced.

    Nevertheless, serious issues concerning the application of illegal employment sanctions remain. Without legal delegation, the National Labor Inspectorate has decided to enter employers into the public register of illegal employers solely on the basis of findings in inspection protocols. An inspection protocol only serves as a summary of findings for the commencement of proceedings on imposing a fine. This means that the state authorities publicly identify the employer as being illegal before the case has been finally decided (indeed, most employers who are currently in the register have not yet been fined). This approach negates the principle of presumption of innocence. And because an inspection protocol is not a decision which can be appealed against, when used in this way, it seriously affects the rights of the employer. The inspection protocol contains neither the information that the findings contained therein result in registration into the list of illegal employers nor information about potential remedies of such consequences. 

    The practice of the National Labor Inspectorate can be regarded as in excess of its authority and there are several court proceedings in which employers seek judgements which would confirm this opinion.

    By Radovan Pala, Partner, and Radoslava Lichnovska, Senior Associate, Taylor Wessing Slovakia

    This Article was originally published in Issue 4.6 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

  • Squire Patton Boggs Wins ICSID Arbitration for Slovak Republic

    Squire Patton Boggs Wins ICSID Arbitration for Slovak Republic

    A team from Squire Patton Boggs has secured what is describing as “a significant victory” for the Slovak Republic at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).

    EuroGas Inc. et al. v. The Slovak Republic, filed in 2014, was brought by alleged investors in the US, EuroGas Inc., and Canada, Belmont Resources Inc., against the Slovak Republic under the US-Slovak Bilateral Investment Treaty and the US-Canada Bilateral Investment Treaty. EuroGas and Belmont Resources claimed that the Slovak Republic wrongfully terminated rights of their Slovak subsidiary, Rozmin s.r.o., to the largest talc mine in the world, located in Gemerska Poloma. Following a five-day hearing on jurisdiction and the merits in Paris in September 2016, the tribunal accepted Slovak Republic’s jurisdictional objections, concluding that it has no jurisdiction over the claimants’ claims, and issuing an award in favor of the Slovak Republic.

    This is the second major investment treaty arbitration in which Squire Patton Boggs has successfully represented the Slovak Republic, following Achmea B.V. v. The Slovak Republic (UNCITRAL), which also resulted in a complete dismissal of claims against the Slovak Republic (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on May 28, 2014). The firm is now representing the republic in a third major investment treaty arbitration in Spoldzielnia Pracy “Muszynianka” v. The Slovak Republic (UNCITRAL).

    The multi-jurisdictional SPB team representing the Slovak Republic in the EuroGas matter included Stephen Anway (New York), David Alexander, Nick Zalany (Columbus), Rostislav Pekar, Maria Polakova, Matej Pustay (Prague), Tatiana Prokopova, Eva Cibulkova (Bratislava), Raul Manon (Miami), and Alexis Martinez (London).

  • Slovakia (Finally) Introduces Specialized Court for Industrial Property Disputes

    As part of the long-planned reform of intellectual property (IP) law in Slovakia, it was finally agreed that IP disputes should be handled by a court system able to truly understand the (often rather technical or technological) nature of IP. This decision stemmed from the frustration of many IP owners with the fact that court decisions sometimes lacked sufficient quality and that the proceedings (especially in some courts) took far too long. 

    Since IP disputes often involve technology or the online environment, if a preliminary injunction wasn’t granted (they are granted ex parte in Slovakia), IP owners often chose not to file a lawsuit on the merits – because three to four years could pass from the filing of the lawsuit until the first hearing was scheduled. Indeed, it was not uncommon to get the final decision only after five to seven years or even longer – a lifetime for certain inventions or the online environment. With rather modest damage awards, IP owners usually chose alternative ways of tackling the act of infringement (e.g., buying the infringing product). 

    …and the Oscar Goes to Banska Bystrica 

    Once the decision was made that IP disputes required a specialized court system, it was clear that the agenda would be assigned to the court in Banska Bystrica, a town in the middle of Slovakia – a two-hour drive from Bratislava – where the Industrial Property Office has its seat, and which therefore is particularly familiar with IP issues. Additionally, it was the Banska Bystrica court that heard the case whenever the Industrial Property Office was sued as a defendant (for example by an applicant seeking to register a trademark/patent after his/her application has been refused by the office). The court in Banska Bystrica works relatively fast, and substantial delays are an exception. As a result, the fact that IP disputes will be heard by that court encourages hope that IP owners will be more motivated to sue in cases of infringement.

    Copyright Disputes are Left Out

    The specialized court isn’t empowered to hear all IP disputes. While industrial property rights disputes will enjoy the specialization of the court, (pure) copyright disputes have been left out, even though the court would certainly be the most knowledgeable and competent to hear such cases. So the “IP court” is in reality an “industrial property court.” Therefore, litigants in a copyright disputes still need to think carefully about whether to enforce their rights through a lawsuit or seek alternative solutions. However, if an industrial property dispute also features a copyright issue, the Banska Bystrica court will be competent to hear it. 

    The specialized court was introduced by Act No. 160/2015 Coll. (new) Civil Procedure Code that entered into force in July 2016. 

    IP Licensees Acting as Plaintiffs

    Another noticeable change in IP legislation is the provision that should enter into force in January 2018 granting IP license holders the ability to file lawsuits if their licensed IP is infringed. The ability to sue for infringement of IP by licensees had already been foreseen by directive 2004/48/EC, but its status was never entirely clear under Slovak law. 

    The proposed amendment makes clear that the holder of a non-exclusive license always needs permission from the IP owner to file a lawsuit in the case of an infringement, unless agreed to the contrary between the licensor and the licensee. By contrast, exclusive license holders do not need permission to sue if the IP owner itself hasn’t filed a lawsuit in an appropriate period. This enhanced freedom for licensees to sue for infringement could potentially backfire against IP owners acting as licensors, especially where the relevant license contains no provisions regarding the ability of the licensee to sue for infringement. If a licensee files a lawsuit for infringement but is not successful, its lack of success in the proceedings could have rather negative (and sometimes devastating) consequences for the licensed title and for the IP owner. Therefore, IP owners should always be careful to stipulate the conditions under which their licensees are able to file lawsuits in relation to IP titles they are entitled to use.

    By Zuzana Hecko, Head of IP/TMT Department, Allen & Overy Slovakia

    This Article was originally published in Issue 4.5 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

  • HB Reavis Promotes New General Counsel in Bratislava

    HB Reavis Promotes New General Counsel in Bratislava

    HB Reavis has promoted Radovan Pistek to General Counsel and Member of the Senior Executive Management. 

    The promotion, which became effective in July, follows Pistek’s December 2016 appointment as Member of the Senior Executive Management. He has also been Deputy General Counsel since November 2012. Pistek first joined the company in December 2009 as a Tax Lawyer. In January 2011 he was also appointed to the role of Head of Legal for Croatia, Hungary, Poland. 

    Prior to HB Reavis, Pistek worked for Deloitte as a Senior Tax Consultant between 2007 and 2009 and for EY in the same role between 2004 and 2007. 

  • The Buzz in Slovakia: Interview with Michaela Stessl of DLA Piper in Slovakia

    The Buzz in Slovakia: Interview with Michaela Stessl of DLA Piper in Slovakia

    “There’s a lot going on at the moment in Slovakia,” according to Michaela Stessl, the Managing Partner of DLA Piper in Bratislava, who begins her summary by describing “a boom with regard to suppliers for the automotive sector who are coming with the Jaguar/Land Rover investors.” According to Stessl, “this has a huge impact on several levels and several fields of providing law,” not only to Jaguar/Land Rover itself, “but also to all the suppliers who are doing business with them.”

    Indeed, Stessl reports that things are going extremely well in Slovakia at the moment, an uptick impossible to miss. “The skyline of Bratislava is really changing,” she smiles. “We’re getting skyscrapers! There’s a real boom. They’re going up almost every day.” Unsurprisingly, then, “Real Estate and Construction are really booming, as is everything else related to such projects.” Stessl reports that her own office is busy with transactions, noting that “we’re involved in several real estate transactions with portfolios about to change their owners, from logistics, to buildings, etc.” She says, “This is where the private equity funds are quite active — this is an interesting time for them.”

    In addition, she says, “we’re doing a lot of litigation at the moment.” According to Stessl, Slovakia has “a totally new set of laws in place since July 2016 with regard to litigation that makes us quite busy, because some gaps in the law have already been identified. It’s quite difficult to litigate at the moment, so this is something we´ll have to deal with over the next few years. Because when even the courts don’t know how to proceed it’s an interesting question how things will go forward.”

    Stessl reports that Compliance-related business is strong as well, as it is elsewhere in the region — “but even more in Slovakia, because we have not only these general requirements in preparation for the GDPR, for example, and the implementation for this regulation, but we’re one of the states that has created its own, even stricter regime, applicable to the so-called letterbox companies, which often use Slovakia because of its attractive tax structure.” Stessl notes that the country has  introduced a new law for such “letterbox” companies, along with new transparency rules regarding ultimate beneficial owners (UBOs), all of which are creating substantial work for lawyers in the country. “Our new legislation is so creative — that’s the more positive word — so confusing, to a certain extent, that nobody knows exactly how to implement it, and we’re facing deadlines here.”

    “For instance,” she says, “if you’re an energy company or a mining company, or a company which partners with a public sector company, you have to register, and if you fail to register by the deadline, it means potentially losing your license and other heavy penalties and fines, so we’re quite busy at the moment registering them.” She says, “this is all to bring transparency into state-regulated business, and also to identify the UBO. The deadline was on Monday, July 31st, so time was running out.” And Stessl says that “a lot of companies haven’t registered yet.” She describes it as “quite a mess, because you need so much documentation, and when companies start the process late it’s hard to do. There’s really a risk that many of these companies will lose their licenses, but nobody knows how the government regulator/legislator will apply the sanctions.”

    There are potentially severe consequences to the lawyers too, Stessl says, noting that “there’s also a mechanism in place to punish lawyers who fail to register their clients in a timely manner as well.”

    Another good example of new legislation in the compliance-related field, Stessl says, is Slovakia’s recently-introduced legislation on gambling, which tightens the rules for the provision and propagation of gambling games without a Slovak license, and which is expected to have particular impact on foreign gambling-game operators. According to Stessl, “Slovakia’s national lottery company, Tipos, remains the only licensed operator of online gambling games, numerical lotteries, or special bingo in the territory. Slovakian courts are empowered to issue orders to block the operators of unlicensed sites from promoting or operating gambling games in the territory of the Slovak Republic, and the supervising body — the Financial Directorate of the Slovak Republic — has new competences, including, among others, the publishing of a weekly list of prohibited websites.” Stessl says, “we are curious to see what the practical approach of the state authorities will be to enforce the new mechanisms.”

    Otherwise, Stessl says, things are pretty calm. “The political climate is quite stable at the moment — everyone’s on vacation right not anyway — so it’s very quiet. And no elections are planned for the next two years.” She summarizes, with evident pleasure. “The trust in the judicial system could be higher, I suppose, and the changes I described also aim to improve this. Overall, compared to neighboring jurisdictions we seem to be doing well and the economy is doing fine.”