Category: Ukraine

  • Avellum Contributes to Amicus Curiae Brief Regarding Enforceability of Foreign Awards in Ukraine

    Avellum Contributes to Amicus Curiae Brief Regarding Enforceability of Foreign Awards in Ukraine

    Avellum has announced that it was part of the Ukrainian Arbitration Association’s (UAA) Working Group that prepared an amicus curiae (friend of the court brief (the “Brief”), submitted to the High Specialized Court of Ukraine for Civil and Criminal Cases to aid in the Court’s consideration of an appeal against a lower court’s decision regarding the recognition and enforcement of a Grain and Feed Trade Association award of USD 17,536,000 and compound interest.

    According to Avellum, the Brief is based on Ukrainian legislation and court practice. It also takes into account international approaches to issues relevant to the Court’s consideration. The Brief addresses the the scope of public policy exception as ground to deny recognition and enforcement of foreign awards, and the court’s powers (i) to grant recognition and enforcement in part and (ii) to calculate interest at the rate set in a foreign award.

    The UAA Working Group was chaired by Avellum Partner and Head of Dispute Resolution Dmytro Marchukov, who described the project as “the first of its kind in Ukraine,” and said that “we are delighted and honored to be part of it. ” According to Marchukov, “conclusions of the court on the issues in question may significantly influence further development of arbitration in Ukraine and perception of Ukraine as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction.” 

    Marchukov was assisted by Avellum Senior Associate Serhii Uvarov and Associates Anna Vlasenko and Oleksii Maslov.

  • Jeantet Names New Local Partners in Kyiv

    Jeantet Names New Local Partners in Kyiv

    Jeantet has made Igor Krasovskiy and Illya Tkachuk Local Partners of the firm’s Kyiv office.

    Krasovskiy heads Jeantet’s Banking & Finance practice in Kyiv. According to Jeantet, “he has acquired vast experience in the international banking sector, [including] banking M&A, debt restructuring transactions, and high-profile disputes.”

    Tkachuk specializes in Corporate/M&A, investment projects, and cross-border transactions. 

    Bertrand Barrier, Partner in charge of the Kiev office, explained that “the appointments reflected the firm’s commitment to Ukraine and development of the local talent. Both Igor and Illya are outstanding lawyers – having grown their careers with us for over eight years – who have built strong relationships with the clients through a solution-focused approach and an understanding of what truly exceptional client service means.’

  • Commercial Drones and Privacy Issues

    An “unmanned aircraft” or “remotely piloted aircraft system” or “drone” is an aerial vehicle without a human pilot on board. Drones are designed for various uses: military, law enforcement, environmental and infrastructure monitoring, journalism, surveillance, agriculture, transportation, construction, etc. Being equipped with sophisticated geolocation, imaging, and facial recognition technologies or infrared sensors, some high-end drones can track up to 65 targets across an area as wide as 100 km, which allows for the gathering of detailed information on people – thus potentially infringing their right to privacy. The issue becomes even more worrying as drones retail at low prices that allow wide access to the technology.

    Despite their proliferation, very few countries yet have specific legislation on drone use. In the European Union, there is no harmonized law on privacy and data protection implications arising from the use of drones. Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC and national data protection laws implementing it only apply to the extent that the data captured by drones is the personal data of individuals. 

    As for court practice, there is a preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union that may apply to data protection in terms of using drones for capturing images or videos. The ruling was issued on the demand of the Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic, which asked whether a person who carried out video surveillance of the entrance to his home and a public footpath had violated any personal data laws. The court stated that the video recording of people for the purpose of protection of their own property, health, and life, but which, even partially, monitors public space, does not amount to purely “personal or household” activity. The judgment, when applied to drones, means that operators of drones need to obtain the consent of those individuals captured on drone footage who can be identified.

    A much stricter ruling was issued by Sweden’s Supreme Administrative Court, which classified drone photography as surveillance and obliged drone pilots to obtain a special permit to fly drones (proving the significant advantage of recording, which outweighs an individual’s right to privacy). It is unclear whether this ruling will minimize violations of personal data, although it imposes heavy restrictions on hobbyists, journalists, and other individuals.

    Data protection regulation in Ukraine remains years behind reality. The Constitution of Ukraine guarantees that no one shall be subjected to interference in his/her private life. The Civil Code of Ukraine prescribes that a person can be photographed or recorded only if his/her consent has been obtained in advance, either in writing or orally depending on the circumstances (for instance, oral consent may be expressed before an interview). There are also court cases where a simple nod to a question regarding consent to being recorded was acknowledged as sufficient.

    Ukrainian data protection laws contain the notion of “implied consent,” which presumes that a person has agreed to a recording unless otherwise expressed. Implied consent relates to open-air recordings on streets and at public events, which is legal if the cameras are observable by the public or if people are notified that recording is in progress. However, due to the heights at which drones can fly, and considering the small size of some types of drones, they may often be beyond the range of sight for most people, and thus can monitor people without their consent or knowledge. 

    A completely different approach relates to any kind of photo and video recording in private places, which is strictly prohibited without an explicit grant of permission by the person being photographed or recorded or whose property is being photographed or recorded. At the same time, a person who has granted consent to be recorded has the right at any stage to request that the recording or public demonstration be stopped.

    Ukrainian legislation on the operation of drones so that they do not interfere in the personal lives of individuals requires elaboration not only in terms of aviation legislation, as aerial vehicles, but with regards to personal data protection in cases when drones are equipped with any kind of imaging technology. 

    By Tatiana Timchenko, Partner, and Anastasiia Kusherets, Associate, Peterka & Partners Ukraine  

    This Article was originally published in Issue 4.2 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

  • Vasil Kisil & Partners Successful for Rele Construction Company in Dispute Over Termination of Land Lease

    Vasil Kisil & Partners Successful for Rele Construction Company in Dispute Over Termination of Land Lease

    Vasil Kisil & Partners has represented Rele Construction Company, which specializes in the construction of residential and commercial property, in the successful resolution of its dispute with the Kyiv City Council involving the termination of a land lease agreement made for 50 years.

    According to VKP, “Courts of all three instances acknowledged that the builder reasonably claimed terminating the lease agreement for the land plot made available to meet the construction needs as the construction had been completed and the title to the constructed premises had passed to investors and buyers.”

    VKP Counsel Oleg Kachmar, who led the firm’s team on the case, explained the nature of the dispute: “Ten to fifteen years ago, in the times of the building boom, builders tried to obtain land plots for their construction projects for as long as possible. However, after completing the construction and selling the property, builders still had to pay the rent until the lease period expired, while local councils did not agree upon terminating such agreements early without making similar agreements with new owners of the property, as they were interested in getting revenues to local budgets. In turn, new owners were not interested in entering new land lease agreements and paying the rent. This problem has become particularly pressing for property developers in the recent two years as the normative valuation of land and rent rates increased significantly. In such a situation, property developers who act as lessees, after completing the construction and commissioning the property, must resort to court to seek the termination of the land lease agreement,” 

    In addition to Kachmar, the Vasil Kisil & Partners team included Senior Associate Yuriy Kolos and Associate Oleksandra Bortman.

  • Doubinsky & Osharova Again Successful for Jack Daniels in Trademark Dispute

    Doubinsky & Osharova Again Successful for Jack Daniels in Trademark Dispute

    Doubinsky & Osharova has successfully defended the rights of the owner of the “Jack Daniel’s” brand in a trademark and patent case in Ukraine.

    Referring to its “brilliant work and the well matched strategy,” Doubinsky & Osharove reports that it “collected … sufficient evidence … and proved to the court that the appearance of the beverage label under ‘Black Jack’ trademark is confusingly similar to the ‘Jack Daniel’s’ trademark.” The court barred the use of the confusingly similar “Black Jack” label, the firm reports, “and also invalidated the patent for the industrial design, with which the defendant justified his right to imitate ‘Jack Daniel’s’ labels.”

    The interests of Jack Daniel’s Properties Inc. were represented by the Doubinsky & Osharova Partner Yaroslav Ognevyuk and Attorney Dmytro Nikulesko. Earlier this year the same duo established that the “Jack Daniel’s” trademarks were entitled to “well-known” status for client Jack Daniel’s Properties Inc. (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on March 6, 2017).

  • Sayenko Kharenko Counsels Electronic Arts on Prize Promotion Issues

    Sayenko Kharenko Counsels Electronic Arts on Prize Promotion Issues

    Sayenko Kharenko has provided legal counsel to Electronic Arts, an American video game company, in relation to prize promotion issues.

    According to Sayenko Kharenko, its legal support included “advising on local legal requirements concerning promotion of games or game play through prize promotions (both chance and skill-based).”

    Headquartered in Redwood City, California, Electronic Arts (EA) delivers games, content, and online services for Internet-connected consoles, personal computers, mobile phones, and tablets to more than 300 million registered players around the world.  

    Sayenko Kharenko’s team included Partner Oleksandr Padalka and Senior Associate Oleg Klymchuk.

  • Sayenko Kharenko Successful for Ukrainian Insurance Group in Supreme Commercial Court of Ukraine

    Sayenko Kharenko Successful for Ukrainian Insurance Group in Supreme Commercial Court of Ukraine

    Sayenko Kharenko’s litigation team has successfully represented PJSC Insurance Company Ukrainian Insurance Group Life in the Supreme Commercial Court of Ukraine regarding a UAH 5.3 million (approximately EUR 185,000) insurance indemnity collection dispute.

    The Supreme Economic Court of Ukraine granted Sayenko Kharenko’s request to suspend enforcement of the first and appellate instances courts’ decisions, and ultimately “satisfied the cassation appeal filed on behalf of the client, and canceled the decisions of the previous instances courts.”

    PJSC Insurance Company Ukrainian Insurance Group Life was founded in 2002 and is based in Kyiv, Ukraine. As of 2008, the company operates as a subsidiary of TBIH Financial Services Group NV.

    The Sayenko Kharenko team was led by Partner Sergey Pogrebnoy and included Counsel Sergey Smirnov and Associate Oleksiy Koltok.

  • Sayenko Kharenko Team Participates in Implementation of Ukrainian “On Financial Restructuring” Law

    Sayenko Kharenko Team Participates in Implementation of Ukrainian “On Financial Restructuring” Law

    Three Sayenko Kharenko lawyers are on the approved list of arbitrators elected by Ukraine’s Supervisory Board — the agency coordinating the financial restructuring procedure — to settle disputes arising from such procedures.

    Three of Sayenko Kharenko’s lawyers were included in the list: Partner Nazar Chernyavsky and Counsels Anton Korobeynikov and Olexander Droug. According to Sayenko Kharenko, “all of them were appointed arbitrators for both financial restructuring procedures: general procedure and approval of the restructuring plan.

    According to Sayenko Kharenko, “the innovative law ‘On Financial Restructuring’ creates the background for the implementation of new debt restructuring tools for debtors whose business operations appear to be promising.

    The firm also reported that its lawyers “actively participated in a joint EBRD – World Bank project on drafting the Law of Ukraine ‘On Financial Restructuring.’ In particular, they adapted the initial draft prepared by the World Bank and EBRD experts to the Ukrainian drafting techniques; finalized the draft as part of the working group and responded to comments from the other members of the working group; explained the content of the Draft Law to the industry participants; supported the draft during its review by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine and the Parliament of Ukraine; participated in the working group of the Parliamentary Committee on Banking and Finance Policy on preparing the final version of the draft adopted by the Parliament and addressed amendments to the draft submitted by the Members of Parliament.”

    As reported previously on March 31, 2017, Asters Counsel Dmytro Shemelin was elected Deputy Head of the Arbitration Committee established pursuant to the On Financial Restructuring law, and Asters’ Managing Partner Oleksiy Didkovskiy was elected to be an arbitrator.

  • Ukraine’s PLP Law Group Successful for Turkey’s Dogu Iklimlendirme in Mediation

    Ukraine’s PLP Law Group Successful for Turkey’s Dogu Iklimlendirme in Mediation

    The PLP Law Group has protected the interests of the Turkish exporter Dogu Iklimlendirme Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. with a debt recovery case against an unnamed Ukrainian enterprise.

    According to the PLP Law Group “the key feature of the case was the application of strict mediation procedures so the issue could be resolved outside court proceedings.”

    Operating with more than 200 personnel in 45,000 square meters in combined area in its two factories, Dogu Iklimlendirme primary products of culverts, diffusers, blinds, fire dampers, air adjustment dampers, hepa filter boxes, laminar flow ceilings, VAV-CAV devices, circular channels and high performance kitchen fume hoods. In 2011 its acquisition of Klimakar A.S. allowed it to expand its product line with package hygienic air conditioning power plants as well. 

    The PLP team was led by Senior Partner Andrii Popko and Senior Associate Natalia Grishina.

  • Asters Counsel Dmytro Shemelin Elected Deputy Head of the Arbitration Committee on Financial Restructuring in Ukraine

    Asters Counsel Dmytro Shemelin Elected Deputy Head of the Arbitration Committee on Financial Restructuring in Ukraine

    Asters is reporting that Counsel Dmytro Shemelin has been elected Deputy Head of Ukraine’s new Arbitration Committee, established pursuant to the requirements of the new On Financial Restructuring law for dispute resolution within financial restructuring procedures in Ukraine. The Supervisory Board also approved Asters’ Managing Partner Oleksiy Didkovskiy as an arbitrator within the financial restructuring procedure.

    “The financial restructuring procedure is stipulated by the law for debtors whose business operations are potentially promising, but who have temporary financial problems,” commented Sergiy Shklyar, Deputy Minister of Justice of Ukraine for Enforcement Service, and Chairman of the Supervisory Board. “Ukraine’s new On Financial Restructuring law provides the opportunities and tools to save these debtors by reducing the financial burden and restoring debtors’ operations. The Law also has many other advantages aimed at the renewal  of business activity in Ukraine. We received more than 20 applications and were impressed that partners of the leading law firms alongside with scientists indicated their strong interest in setting up an arbitration process in Ukraine which would reflect the best international practices. Asters’ Counsel Dmytro Shemelin has extensive experience in arbitration procedures according to various rules and specializes in international arbitration.”

    Asters’ lawyers participated in the drafting of the On Financial Restructuring law, which came into force on October 19, 2016.