About Allen & Overy LLP
|
|
- Angel Stewart
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Allen & Overy LLP's Response to the European Commission Staff Working Document "Towards a coherent European approach to collective redress", SEC (2011) 173 final About Allen & Overy LLP Allen & Overy LLP (A&O) is an international legal practice with over 5,000 staff, including nearly 500 partners, working in 36 major cities worldwide. Its European offices are in Amsterdam, Antwerp, Athens (representative office), Bratislava, Brussels, Bucharest (associated office), Budapest, Düsseldorf, Frankfurt, Hamburg, London, Luxembourg, Madrid, Mannheim, Milan, Munich, Paris, Prague, Rome and Warsaw. A&O's clients include banks, corporations, sovereign states and individuals. A&O's response is based on the views of its practitioners in Europe, and to some extent its clients. We respond without attributing any particular view to any particular lawyer or client. To the extent that there are divergent views on particular issues, we have tried to capture these while at the same time making a single submission. This response is also inevitably very general given the general nature of the questions asked, and the early stage of the process reached. More detailed comments would be made in response to any specific proposals. Response We have set out our views on certain issues raised by the proposals for collective redress, although these do not readily fit into the sequence of specific questions posed by the consultation. We viewed the live webcast of the public hearing on 5 April 2011, and are members of the Working Party of the Law Society of England & Wales tasked with responding to the European Commission's recent proposals. ISSUE 1: Is there a need for a collective redress mechanism? We are aware that within the European Union, as the Green Paper points out, Member States take a variety of approaches to collective redress, ranging from a full system, to none at all. In certain jurisdictions, such as England & Wales and Belgium, there is currently no effective mechanism for collective redress, and the parties and courts attempt to adopt an ad hoc approach when the need arises. However, we have not heard of any real call for reform in this area from our clients. Indeed, a number of our clients would be opposed to the implementation of further collective redress mechanisms. Detailed comments would depend upon the detail of the proposals. Our principal observation at this stage is that the Commission should think incrementally, and not be overly ambitious, given the variety of views expressed at the public hearing, and the legal, practical, jurisdictional and political obstacles which lie in the way of a new EU wide collective redress mechanism. It may be that high-level principles or standards can be distilled across all sectors, but we do not believe that a single mechanism will prove acceptable for all forms of dispute or all jurisdictions. If anything is to be implemented, then we would favour non-binding good practice guidelines over any legally binding approach. From the consumer perspective (which we do not typically represent), we accept that collective action can allow in some cases otherwise small claims to be grouped together so that consumers can seek redress in an efficient manner, and defendants can deal with a widespread dispute in one action. From the enterprise perspective (which we do represent), to the extent that a mass dispute is in reality inevitable, our experience suggests that it is better for all parties if it can be managed centrally and any settlement or court order can then bring the matter to an end, so far as practical. We believe that a tempered proposal, such as good practice guidelines encouraging the judiciary to use their existing case management powers, could have assisted in the English bank charges litigation (Office of Fair Trading (OFT) v Abbey National plc & Ors [2009] UKSC 6). In the event, the banks proposed a way of isolating a test case and proceeding with that while informally staying the other actions LT:
2 It is also critical from the business perspective that any collective redress mechanism is balanced and fair in its operation. This must have effective safeguards against time and cost wasting nuisance or frivolous litigation. Otherwise, there is a grave risk that commercial enterprise will be stifled, and EU businesses will lose a competitive position to non-eu jurisdictions, where businesses are non burdened by collective redress mechanisms. In the UK, the provisions relating to collective redress in the Financial Services Bill were abandoned just before the 2010 General Election. In short, by these provisions, the English court would have been permitted to make a Collective Proceedings Order (CPO) on the application of a representative, in effect allowing a representative to bring collective proceedings in respect of certain financial services claims against certain authorised persons, payment service providers or regulated entities. The court would have been able to direct whether the collective proceedings were to be brought on an "opt-in" or "opt-out" basis. The provisions also suggested that the UK Financial Services Authority, Office of Fair Trading and Financial Ombudsman Service could be heard at an application for a CPO, "make provision about damages" and "modify the effect of any limitation provision". Further, it was also suggested that the court be enabled "to make an award of damages without undertaking an assessment of the amount of damages recoverable in respect of each claim comprised in the proceedings". These proposals met with strong opposition on various grounds, including: It is inappropriate that claimants whose remedy is time-barred should be allowed to revive their claim by the means of a collective redress action. It is inappropriate that damages should be payable by a defendant based on a class of claimants who may never claim (the opt out case), without regard to actual loss suffered, and with unclaimed damages being given to charity. It is inappropriate that a financial services regulator should be given judicial power in a system of collective redress. It is practically difficult in an opt out case to compensate the successful defendant for the costs of fighting the losing case against it, or otherwise to implement effective deterrents to nuisance cases, where the individual claimants are mostly not known and take no active part in the proceedings. We do not believe these abandoned provisions should now be incorporated into any European proposal. ISSUE 2: What is the preferred basis for collective redress? Any action that the Commission took would need to have a clear legal base and scope. We have yet to see a clear case made by the Commission that it has a legal basis to intervene in national damages and domestic court procedural law (see, for example, the draft report of the European Parliament on the white paper on damages actions 2008/2154(INI)). If any collective redress scheme were to operate across the whole of the EU, then serious consideration needs to be given to how it would work within the Brussels I Regulation 1 as it stands and importantly to the extent it is reformed. 2 In particular, the Commission should avoid a scheme in which there is a race to the courts to be the first seised (whether by prospective claimant or prospective defendant seeking declaratory relief depending upon whether the particular Member State was pro-claimant or pro-defendant). It is also perhaps the case that a pan-eu "opt-out" collective redress scheme is not politically achievable, or commercially acceptable. For example, it is unclear that such a system would be possible in certain Member Sates such as France where there is an inability to abandon by contract droits disponibles (see also the 1 Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. 2 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters COM(2010) 748 final LT:
3 French Government's amicus brief in the US Supreme Court case of Morrision et al. v National Australia Bank Ltd. et al.). This is in contrast, for example, to the courts of the Netherlands, which have approved a US class action settlement 3 on an opt-out basis without any public policy objection (Royal Ahold NV, 23 June 2010). There are also challenges, which the Commission needs to consider, in meeting the obligations under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, we believe that where a dispute with merit exists, and on its face has a number of potential claimants, it may be in interests of efficient delivery of justice to have any resolution (by court or otherwise) be final and binding to the maximum extent possible over those litigants who participate, and so have their say, in the process. An "opt-in" system only, if the Commission decides there is a need for a system at all, would best achieve this end. Certainly from the defendant's perspective an "opt-out" system raises a number of objections (see under Issue 1 above, and Issue 5 funding). For further analysis, including the positive lessons that can be learnt from the US system, we draw your attention to an article published in Journal des tribunaux, "La class action et le droit belge va-etvient de part et d autre de l Atlantique", by Werner Eyskens (of A&O) and Nanyi Kaluma (JT 2008/0027). The English Court of Appeal decision in Emerald Supplies Ltd v British Airways Plc [2010] EWCA Civ 1284 has (for now at least) closed the door to the possibility that the courts would interpret the English Court rules on representative actions flexibly to allow a form of class action to be created without further legislation. Any justification for collective redress should be to afford compensation, rather than to police or enforce the law or to punish, which is something that should remain in the hands of public authorities. We are broadly in agreement with the views expressed by HH Judge Graham Jones at the public hearing this month that private actions are based on the idea of compensation. That should be to those who make a claim within the limitation period, and have suffered a loss within the permitted boundaries of the law. This must be kept separate to public enforcement, and the risk of double jeopardy through parallel civil and criminal actions must be borne in mind. We note that the system in the Netherlands has been successful and could serve as a model for the EU. In 2005, the Act on the Collective Settlement of Mass Damages (Wet Collectieve Afwikkeling Massaschade (WCAM)) was enacted in the Netherlands, which allows for court-approved mass settlements that are binding on an entire class of injured parties, unless they opt out. The WCAM creates a system strongly resembling United States-style class action settlements. The proceedings to render a settlement binding for an entire class starts with a settlement agreement between a foundation or association which is representative of the injured class and the defendant, pursuant to which the defendant agrees to make certain settlement payments to the injured parties. This agreement is submitted to the court, which determines whether the settlement is reasonable, taking into account the magnitude of the damages, the ease and speed with which the settlement payment is obtainable from the defendant, the costs and efforts which the injured parties would otherwise have to take to litigate the matter, the potential causes of the damage, and other relevant circumstances. After the judgment, the individual injured parties have a period of at least three months during which they can choose to opt out of the settlement. If they do not do so, the settlement becomes binding on them. The agreement may provide that the defendant can withdraw from the settlement if too many injured parties opt out. So far, five mass settlements have been concluded and approved under the WCAM by the court. As with US class action settlements, there is uncertainty whether a judgment under the WCAM is binding on injured parties to whom the settlement agreement relates but who are domiciled in countries outside the Netherlands, either within the European Union or elsewhere. So far, from the perspective of the Dutch courts at least, the settlement agreements are seen as binding injured parties in other countries. 3 Note specifically that this does not apply to judgments as opposed to settlements LT:
4 The real success of the Dutch system is seen and being its confinement to settlement cases. Here most of the objections to collective redress litigation, especially on an opt out basis, are avoided through a largely consensual settlement process. Class action regimes were introduced in Italy and Poland during A significant number of claims have already been filed in Italy. It is probably too early to draw lessons just yet and this is a further reason for the Commission to be cautious about acting too soon. ISSUE 3: How should unmeritorious claims and forum shopping be addressed? We reiterate the concerns which have been previously expressed by stakeholders on a number of occasions, namely that any scheme needs to be effective in minimising, to the maximum extent possible, the scope for nuisance litigation. For example, it would be counter-productive to commerce in the EU if proposals were introduced which allowed claims for collective redress (where none had previously existed) be sold to potential clients by lawyers. As the Commission will be aware, the "loser pays" principle in England and Wales operates as a strong safeguard, which we would recommend, although we also recognise that in other Member States this is seen as unattractive (and not necessarily within the competence of the Commission). In some jurisdictions, such as Belgium, the ability to bring a claim for having to defend frivolous litigation could act as a safeguard, although the scope of such a claim is limited. Additionally a judge-led certification system could weed out unmeritorious or low value claims where there is little public interest. To the extent that the Commission decides there is a need for action on its part, we broadly support the views of HH Judge Graham Jones, who suggests that access to the courts should be controlled by the judiciary in such a way that time and costs are minimised. Such control could include checks as to the standing of representatives; a preliminary assessment of the merits of a claim; perhaps a minimum number of identified claimants; checks on the commonality of the interests represented and remedies sought; an assessment of whether it is likely the claimants will pursue their claim; consideration (non-mandatory) of Alternative Dispute Resolution and an inquiry into the funding arrangements of the case. However, such powers should not vest in regulatory authorities (for example, UK Financial Services Authority, Office of Fair Trading and Financial Ombudsman Service) or other regulatory entities. The decision to take any class action should be a private (that is, non-public) one with the court as arbiter. ISSUE 4: What about ADR? ADR cannot be a replacement for appropriate court mechanisms. The ability to enforce effectively private rights can be a catalyst to the parties adopting an efficient and mutually acceptable ADR solution to their dispute, but ADR processes alone cannot be enough. We note two further points in this regard. First, that the mediation initiatives already in place in England are often effective especially where consumers are involved. Secondly, we would urge caution about introducing mandatory ADR in whatever form (for further details please see our response to the Commission's Consultation Paper on the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution as a means to resolve disputes related to commercial transactions and practices in the EU). ISSUE 5: What about funding? We do not believe there is a need to change the current national position in each of the Member States on funding. In this respect, collective redress (to the extent that it is needed at all) should follow existing costs/funding regimes. There should be no public funding of collective redress actions nor should consumer bodies, for example, be able to use surplus or unallocated damages to fund further litigation. The approach must be on a State by State basis, since the right solution will be substantially different depending on whether, for example; the loser pays principle exists; state funding or legal aid is available; lawyers may work on conditional or contingency fees; and the availability of after the event insurance LT:
5 The funding of collective actions remains a difficult issue, both in terms of claim costs and defence costs. This is altogether easier in an opt in only regime, where those opting in take on responsibility for their share of the costs, and fund this privately, by third party funding, by insurance, by pro bono representation, or some combination. This in itself is a useful check and balance against nuisance litigation. In an opt out case, where there are few active claimants, the same deterrent to nuisance litigation does not exist, and compensating a winning defendant for the costs of fighting the losing claim is much more difficult. Allen & Overy LLP 30 April LT:
UPC Alert. March 2014 SPEED READ
March 2014 UPC Alert SPEED READ Recent events signal that the radical change to how patents are obtained and enforced in and in particular involving Europe the new European Unified Patent Court (UPC) is
More informationJackson reforms to civil litigation
June 2013 Jackson reforms to civil litigation What do commercial parties really need to know? SPEED READ The bulk of the Jackson reforms to costs in English civil litigation were implemented on 1 April
More informationTowards a Uniform European Approach to Collective Redress?
Towards a Uniform European Approach to Collective Redress? By Marc Shelley Partner Shook, Hardy & Bacon The story of European class actions has been unfolding for many years and the ending is still to
More informationSovereign Immunity. Key points for commercial parties July allenovery.com
Sovereign Immunity Key points for commercial parties July 2018 2 Sovereign Immunity Key points for commercial parties July 2018 Allen & Overy LLP 2018 3 Introduction Sovereign immunity is a complex topic.
More informationREPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 25.1.2018 COM(2018) 40 final REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the implementation of the
More informationPrivate actions for breach of competition law
Private actions for breach of competition law What will be the impact of the recent reform proposals? August 2013 There is already a steady stream of private competition law actions now being brought in
More informationBusiness Immigration. Brexit and the EU Settlement Scheme. December 2018
Business Immigration Brexit and the EU Settlement Scheme December 2018 Foreword Brexit will have a major impact on EU nationals and their family members in the UK. The Government has introduced a plan
More informationNew draft European Regulation on the freezing of bank accounts
26 July 2011 New draft European Regulation on the freezing of bank accounts SPEED READ On 25 July, the European Commission published a new draft Regulation introducing European Account Preservation Orders
More information2. PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROCEDURAL REGULATION ARTICLE
RESPONSE TO THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION S CONSULTATION ON PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO REGULATION 773/2004 AND THE NOTICES ON ACCESS TO THE FILE, LENIENCY, SETTLEMENTS AND COOPERATION WITH NATIONAL COURTS Freshfields
More informationCONSULTATION ON COLLECTIVE REDRESS RESPONSE OF HOGAN LOVELLS INTERNATIONAL LLP (NOT FOR PUBLICATION) HOGAN LOVELLS INTERNATIONAL LLP
CONSULTATION ON COLLECTIVE REDRESS RESPONSE OF HOGAN LOVELLS INTERNATIONAL LLP (NOT FOR PUBLICATION) HOGAN LOVELLS INTERNATIONAL LLP Hogan Lovells is a global law firm created to provide high quality advice
More informationCompetition litigation in the European Union: recent developments
Competition litigation in the European Union: recent developments Jonathan Hitchin Partner, London Tel +44 20 3088 4818 jonathan.hitchin@allenovery.com Patrick Arnold Associate, London Tel +44 20 3088
More informationBrexit Paper 4: Civil Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments
1 Brexit Paper 4: Civil Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments Summary The ability to enforce judgments of the courts from one state in another is of vital importance for the functioning of society
More informationThe Legal System Generally
THE NETHERLANDS REMEDIES THAT CROSS BORDERS In the immediate aftermath of the Morrison decision, many attorneys and commentators predicted that the Netherlands would become a sort of haven for global securities
More informationPrivate sector-led challenges to anti-competitive behaviour. Growth and fairness: private sector-led challenges to anti-competitive behaviour
Agenda Advancing economics in business Private sector-led challenges to anti-competitive behaviour Growth and fairness: private sector-led challenges to anti-competitive behaviour The UK government is
More informationJudicial Review. Where do we stand? Will proposals for further judicial review reform make any difference? Procedure & Practice
Judicial Review Procedure & Practice Where do we stand? Will proposals for further judicial review reform make any difference? Charles Brasted & Ben Gaston Report Judicial Review November 2013 1 Where
More informationDevelopments in class actions and third party funding of litigation. Maturing themes across Europe?
Developments in class actions and third party funding of litigation Maturing themes across Europe? Autumn 2009 Contents Introduction 1 European developments 3 Austria 7 England & Wales 9 France 25 Germany
More informationBREXIT AND JURISDICTION CLAUSES: CHOICE OF ENGLISH LAW FOLLOWING THE EU REFERENDUM
: CHOICE OF ENGLISH LAW FOLLOWING THE EU REFERENDUM The choice of law to govern a contract will be unaffected by Brexit, if and when it occurs, but jurisdiction provisions may require consideration. But
More informationSUPPLEMENTARY EVIDENCE BAR COUNCIL HOUSE OF LORDS EU INTERNAL MARKET SUB-COMMITTEE INQUIRY BREXIT: FUTURE TRADE BETWEEN THE UK AND EU IN SERVICES
SUPPLEMENTARY EVIDENCE BAR COUNCIL HOUSE OF LORDS EU INTERNAL MARKET SUB-COMMITTEE INQUIRY BREXIT: FUTURE TRADE BETWEEN THE UK AND EU IN SERVICES Introduction 1. This submission from the Bar Council Brexit
More informationSubmitted by CMS. 30 April 2011
Public Public Consultation Consultation Towards Towards a Coherent a Coherent European European Approach Approach to Collective to Collective Redress Redress Submitted by CMS 30 April 2011 CMS aims to
More informationPROPOSALS FOR CREATING UNITARY PATENT PROTECTION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
PROPOSALS FOR CREATING UNITARY PATENT PROTECTION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION The idea of a Community Patent, a single patent that can be enforced throughout the European Union (EU), is hardly new. The original
More informationBREXIT: THE WAY FORWARD FOR APPLICABLE LAW AND CIVIL JURISDICTION AND JUDGMENTS?
APPLICABLE LAW AND CIVIL JURISDICTION Both the and the have now published short papers setting out their positions on judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters. A comparison of the two perhaps
More informationImplementation of the Damages Directive across the EU
Implementation of the Damages Directive across the EU February 2017 The Damages Directive 1, which seeks to promote and harmonise the private enforcement of EU competition law before national courts across
More informationRENFORCER LA COHERENCE DE L APPROCHE EUROPEENNE EN MATIERE DE RECOURS COLLECTIF : PROCHAINES ETAPES
COMMISSION EUROPÉENNE Secrétariat général SEC(2010) 1192 Bruxelles, le 5 octobre 2010 OJ 1932 RENFORCER LA COHERENCE DE L APPROCHE EUROPEENNE EN MATIERE DE RECOURS COLLECTIF : PROCHAINES ETAPES Note d'information
More informationChallenging Government decisions in the UK. An introduction to judicial review
Challenging Government decisions in the UK An introduction to judicial review Challenging Government decisions in the UK Further information If you would like further information on any aspect of challenging
More informationGeneral Pre-Action Protocol. Practice Direction on Protocols
General Pre-Action Protocol and Practice Direction on Protocols Response to Consultation [8 October 2008] 1 General Pre-Action Protocol and Practice Direction on Protocols Response to consultation carried
More informationTrans-national litigation: Dutch developments
Prof. Dr. Ianika N. Tzankova, NautaDutilh N.V./Tilburg University (TISCO) Trans-national litigation: Dutch developments 4th International Conference on the globalisation of class actions/fiu, Miami 10
More informationThe UK s proposals on post-brexit civil judicial co-operation common sense prevails
Brexit Law your business, the EU and the way ahead The UK s proposals on post-brexit civil judicial co-operation common sense prevails September 2017 Introduction The UK Government had a busy summer Parliamentary
More informationLitigation Strategies in Europe MIP Global IP & Innovation Summit
Litigation Strategies in Europe MIP Global IP & Innovation Summit Paul Brown, Partner, London 4 September 2013 What will this talk cover? What factors does a litigant need to consider when litigating patents
More informationRages, What are the Signs of Practical Progress?
227 Private Antitrust Damages in Europe: As the Policy Debate Rages, What are the Signs of Practical Progress? John Pheasant* European Commission s initiative In December 2005, the European Commission
More informationPrivate Enforcement of Competition Law Trials and Tribulations
Private Enforcement of Competition Law Trials and Tribulations November 3 2005 Private Enforcement in the European Union Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes has undertaken to publish a green paper on
More informationPossible models for the UK/EU relationship
Possible models for the UK/EU relationship This paper summarizes some potential alternative models for the UK s future relationship with the European Union, together with the key differences between the
More informationProposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Strasbourg, 11.6.2013 COM(2013) 404 final 2013/0185 (COD) C7-0170/13 Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on certain rules governing actions for damages
More informationAccess to the Legal Services Market Post-Brexit
1 Access to the Legal Services Market Post-Brexit Summary The UK legal services market generated 3.3bn of our net export revenue in 2015. More importantly, our exporters confidence in doing business abroad
More informationBrexit - impact on governing law and dispute resolution. Jef Swinnen Rachid El Abr 1
Brexit - impact on governing law and dispute resolution Jef Swinnen Rachid El Abr 1 In short Scope Legal instruments Major impact in practice? Applicable law EU Rome I and Rome II Regulations LIMITED Arbitration
More informationEnforcing International Arbitral Awards in the UAE and The DIFC Courts: A conduit jurisdiction
Enforcing International Arbitral Awards in the UAE and The DIFC Courts: A conduit jurisdiction Simon Roderick Yacine Francis April 2016 www.allenovery.com 2 Meeting you today Simon Roderick Partner Dubai
More informationCLASS ACTION DEVELOPMENTS IN EUROPE (April 2015) Stefaan Voet. Recommendation on Common Principles for Collective Redress Mechanisms
CLASS ACTION DEVELOPMENTS IN EUROPE (April 2015) Stefaan Voet Recommendation on Common Principles for Collective Redress Mechanisms In June 2013, the European Commission published its long-awaited Recommendation
More informationDamages Actions for Breach of the EC Antitrust Rules
European Commission DG Competition Unit A 5 Damages for breach of the antitrust rules B-1049 Brussels Stockholm, 14 July 2008 Damages Actions for Breach of the EC Antitrust Rules White Paper COM(2008)
More informationSubmission to Department of Justice & Equality on the Review of the Defamation Act 2009, December 2016
Submission to Department of Justice & Equality on the Review of the Defamation Act 2009, December 2016 Introduction The Department of Communications, Climate Action and the Environment welcomes this opportunity
More informationAlternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) In Chapter 36 of his Final Report Jackson LJ wrote:
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) In Chapter 36 of his Final Report Jackson LJ wrote: 4.2 I recommend that: (i) There should be a serious campaign (a) to ensure that all litigation lawyers and judges
More informationAlternative Dispute Resolution in England and Wales
Alternative Dispute Resolution in England and Wales October 2017 Contents Introduction 1 Support for ADR 2 Main features of ADR 4 Mediation 5 Other types of ADR 6 Timing 8 Cases suitable for ADR 9 Conclusion
More informationPresenting our Belgian Antitrust Litigation practice. Advising you on private enforcement.
Presenting our Belgian Antitrust Litigation practice Advising you on private enforcement 2 Presenting our Antitrust Litigation practice Private enforcement: a phenomenon on the rise Private enforcement
More informationFordham IP Conference 4-5 April 2013 Remedies session Laëtitia Bénard Cross-border injunctions for registered IP rights in Europe
Fordham IP Conference 4-5 April 2013 Remedies session Laëtitia Bénard Cross-border injunctions for registered IP rights in Europe 1 I. General rule for all IP rights: Brussels Regulation No 44/2001 A right
More informationEddy De Smijter (DG COMP) explained the set-up and the difference with previous consultations.
Group Action: A Necessity for Consumers Brussels, 15 November 2010 (Conference organized by BEUC 1 and Test-Achats 2 Conference in the framework of the current Belgian Presidency of the Council of the
More informationSUBMISSION OF THE SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION ON THE CONTRACT (THIRD PARTY RIGHTS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
SUBMISSION OF THE SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION ON THE CONTRACT (THIRD PARTY RIGHTS) (SCOTLAND) BILL Introduction The Scottish Law Commission was established in 1965 to make recommendations to government to
More informationIP & IT Bytes. Summary The Court of Appeal has confirmed the invalidity of a three-dimensional chocolate bar trade mark.
July 2017 IP & IT Bytes First published in the July 2017 issue of PLC Magazine and reproduced with the kind permission of the publishers. Subscription enquiries 020 7202 1200. Trade marks: Invalidity of
More informationDamages in Judicial Review: The Commercial Context
Damages in Judicial Review: The Commercial Context Further information If you would like further information on any aspect of Damages in Judicial Review please contact a person mentioned below or the person
More informationCompetition Law Newsletter. Settlement with the Competition Authority
Competition Law Newsletter Settlement with the Competition Authority October 2013 The main purpose of a settlement with the competition authority is an efficient conclusion of the procedure with considerable
More informationProposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
EN EN EN EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 14.12.2010 COM(2010) 748 final 2010/0383 (COD) Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement
More informationCONSULTATION ON COLLECTIVE REDRESS GREEK MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
CONSULTATION ON COLLECTIVE REDRESS GREEK MINISTRY OF JUSTICE Q 1 What added value would the introduction of new mechanisms of collective redress (injunctive and/or compensatory) have for the enforcement
More informationCollective Redress and Private International Law in the EU
Collective Redress and Private International Law in the EU Thijs Bosters Collective Redress and Private International Law in the EU 123 Thijs Bosters Supreme Court of the Netherlands The Hague The Netherlands
More informationCriminal liability of legal persons
Criminal liability of legal persons March 2016 The new Slovak legislation governing the criminal liability of legal persons will come into effect on 1 July 2016. Considering the extent of the new legislation,
More informationActions for damages under national law: Achieving compensation through an appropriately balanced system
31.10.2013 Actions for damages under national law: Achieving compensation through an appropriately balanced system Secretariat Point of Contact: Pierre Bouygues; pierre.bouygues @amchameu.eu; +32 (0)2
More informationTHE NEW EUROPEAN UNIFIED PATENT COURT & THE UNITARY PATENT
THE NEW EUROPEAN UNIFIED PATENT COURT & THE UNITARY PATENT November 2015 Washington Kevin Mooney Simmons & Simmons LLP The Current Problems with enforcement of European patents European Patent Convention
More informationBefore : MR JUSTICE LEWIS Between :
Neutral Citation Number: [2014] EWHC 4222 (Admin) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE COURT Case No: CO/8318/2013 Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Before
More informationCOMMENTARY. Pan-European Preliminary Injunctions in Patent Infringement Proceedings: Do We Still Need a European Unified Court System?
August 2012 JONES DAY COMMENTARY Pan-European Preliminary Injunctions in Patent Infringement Proceedings: Do We Still Need a European Unified Court System? The Court of Justice of the European Union (
More informationJurisdiction and Governing Law Rules in the European Union
2016 Jurisdiction and Governing Law Rules in the European Union Contents Introduction Recast Brussels Regulation (EU 1215/2012) Rome I Regulation (EC 593/2008) Rome II Regulation (EC 864/2007) Main exceptions
More informationEN United in diversity EN A8-0328/1. Amendment. Eleonora Evi, Laura Agea, Rosa D Amato on behalf of the EFDD Group
8.11.2017 A8-0328/1 1 Paragraph 14 14. Invites the Commission to improve transparency and access to documents and information with regard to the EU Pilot procedures in relation to petitions received and
More informationThe Unitary Patent Plan Beta Update on National Case Law in Europe
The Unitary Patent Plan Beta Update on National Case Law in Europe Leythem Wall 28 November 2013 Declarations of Non-Infringement Article 15 of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Agreement sets out the areas
More informationWill we soon have a single pan-european contract law?
22 November 2011 Joanna Page & Jason Rix Will we soon have a single pan-european contract law? 1 Route map 1. Setting the scene: What is it? Who is it for? Who can chose it? What is the scope? 2. The politics
More informationREPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 23.2.2012 COM(2012) 71 final REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the application of Directive
More informationICC INTRODUCES FAST-TRACK ARBITRATION PROCEDURE AND BOLSTERS TRANSPARENCY
The latest Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) entered into force on 1 March 2017 (the 2017 Rules). New provisions are aimed at reducing the cost and increasing the transparency
More informationEnglish jurisdiction clauses should commercial parties change their approach?
Brexit legal consequences for commercial parties English jurisdiction clauses should commercial parties change their approach? February 2016 Issue in focus In our first Specialist paper on the legal consequences
More informationJapan amends its Commercial Arbitration Rules
1 Japan amends its Commercial Arbitration Rules Briefing note 14 May 2014 Japan amends its Commercial Arbitration Rules Japan is known, at least in academic circles, as a country of low "litigiousness".
More informationFirst-tier complaints handling
First-tier complaints handling Requirements under s 112(2) of the Legal Services Act 2007 Guidance on first-tier complaint handling May 2010 Decision document Contents Executive summary... 3 Legal framework...
More informationEnforcement of U.S. Court Judgments and Arbitral Awards in England
Commercial Litigation and International Arbitration Client Service Group From Bryan Cave, London September 2011 Enforcement of U.S. Court Judgments and Arbitral Awards in England 1) U.S. (and Foreign)
More informationCO3/09/2004/ext/CN. COM (2004) 503 final. Introduction
EUROPEAN COUNCIL ON REFUGEES AND EXILES CONSEIL EUROPEEN SUR LES REFUGIES ET LES EXILES CO3/09/2004/ext/CN Comments of the European Council on Refugees and Exiles on the Communication from the Commission
More informationTackling Exploitation in the Labour Market Response to the Department of Business Innovation & Skills and Home Office consultation December 2015
Tackling Exploitation in the Labour Market Response to the Department of Business Innovation & Skills and Home Office consultation December 2015 Introduction 1. The Law Society of England and Wales ("the
More informationOmnibus accounts in Poland new solutions available to foreign investors and custodians
Briefing note December 2011 Omnibus accounts in Poland new solutions available to foreign investors and custodians On 16 September 2011, the Act Amending the Act on Trading in Financial Instruments and
More informationREPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS
EN EN EN EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 21.12.2010 COM(2010) 802 final REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF
More informationIP & IT Bytes. November Patents: jurisdiction and declaratory relief
November 2016 IP & IT Bytes First published in the November 2016 issue of PLC Magazine and reproduced with the kind permission of the publishers. Subscription enquiries 020 7202 1200. Patents: jurisdiction
More informationGuide to the Patents County Court Small Claims Track
Guide to the Patents County Court Small Claims Track 1. General 1.1. Introduction This Guide applies to the small claims track within the Patents County Court (PCC). It is written for all users of the
More informationData Protection Bill: Collective Redress
Bill Committee Evidence Data Protection Bill: Collective Redress Which? is the largest consumer organisation in the UK with more than 1.7 million members and supporters. We operate as an independent, a-political,
More informationDispute Resolution Around the World. Germany
Dispute Resolution Around the World Germany Dispute Resolution Around the World Germany 2011 Dispute Resolution Around the World Germany Table of Contents 1. Legal System... 1 2. Courts... 1 3. Legal
More information[340] COUNCIL REGULATION 44/2001/EC ( BRUSSELS II )
[340] COUNCIL REGULATION 44/2001/EC ( BRUSSELS II ) 4. Council Regulation 44/2001/EC of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters
More informationRisk and Return. Foreign Direct Investment and the Rule of Law. Briefing Note
Risk and Return Foreign Direct Investment and the Rule of Law Briefing Note Risk and Return Foreign Direct Investment and the Rule of Law 3 Briefing Note Background and objectives The Economist Intelligence
More informationProposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 26.7.2013 COM(2013) 554 final 2013/0268 (COD) Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 on jurisdiction
More informationApril 30, The Sections of Antitrust Law and International Law (the Sections ) of the American
COMMENTS OF THE ABA SECTIONS OF ANTITRUST LAW AND INTERNATIONAL LAW TO THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION STAFF S WORKING DOCUMENT: TOWARDS A COHERENT EUROPEAN APPROACH TO COLLECTIVE REDRESS April 30, 2011 The views
More informationEnglish Law, UK Courts and UK Legal Services after Brexit
English Law, UK Courts and UK Legal Services after Brexit The View beyond 2019 English Law, UK Courts and UK Legal Services after Brexit Contents Contents Introduction and Key Points 2 The advantages of
More informationConsultation Response
Consultation Response The Scotland Bill Consultation on Draft Order in Council for the Transfer of Specified Functions of the Employment Tribunal to the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland The Law Society
More informationWhat future for unilateral dispute resolution clauses?
What future for unilateral dispute resolution clauses? 1 Briefing note October 2012 What future for unilateral dispute resolution clauses? It is common practice to insert into contracts unilateral choice-of-court
More informationAsylum Support Partnership response to Oversight of the Immigration Advice Sector consultation
Asylum Support Partnership response to Oversight of the Immigration Advice Sector consultation August 2009 About the Asylum Support Partnership The Asylum Support Partnership (ASP) consists of five lead
More informationEuropean Regulation on the freezing of bank accounts
European Regulation on the freezing of bank accounts November 2016 OVERVIEW From 18 January 2017 claimants will be able to apply for a European Account Preservation Order (EAPO), a new, and potentially
More informationPatent Litigation in China & Amicus Curiae in the U.S. William (Skip) Fisher Partner, Shanghai. EPLAW Congress, 22 November 2013
Patent Litigation in China & Amicus Curiae in the U.S. William (Skip) Fisher Partner, Shanghai EPLAW Congress, 22 November 2013 What I will cover Considerations for patent litigation in China Anatomy of
More informationThe Czech Ministry of Interior produced a draft Act in preparation of a no-deal Brexit, which was approved by the government on 7 January 2019.
British Citizens and EU Member State Immigration Policy Preparing for a no-deal Brexit On Tuesday 15 January 2019 Members of Parliament (MPs) rejected the Withdrawal Agreement negotiated between the British
More informationCOMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
EN EN EN COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, COM(2008) XXXX 2008/xxxx (COD) Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the application of the principle of equal
More informationCOMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 18.7.2003 COM(2003) 443 final 2003/0162 (COD) Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on cooperation between national authorities
More informationList of Authors... xiii. List of Abbreviations... xv. Acknowledgements...xvii
CONTENTS List of Authors... xiii List of Abbreviations... xv Acknowledgements...xvii V. Harsági and C.H. van Rhee COLLECTIVE REDRESS IN THE EUROPE UNION COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES... xix PART I: EU & USA
More informationSUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 14.12.2010 SEC(2010) 1548 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMT Accompanying document to the Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMT
More informationBefore: THE HON. MR JUSTICE ROTH (President) PROFESSOR COLIN MAYER CBE CLARE POTTER. Sitting as a Tribunal in England and Wales.
Neutral citation [2017] CAT 27 IN THE COMPETITION APPEAL TRIBUNAL Case No: 1266/7/7/16 Victoria House Bloomsbury Place London WC1A 2EB 23 November 2017 Before: THE HON. MR JUSTICE ROTH (President) PROFESSOR
More informationStatutory adjudication
Statutory adjudication 2017 A brief overview of statutory adjudication What is statutory adjudication? Statutory adjudication is adjudication which takes place under Part II of the Housing Grants, Construction
More informationEEA and Swiss national. Children and their rights to British citizenship
EEA and Swiss national Children and their rights to British citizenship April 2019 Please note: The information set out here does not cover all the circumstances in which a child born to a European Economic
More informationBACKGROUND BRIEFING FOR A REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE IN JERSEY
1 Jersey Law Commission BACKGROUND BRIEFING FOR A REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE IN JERSEY Professor Andrew Le Sueur May 2015 This briefing paper outlines a review of the provision of administrative
More informationDamages United Kingdom perspective
Damages United Kingdom perspective Laura Whiting Young EPLAW Congress Brussels - 28 April 2014 Statutory basis Patents Act 1977, s 61(1) " civil proceedings may be brought in the court by the proprietor
More informationPrivate enforcement of EU competition law
Private enforcement of EU competition law Guidelines on passing-on of overcharges The views expressed are purely those of the speakers and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
More informationThe CPI Antitrust Journal May 2010 (2) Private Litigation in England and Wales
The CPI Antitrust Journal May 2010 (2) Private Litigation in England and Wales Renato Nazzini University of Southampton & Bonelli Erede Pappalardo, LLP www.competitionpolicyinternational.com Competition
More informationThe Experience of Western Europe
Class Actions - The Experience of Western Europe Dr. Thomas Fausten PIU - POLSKA IZBA UBEZPIECZEN Warszawa 8 June 2010 Thomas Fausten (23.04.2010) (28.05.2010) I. Definitions Before you discuss matters,
More informationProposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 2.3.2016 COM(2016) 107 final 2016/0060 (CNS) Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION on jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters
More information2. The CNUE welcomes the specification of the material scope in the main body of the Regulation.
CNUE position on the draft reports presented by the rapporteurs from the Committees on Legal Affairs (JURI) and Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) on the Commission s proposal for a Regulation
More informationCOMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL. Adapting the common visa policy to new challenges
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 14.3.2018 COM(2018) 251 final COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Adapting the common visa policy to new challenges EN EN 1. INTRODUCTION
More informationThis document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents
2001R0044 EN 09.07.2013 010.001 1 This document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents B COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December
More information