Insolvency of the Natural Person and COVID 19 in Romania

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 563-574
Author(s):  
Lavinia-Olivia Iancu
Keyword(s):  
Natural Law ◽  
Financial Difficulty ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Natural Person ◽  
The Law ◽  
Difficult Situations ◽  
Legal Entities

Considering that since 2009 draft normative acts have been submitted to the Romanian Parliament, for regulating the insolvency of the natural person, the adoption of the law into 2015 and the entry into force in 2018 represents an indisputable progress but also an entry into normality in the context that all EU member states already had legislation in this area. Three years after the entry into force of the insolvency of the natural law, we can say that the results anticipated by the legislator are far from the reality. The year 2020 characterised by the devastating effects of COVID 19, affected both individuals and legal entities. If the impossibility of overcoming difficult situations by legal entities leads to their deregistration, as far as natural persons are concerned, their disappearance due to the difficulties cannot be taken into account, they must continue their existence with overcoming the situation. Accessing the insolvency procedure of the natural persons is the solution that can be accessed by those in financial difficulty. Keywords: insolvency; natural person; COVID 19.

scholarly journals Features of transformation of legal entities in the conditions of Brexit

2021 ◽  
pp. 531-538
Author(s):  
Olha Ovechkina
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
The State ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Actual Location ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Legal Entities

In connection with the decision to withdraw the UK from the EU a number of companies will need to take into account that from 1 January 2021 EU law will no longer apply to the United Kingdom and will become a "third country" for EU Member States, unless the provisions of bilateral agreements or multilateral trade agreements. This means that the four European freedoms (movement of goods, services, labor and capital) will no longer apply to UK companies to the same extent as they did during the UK's EU membership. The purpose of the article is to study, first of all, the peculiarities of the influence of Great Britain's withdrawal from the European Union on the legal regulation of the status of European legal entities. Brexit results in the inability to register European companies and European economic interest groups in the UK. Such companies already registered before 01.01.2021 have the opportunity to move their place of registration to an EU Member State. These provisions are defined in Regulations 2018 (2018/1298) and Regulations 2018 (2018/1299).British companies with branches in EU Member States will now be subject to the rules applicable to third-country companies, which provide additional information on their activities. In the EU, many countries apply the criterion of actual location, which causes, among other things, the problem of non-recognition of legal entities established in the country where the criterion of incorporation is used (including the United Kingdom), at the same time as the governing bodies of such legal entities the state where the settlement criterion is applied. Therefore, to reduce the likelihood of possible non-recognition of British companies, given the location of the board of such a legal entity in the state where the residency criterion applies, it seems appropriate to consider reincarnation at the actual location of such a company. Reducing the risks of these negative consequences in connection with Brexit on cross-border activities of legal entities is possible by concluding interstate bilateral and multilateral agreements that would contain unified rules on conflict of law regulation of the status of legal entities.

scholarly journals The European Union and Migration: An Interplay of National, Regional, and International Law

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 111 ◽  
pp. 509-513
Author(s):  
Iris Goldner Lang
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Global Migration ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Law ◽  
Migration Law ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Third Country Nationals

If global migration law “includes all levels of the law,” then the European Union represents the most developed instance of the interplay of national, regional, and international law. Migration law in the European Union involves the interaction of EU Member States’ national laws, EU regional law, and international law. This complex interchange of different migratory legal regimes is the consequence of diverse, and sometimes conflicting, objectives and interests of the Union and its Member States, and the nature of EU law itself. This essay explores the impact of these three levels of the law on the four migratory regulatory categories—EU citizens, “desirable” third-country nationals, asylum seekers, and all other third-country nationals—and the three objectives associated with these categories. The predominance of one legal regime over another varies depending on the regulatory category of migrants and the objectives associated therewith. While describing the existing legal systems, the essay outlines their attributes and shortcomings, the most prominent being: a clear rift between the rights granted to EU citizens and to third-country nationals; EU Member States’ determination to reserve to their respective national territories a high level of national control over labor migration; and significant deficiencies of the EU asylum law which were brought to the surface by the recent refugee influx into the EU.

London is in strong position to keep euro-clearing

2017 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
European Commission ◽  
International Business ◽  
Euro Area ◽  
Member States ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Strong Position ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Eu

Subject London euro-clearing post-Brexit. Significance The European Commission released draft legislation on June 13 proposing the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) supervise non-EU-based clearing houses that are deemed systemically important, in effect giving the EU the power to insist euro-clearing remains in the bloc after Brexit. On June 23, the ECB proposed a “significantly enhanced” role for the ECB in euro-clearing. Forcing euro-clearing into the euro-area shows the bloc puts protecting its own interests before globalisation, also suggesting that the post-Brexit EU may increasingly prioritise political imperatives over economic ones, and become less open to international business. Impacts The draft law will affect New York and Tokyo, which will gain from London if European finance becomes more fragmented. If passed, the law will give the ESMA strong powers to determine the geography of EU finance. Such political direction could cause tensions as not all EU member states are likely to welcome it.

WHERE THE LAW BECOMES IRRELEVANT: CONSULAR ASSISTANCE AND THE EUROPEAN UNION

2011 ◽  
Vol 60 (4) ◽  
pp. 965-995 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annemarieke Vermeer-Künzli
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
International Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Eu

AbstractIn recent years, the European Union (‘eu’) has taken a number of initiatives with a view to co-ordinating consular assistance in third countries. Not only have EU citizens an entitlement to consular assistance by any EU Member State in the absence of a representation of their own, but EU Member States themselves are encouraged to co-operate by means of the Lead State Concept and other forms of co-operation. While this may seem relatively unproblematic from the perspective of the EU, it is very difficult to reconcile with general international law. The various EU agreements in this area have no application to third States: some do not have legally binding form and even those that do only apply to the parties to the treaties, ie EU Member States. This article will present the situation, analyse its complexities and offer some reflections on the global application and desirability of the regime created by the EU.

scholarly journals The protection of customer personal data as an element of entrepreneurs’ ethical conduct

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (7) ◽  
pp. 27-44
Author(s):  
Ewa Kulesza
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Business Practices ◽  
Process Data ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Eu Directive ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

The right to the protection of personal data, which is part of the right to privacy, is a fundamental human right. Thus, its guarantees were included in the high-level regulations of the European Union as well as the legal norms of the EU Member States. The first Polish law regulating the protection of personal data was adopted in 1997 as the implementation of EU Directive 95/46. The law imposed a number of obligations on public and private entities which process personal data in order to protect the rights of data subjects and, in particular, to guarantee them the ability to control the correctness of processing of their personal data. Therefore, the law obliged data controllers to process data only on the basis of the premises indicated in the legislation, to adequately secure data, and to comply with the disclosure obligation concerning data subjects, including their right to correct false or outdated data or to request removal of data processed in violation of the law. However, as complaints directed by citizens to the supervisory body—the Inspector General for Personal Data Protection—showed, personal data controllers, especially those operating in the private sector, did not comply with the law, acting in a manner that violated their customers’ rights. In the hitherto existing unfair business practices of entrepreneurs, the violations of the data protection provisions that were the most burdensome for customers were related to preventing them from exercising their rights, including the right to control the processing of data, as well as the failure to provide the controller’s business address, which made it impossible for subjects whose data were used in violation of the law or for the inspecting authorities to contact the company, a lack of data security and a failure to follow the procedures required by law, the failure to secure documents containing personal data or their abandonment, a lack of updating customer data, the use of unverified data sets and sending marketing offers to deceased people or incorrect target recipients, and excessive amounts of data requested by controllers. The violations of the rights of data subjects recorded in Poland and other EU Member States—among other arguments—provided inspiration for the preparation of a new legal act in the form of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (which entered into force on 25 May 2018). The extension of the rights of people whose data are processed was combined in the GDPR with the introduction of new legal instruments disciplining data controllers. Instruments in the form of administrative fines and the strongly emphasised possibility to demand compensation for a violation of the right to data protection were directed in particular against economic entities violating the law.

NEKOLIKO NAPOMENA O UGOVORU O TRGOVINSKOM ZASTUPANjU IZ UGLA MEĐUNARODNOG PRIVATNOG PRAVA SRBIJE

2021 ◽  
pp. 3-16
Author(s):  
Slavko Đorđević ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Mandatory Rules ◽  
The Law ◽  
Agency Contract ◽  
Conflict Of Law

This paper analyzes the influence of mandatory rules of EU Member States on commercial agent’s right to indemnity/compensation (which come from Art. 17 and 18 of Directive 86/653/EEC) on determining the law applicable to commercial agency contract in accordance with the conflict-of-law rules of Serbian Private International Act as well as on jurisdiction (prorogation) clause in favor of Serbian courts. Considering that these mandatory rules are usually classified as overriding mandatory rules which apply irrespective of which law is applicable to an agency contract, the author analyzes two situations in which their application can emerge: the first situation relates to the cases in which a principal has seat in EU Member State and an agent has seat in Serbia; the second situation relates to the cases in which a principal has seat in Serbia and an agent has seat in EU Member State. After that, author explains that the courts of EU Member States dismiss the jurisdiction clauses by which the courts of non-Member States have been prorogated, if these courts would not apply the rules which secure the same or similar level of protection for commercial agents as those of Directive 86/653/EEC. Bearing this in mind, author also analyzes whether the courts of EU Member States would recognize the effects of prorogation of Serbian courts in such cases

scholarly journals Ways to resolve conflicting issues of the status of legal entities in EU law and in the legislation of some of its member states

2020 ◽  
pp. 392-398
Author(s):  
Olga Ovechkina
Keyword(s):  
Legal Status ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Member States ◽  
Legal Entity ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Eu Directive ◽  
The Status ◽  
Personal Law ◽  
Legal Entities

entities in EU member states.Many EU Member States use two criteria for determining the personal law of a legal entity: the settlement criterion and the incorporationcriterion. However, the application of the theory of settlement in determining the personal law (statute) of a legal entity actuallyimpedes the implementation of the principle of freedom of establishment contained in the TFEU, as the relocation of control centers ofthe legal entity to the state where the theory of settlement is applied. loss of legal personality of a legal entity. This position is based onthe case law of the Court of Justice. In addition, the application of the theory of settlement and incorporation significantly complicates the process of regulating theactivities of legal entities and slows down the development of the single market in the EU.The experience of European countries in drafting an international treaty containing norms on unified legal regulation of the statusof legal entities has not proved effective. The EU has chosen other mechanisms for resolving conflicting issues of legal status of legalentities, namely: harmonization of national laws of EU member states on certain issues of legal status and activities of legal entities, aswell as the creation of new organizational and legal forms of legal entities. This partially overcomes certain issues of conflict-of-lawregulation of the status of legal entities, for example, the issue of cross-border movement of European companies, European cooperatives;in accordance with EU Directive 2019/2121, the rules of the laws of the Member States on cross-border transformation, mergersand divisions of limited liability companies should be harmonized.

scholarly journals Ways to resolve conflicting issues of the status of legal entities in EU law and in the legislation of some of its member states

2020 ◽  
pp. 392-398
Author(s):  
Olga Ovechkina
Keyword(s):  
Legal Status ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Member States ◽  
Legal Entity ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Eu Directive ◽  
The Status ◽  
Personal Law ◽  
Legal Entities

entities in EU member states.Many EU Member States use two criteria for determining the personal law of a legal entity: the settlement criterion and the incorporationcriterion. However, the application of the theory of settlement in determining the personal law (statute) of a legal entity actuallyimpedes the implementation of the principle of freedom of establishment contained in the TFEU, as the relocation of control centers ofthe legal entity to the state where the theory of settlement is applied. loss of legal personality of a legal entity. This position is based onthe case law of the Court of Justice. In addition, the application of the theory of settlement and incorporation significantly complicates the process of regulating theactivities of legal entities and slows down the development of the single market in the EU.The experience of European countries in drafting an international treaty containing norms on unified legal regulation of the statusof legal entities has not proved effective. The EU has chosen other mechanisms for resolving conflicting issues of legal status of legalentities, namely: harmonization of national laws of EU member states on certain issues of legal status and activities of legal entities, aswell as the creation of new organizational and legal forms of legal entities. This partially overcomes certain issues of conflict-of-lawregulation of the status of legal entities, for example, the issue of cross-border movement of European companies, European cooperatives;in accordance with EU Directive 2019/2121, the rules of the laws of the Member States on cross-border transformation, mergersand divisions of limited liability companies should be harmonized.

scholarly journals UTILITY MODEL PROTECTION - TRENDS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION AND CHALLENGES FOR UKRAINE

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Юрій Капіца
Keyword(s):  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Technical Solution ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Utility Model ◽  
Animal Cells ◽  
Member States ◽  
Inventive Step ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Eu

The issue of utility model (UM) protection in Ukraine in1993–2020 and the practice of the EU Member–States is considered. It is noted theproblem of UM trolling and exceeding the number of applications in Ukraine for UM in comparison with inventions. It is associated with the expansion in 2003 of the UM object in addition to the device also to a process, substance, microorganism strain, plant or animal cells culture and limiting the criterion of patentability only to the requirementnovelty and industrial applicability.It is concluded that the adoption of the Law of 21.07.2020 № 816-IX is an important step to limit patent trolling. The Law provides for exclusion from the protection of the substance and the introduction of post grant opposition in the Appellate Chamber.However the Law does not solve the problem of patent trolling at the customs border and did not exclude process from the protection. Also there will still be the problem at the courts as well Appellate Chamber to declare a utility model invalid if the UM is a new but obvious technical solution due to the lack of inventive step requirement or lower requirements for inventive step.The peculiarities of the protection of the utility model in the 15 old EU member states and the United Kingdom are analyzed. It is shown the tendency to increase level of protection of UM in the EU. In 6 EU countries there is no UM protection. In 5 there is an inventive step requirement. In 2 countries protection is possible only for three-dimensional objects (Italy, Greece). In 2 countries (Finland, Spain) - lower requirements for the inventive step.The directions of change of UM legislation in Ukraine are substantiated, including: Option 1: cancellation of protection of UM taking into account experience of Luxembourg, Sweden, Great Britain, Belgium, the Netherlands.Option 2: introduction of protection only for three-dimensional UM (protection is not provided to the method, substances, biotechnological inventions). Establishment of the criterion of inventive step the same as for inventions. Determination of mandatory examination of compliancewith the criteria of patentability (novelty, inventive step, industrial applicability) before the enforcement of UM in the courts, customs, Antimonopoly Committee.Option 3. Definition of protection of utility model as a form of protection of the invention with similar requirements as in option 2.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document