JŠK Legal Flash
The Chamber of Deputies passed a bill known as Lex Covid. What measures have been prepared for corporations?
The impossibility of holding meetings of corporate bodies, especially supreme ones, was identified as the main problem during the preparation of the bill. The solution, according to Lex Covid, will be to allow decision-making by means of the use of appropriate technical facilities or correspondence voting (per rollam) even in cases where such decision-making is not allowed in the founding legal act, for the duration of the government measures. In addition, the offices of members of elected bodies will be automatically extended (if the members do not express their disagreement), and for capital companies and cooperatives the deadline for discussing the ordinary financial statements will be extended, in both cases by up to three months after the end of the government measures (for discussing the ordinary financial statements no later than 31 December 2020).
Providing short-term leases combined with ancillary services may be qualified as hospitality business
The Supreme Administrative Court recently held that short-term leases combined with ancillary services (e.g. cleaning, boat rental, providing bed sheets or wood) should be judged according to its subject-matter as concluding accommodation contracts, not lease contracts for an apartment or building that are intended to secure housing. As a consequence, this conclusion means that the providers of such leases must have a requisite trade licence and must duly designate leased real estate as business premises. This ruling may be relevant to the regulation of the so-called shared economy in the area of real estate (such as Airbnb).
(Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court No. 3 As 360/2017 of 14 January 2020)
Are pay for delay agreements anticompetitive?
On 30 January 2020, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) issued its long-awaited assessment under competition law of pay for delay deals in the pharmaceutical industry. A drug's original developer and generics manufacturers commonly conclude such agreements in patent dispute settlements, where the parties agree to end the dispute in return for holding off on marketing a competitor's generic drug.
The ECJ assessed that a patent holder and a producer of generics could be considered potential competitors, even if they are not both on the market. It also clarified that patent dispute settlements as such are not anticompetitive. However, postponing the market entry has only a commercial purpose and is therefore more likely to be seen as anticompetitive and may also result in abuse of a dominant position.