JŠK Legal Flash
Latest news regarding the remuneration of corporate body members elected by the general meeting
In recent months, the Supreme Court followed up on its previous case law on the approval of remuneration to a member of a body elected by a company's general meeting when it confirmed (i) that the remuneration for complying with the non-compete obligation after leaving office is subject to general meeting approval (27 Cdo 4503/2018), and (ii) the right of the general meeting to award remuneration in excess of that agreed in the executive service agreement or without meeting the conditions set out therein (27 Cdo 372/2019).
Transformation to Employment Relationship of Indefinite Duration
The Supreme Court recently held that if an employer expressly prohibits an employee from working after the termination of employment or otherwise indicates to them that it does not agree with their further performance of work or does not express such consent due to an error caused by the employee wherein the employee continues to work, such employment cannot be transformed to the employment relationship of indefinite duration within the meaning of Section 65 (2) of the Labour Code. Nevertheless, if the employee continues to perform their work after the termination of the employment with the employer's acknowledgment for the purpose of the completion of specific work considering his previous above-standard relations with the employer, there will be no automatic transformation to the employment relationship of indefinite duration without verification of the will of the parties.
(Judgment of the Supreme Court No. 21 Cdo 2866/2018 of 15 April 2020)
Is a folding bike a copyright work of its designer?
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled on the protection of the legendary British bicycle Brompton, whose special feature is the ability to quickly fold and be easily transported anywhere. The patent protection on the technical design of the popular bike has expired, so there is now nothing to prevent the competition from using it on its bikes. The manufacturer is now citing copyright in its defence against imitators, claiming that the Brompton bicycle is a work of applied art. Although the CJEU has not stated unequivocally whether a bicycle is a copyright work or not, it has stated with certainty that the design of a product may be protected by copyright, even if the author was guided by technical considerations when creating it. It left to the national court to determine whether the design in this case was predestined by the bicycle's technical function, or whether the designer had at least some creative freedom. It will examine this question with the help of experts.