On 4 December 2020 the Office for the Protection of Competition (the office) announced in a press release(1) that it had imposed a Kc32 million (approximately €1.2 million) fine on Czech retail chain HRUŠKA, spol sro for an alleged abuse of significant market power. The decision is not final and an appeal has been filed.
According to the press release, the retail chain allegedly violated the Significant Market Power Act (SMPA) by fully transferring all business risks and losses associated with the sale of goods nearing their expiration date to dozens of its suppliers between 2016 and 2019. The retail chain was said to have provided its suppliers with a so-called full service , within which it demanded that suppliers reduce the price of goods already in stock if their expiration date was near. If these goods were not sold before the expiration date, a corrective invoice was issued to suppliers. As a result, suppliers had to return part of the money for the goods to the retail cha
The Royal Court recently handed down judgment in
In the matter of CanArgo Limited (in liquidation) ([2020] GRC064), bringing to an end an important chapter in a long-running dispute regarding control of the exploration and exploitation of the oil and gas reserves of Georgia. This judgment makes it clear that liquidators can approach the court to approve a significant decision that they have taken to enter into a transaction and that such decision is akin to a
Public Trustee v Cooper blessing of a momentous decision in a trusts context. While the court will not allow liquidators to surrender their decision-making powers to the court, especially in a commercial context, it does have a supervisory jurisdiction over its officers and is available to bless the decision that the liquidators have taken even in the face of opposition from creditors.
Introduction
In recent years there has been a remarkable effort to make Greece an attractive destination for the production of audiovisual works (eg, films, TV series and video games). The most important initiatives in this respect are:
the cash rebate state aid scheme, which covers 40% of eligible production costs; and
the tax relief incentive, which covers 30% of eligible production costs.
An audiovisual work may qualify for both the cash rebate scheme and the tax relief,(1) provided that this complies with the EU Block Exemption Regulation (651/2014).
This article provides a brief outline of the above incentives.
Cash rebate scheme
The cash rebate scheme has attracted several investments since its creation. According to the National Centre of Audiovisual Media and Communications (EKOME):
gold.
For instance, smartphones and electric vehicles are powered by rechargeable lithium-ion batteries, a component of which is cobalt. According to the African Natural Resources Centre of the African Development Bank, minerals account for an average of 70% of total African exports and approximately 28% of gross domestic product, and the potential for growth is immense. The Democratic Republic of Congo alone concentrates more than 50% of the world s cobalt reserves.
Against this background, some states and state-owned counterparts of mining investors in Africa have, in recent years, taken a series of measures perceived by investors as an attempt to force them to renegotiate their long-term agreements.
In
Halliburton Company v Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd,(1) the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the Court of Appeal s decision to dismiss an application to remove an arbitrator on the grounds of apparent bias. The Supreme Court confirmed the Court of Appeal s decision that arbitrators are under a duty to disclose appointments in references concerning the same or overlapping subject matter with a common party, although the Supreme Court s reasoning differed. On the facts of this case, while the Supreme Court found that the arbitrator had breached his disclosure obligations, it further held that an objective observer would not have justifiable doubts as to the arbitrator s impartiality.