Introduction
A third guidance note on the use of remote hearings for civil proceedings took effect on 2 January 2021. The guidance note (representing Phase 3) provides for wider use of videoconferencing facilities and telephone hearings with respect to all levels of civil courts in Hong Kong (including the Competition, Labour and Small Claims Tribunals). In particular, Phase 3 is more comprehensive and provides more options for connecting with the courts videoconferencing facilities – for example, in addition to the use of the courts hardware or software videoconferencing options (under Phases 1 and 2), Phase 3 provides for a lower cost browser-based videoconferencing option.
Phase 1 and 2 guidance notes
Introduction
In the Netherlands the general discovery trial is an unknown phenomenon. However, certain documents may be obtained pursuant to Article 843a of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (DCCP). This article outlines how this procedure works.(1)
Pursuant to Article 843a of the DCCP, a party with a legitimate interest may request from another party a copy, extract or inspection of certain documents regarding a legal relationship to which it or its predecessor is a party. A party may submit the claim during pending proceedings or in separate proceedings. Article 843a of the DCCP lays down three requirements that need to be fulfilled before the court will uphold the claim for disclosure.
Decisions
The Hungarian Intellectual Property Office (HIPO) rejected the application, referring to the European Court of Justice s (ECJ s)
Biomild judgment (C-265/00), which held that the combination of several elements which are not distinctive does not result in a distinctive sign. However, a non-distinctive sign can acquire distinctiveness. In this respect, the HIPO referred to the ECJ s
Chiemsee judgments (C-108/97 and C109/97), which define the conditions for acquiring distinctiveness, and held that the documents filed by the applicant were insufficient to prove the distinctiveness acquired.
The applicant requested a review by the Metropolitan Tribunal, but this was unsuccessful. The tribunal held that the registration of non-Hungarian words must be refused if their Hungarian meaning is not distinctive. This is the standard approach demonstrated in the case law of the Supreme Court (3. Pk. 23.534/2017).
Introduction
The United Kingdom and the European Union have published their Trade and Cooperation Agreement, alongside a summary issued by the UK government and an explanatory brochure from the EU Commission. This article assesses the implications that the deal might have for employment law.
As predicted, in return for a tariff and quota-free trade deal, the United Kingdom has agreed that it will not reduce employment law rights below the standards that existed on 31 December 2020 – but only if this affects trade or investment. The United Kingdom is free to choose to diverge from future EU employment laws but the European Union may, within certain constraints and subject to an arbitration process, apply rebalancing measures if it obtains proof of a material impact on trade or investment.
Facts
The Al-Salam Boccaccio 98 was a ro-ro passenger ferry that sank in February 2006 in the Red Sea while en route from Saudi Arabia to Egypt, resulting in the death of 1,031 people and the total loss of the vessel (for further details please see Immunity of jurisdiction defence rejected in compensation claim ).
At the time of the accident, the vessel was registered under the flag of Panama and classed by the Italian company Rina, which had also issued the relevant statutory certificates on behalf of the flag state, acting as their recognised organisation.
Survivors and relatives of the deceased persons involved in the accident had brought different proceedings before the Genoa Tribunal, the place in which Rina has its seat, claiming damages resulting from the classification and certification activity carried out by Rina on behalf of Panama, the flag state of the Al-Salam Boccaccio 98. Both the tribunal and the Genoa Court of Appeal had granted the lack of jurisdiction of the I