bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Trade Mark Law in Europe
Authors: Mühlendahl Alexander , Botis Dimitris , Maniatis Spyros , Wiseman Imogen 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
In light of the ever-growing and developing jurisprudence of the Court of Justice and the General Court, and forthcoming substantive and systemic changes to the law, there is a need for a fresh and practical approach to the procedure and case law of trade marks in Europe. Trade Mark Law in Europe is a comprehensive guide to European trade mark law following the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the case law of the General Court. It provides a wide-ranging overview of the trade mark system, including detailed and critical discussion of forthcoming changes, as well as an in-depth look at the life of a trade mark up to enforcement. It considers the conditions for maintaining a registration, the protection and enforcement of trade marks, and the interface between trade mark law and other areas of practice. Finally, it offers detailed and insightful analysis of current developments, challenges, and opportunities. This is complemented by an international and comparative approach which selectively considers the contemporary jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the United States and general US practice, as well as national jurisprudence in areas not yet covered by the CJEU. Written by highly-regarded authors with considerable expertise across a range of constituencies, Trade Marks in Europe is a timely and important study of this complex and challenging area of law.
International Jurisdiction
Authors: Bork Reinhard , Mangano Renato 
Published: March 2021

AbstractThis chapter examines the contents of Arts. 3-6 EIR in order to answer the following questions: which Member States have international jurisdiction; has the seized court a power and a duty to examine jurisdiction; might a creditor challenge this choice; does the jurisdiction of the seized court extend to so-called connected actions, i.e. to actions directly deriving from the insolvency proceeding and closely linked with it? For this purpose, the concept and rationale of the centre of a debtor’s main interests (COMI) is analysed, as well as the power and duty of the seized courts to examine jurisdiction. This chapter also focuses on the increasingly popular phenomenon of ‘forum shopping’, and on the theoretical and practical attempts to distinguish between forum shopping which is compliant with the acquis communautaire on the freedom of establishment across Europe and forum shopping which is fraudulent.
Recognition and Enforcement
Authors: Bork Reinhard , Mangano Renato 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
Automatic recognition of judgments rendered within the course of insolvency proceedings constitutes one of the fundamental principles of the EIR, as recognition is based on mutual trust and is crucial regarding maintenance of the universality of (main) insolvency proceedings. This chapter scrutinizes the mechanism through which recognition operates pursuant to the EIR. Recognition applies only to certain judgments handed down during insolvency proceedings; therefore, we must determine which types of judgment enjoy recognition pursuant to the EIR. Discussion then focuses on the impact of recognizing foreign judgments before exploring the public policy exception, this being the only ground upon which refusal of recognition may be based. As enforcement of judgments in foreign Member States may be necessary, the manner in which the EIR ensures the enforceability of judgments handed down during insolvency proceedings will also be observed.
Sweden
Authors: Häger Johan , Hanqvist Dan , Mahir Harem , Moskowicz Mattias 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
The material contained herein is intended as a general guide only. The information and opinions which it contains are not intended to be a memorandum of law study, nor to provide legal advice, and should not be treated as a substitute for legal advice concerning particular situations. Legal advice should always be sought before taking any action based on the information provided. The publishers, editors, and authors bear no responsibility for any errors or omissions contained therein.
The Rule in Hastings-Bass, Mistake, and Rectification
Authors: Panico Paolo 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
Things may go wrong. A settlor may create a trust mistakenly believing that the arrangement will achieve certain results. Trustees may exercise their dispositive powers mistakenly believing to provide for the beneficiaries in a certain manner. Alternatively, trustees may exercise their powers failing to take into account relevant considerations they ought to have paid attention to, or taking into account irrelevant considerations they ought to have disregarded. Finally, the documents recording the relevant transactions, such as a trust instrument or an instrument of appointment, may contain words with a different meaning to what the parties intended.
Duty To Exercise Reasonable Care, Skill, and Diligence
Authors: Arnold Mark 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
The 2006 Act, s 174 thus codifies the director’s duty to exercise reasonable care, skill, and diligence. It reflects the current position at common law, which itself reflects the tests laid down in the context of wrongful trading, as set out in the Insolvency Act, s 214. Indeed, the wording of this section of the 2006 Act is substantially the same as that of the Insolvency Act, s 214(4).
Transaction Avoidance in Insolvencies
Authors: Parry Rebecca , Ayliffe James , Shivji Sharif 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
The third edition of Transaction Avoidance in Insolvencies considers all the possible ways in which a vulnerable transaction might be attacked, as well as practical issues that can arise in a typical transaction avoidance case. This new edition has been fully updated to reflect recent legislative amendments arising from the revision of the Insolvency Rules 1986, which came into force in 2017. The text also now incorporates an international dimension, which includes an analysis of the revised EU Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings. There is also comprehensive coverage of important new case law. Written by a team of well-known specialists, Transaction Avoidance in Insolvencies provides a detailed account of this complex area from a practical perspective.
Office Holder Claims
Authors: Parry Rebecca , Shivji Sharif , Olliff-Cooper Guy 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
Office holder claims under the Insolvency Act 1986 present an important alternative, or additional, means of recovering assets in corporate insolvency cases. Section 212 provides a summary procedure that allows office holders, creditors, and contributories to bring claims against officers, former office holders and other persons involved in the promotion, formation, or management of the company. Section 213 provides for a civil remedy against directors and knowing parties for fraudulent trading; and section 214 enables claims to be brought against directors for ‘wrongful trading’ after a company should have entered liquidation or administration.
Destination of Proceeds (Corporate Insolvency)
Authors: Parry Rebecca 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
The key issue in considering entitlements to any sums realized as a result of an avoidance action is whether the recoveries will be caught within the scope of any fixed or floating charge that the company has granted. This vexed question has now been addressed under statute with the insertion of section 176ZB into the Insolvency Act 1986, so that where an office holder has brought a claim, or made an assignment of an avoidance action to recover, in England and Wales, a preference, transaction at an undervalue or extortionate credit transaction or, in Scotland, a gratuitous alienation or unfair preference, any sums recovered will not be treated as part of the company’s net property and so they will be unavailable to meet the claims of floating-charge holders. The position is the same in relation to actions for fraudulent trading and wrongful trading claims.
Euro As Legal Tender (and Banknotes)
Authors: Freitag Robert 
Published: March 2021

AbstractThe provisions governing the euro as ‘European Single Currency’ are at the core of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union’s (TFEU) rules on the Economic Monetary Union (EMU). Since the euro has replaced the former national currencies of the participating Member States and is to substitute the national currencies of any future members of the euro area, it was mandatory to ascribe to the euro the status of exclusive ‘legal tender’ as per Article 128(1) TFEU. This status of the euro seems to be so evident as to be self-explanatory–but only at first glance since the concept of ‘legal tender’ and its implications in European Union (EU) and national private and public law are less clear. A satisfactory concept of legal tender is hard to define and hardly ever given on the EU level–resulting in a striking lack of legal certainty in a great variety of aspects of public and private law.
Banking Resolution: The EU Framework Governing the Resolution of Credit Institutions
Authors: Gortsos Christos V 
Published: March 2021

AbstractOn 15 May 2014, the European Parliament and the Council adopted Directive 2014/59/EU establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms (Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive or BRRD). It was the first time that harmonized rules were adopted at European Union (EU) level in this field, as opposed to other fields in which a regulatory framework had been in place since the late-1980s and mid-1990s (respectively), such as the field of authorization, prudential regulation and supervision of credit institutions, currently governed by Regulation (EU) 575/2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) 648/2012 (Capital Requirements Regulation or CRR) and Directive 2013/36/EU (Capital Requirements Directive IV or CRD IV) and the field of deposit guarantee schemes (DGSs), currently governed by Directive 2014/49/EU (DGSD).
The Framework of Corporate Insolvency Law
Authors: Anderson Hamish 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
This book provides a critical examination of modern English corporate insolvency law, in particular the procedures under the Insolvency Act 1986, from both conceptual and functional points of view. It focuses throughout on identifying a rational explanation for the form that the rules and institutions of the modern law take or, where there is no such rational explanation, the history which has resulted in the present position. A central theme of the book is that the nature and fundamental purpose of insolvency proceedings themselves dictate many of the features of English insolvency proceedings. For example, collective execution on behalf of creditors necessitates definition of the insolvent estate and the provision of rules concerning provable debts and transaction avoidance. Many key features of the insolvency procedures are therefore essentially matters of practicality rather than principle, albeit practicalities applied justly and fairly. The book covers the nature and purpose of insolvency law; the procedures; the administration, supervision and regulation of insolvency proceedings; the insolvent estate and transaction avoidance; investigation and wrongdoing by directors; phoenixism and pre-packing; distribution of the insolvent estate; and, lastly, cross-border insolvency. It examines the various principles of insolvency law in the context of practice, drawing upon historical perspectives where appropriate. By explaining how the law takes the form that it does, the book promotes an understanding of the present law and institutions as a whole, and shows how this understanding might inform future developments.
Office-Holders
Authors: Anderson Hamish 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
At one level the title ‘office-holder’ is merely a convenient way generically to refer to the person (liquidator, administrator, or supervisor) who has the conduct of the insolvency proceeding in question. However, there is a burgeoning concept of the office-holder being a person to whom a number of privileges and responsibilities attach regardless of the form of the proceedings in which the appointment has been made.
AUTHORIZATION
Authors: Rosemary Langford 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
At general law breach of the duties to avoid conflicts and profits (the conflicts and profits rules), as fiduciary duties, can be excused or authorized by the company as beneficiary of the duty. This can be done by approval of the company’s shareholders (usually in general meeting) or by provision in the company’s constitution (allowing disclosure to, and authorization by, the other directors). There are, however, limits placed on such authorization or ratification. The first part of this chapter discusses these limitations. It then discusses relevant statutory provisions in each of the jurisdictions, with a key focus on sections 175, 180, 239, and 232 of the Companies Act 2006 (UK). This includes more detailed discussion of the authorization provisions in sections 175(5) and (6), which are notably absent from section 176. The complex issue of ratification of breach of statutory duty in Australia is also canvassed. This limitation, which does not apply in the UK, renders a number of aspects of directors’ duties problematic. This includes attempts by companies to adopt more stakeholder-friendly approaches.
The Statutory Provisions Relating to Adjudication
Authors: Coulson The Rt Hon. Lord Justice 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
The provisions relating to adjudication are set out in Part II of the 1996 Act, as amended by the 2009 Act. They are included at Appendix A. The Scheme for Construction Contracts is at Appendix B. The early cases in which the principles behind Part II were considered by the courts remain of critical importance. In Macob Civil Engineering Ltd v Morrison Construction Ltd, the adjudicator had directed that Morrison should pay Macob £302,366.34 plus VAT, interest and fees. The principal dispute in the adjudication concerned the agreement between the parties as to the relevant dates for payment.
Abatement and Set-Off
Authors: Coulson The Rt Hon. Lord Justice 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
The financial difficulties created for a smaller contractor by the larger or more powerful main contractor or employer with whom he contracts have been the subject of much hand-wringing and not a little legislation since the days of Victorian ‘laissez-faire’ capitalism. The persistent refusal of the larger company to pay the invoices rendered by the smaller has always been one of many weapons wielded by the larger organization to ensure that its own cash flow was given priority over the interests and rights of others. The phenomenon referred to in the media in the early 1990s as ‘subbie-bashing’ is, sadly, nothing new: larger and more powerful main contractors have always done all that they can to make their own contracts as profitable as possible, and it has often been their sub-contractors and suppliers who have suffered. By the same token, as Lord Diplock points out in Gilbert-Ash, the main contractor is himself vulnerable to similar machinations on the part of the employer.
Consequences of a Finding that the Plea/Appeal is Well Founded
Authors: Naômé Caroline 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
The fact that a plea is well founded does not mean that the appeal is well founded. The ECJ may reject the plea as an ineffective plea or proceed with a substitution of grounds. If an appeal is well founded, the Court may give final judgment itself, where ‘the state of the proceedings so permits’, or refer the case back to the General Court. It is quite difficult to determine the scope and implications of the quashing of a judgment. The General Court is bound by the decision of the Court of Justice on points of law. However, parts of the first judgment of the General Court may remain valid and wield the authority of res judicata.
Article 4(5). Pseudonymisation
Authors: Tosoni Luca 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
Article 6(4)(e) (Compatibility of processing purposes); Article 9(2)(j) (Processing of special categories of personal data) (see also recital 75); Article 25(1) (Data protection by design and by default) (see also recital 78); Article 32(1)(a) (Security of processing); Article 33(1) (Notification of personal data breach to supervisory authority) (see also recital 85); Article 40(2)(d) (Codes of conduct); Article 89(1) (Safeguards and derogations relating to processing for archiving purposes, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes).
Article 4(12). Personal data breach
Authors: Tosoni Luca 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
A personal data breach may, if not addressed in an appropriate and timely manner, result in physical, material or non-material damage to natural persons such as loss of control over their personal data or limitation of their rights, discrimination, identity theft or fraud, financial loss, unauthorised reversal of pseudonymisation, damage to reputation, loss of confidentiality of personal data protected by professional secrecy or any other significant economic or social disadvantage to the natural person concerned.
Article 4(14). Biometric data
Authors: Bygrave Lee A , Tosoni Luca 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
Article 4(1) (Definition of ‘personal data’) (see too recital 26); Article 4(13) (Definition of ‘genetic data’) (see too recital 34); Article 4(15) (Definition of ‘data concerning health’) (see also recital 35); Article 9(1) (Special categories of personal data); Article 22(4) (Automated individual decision-making, including profiling) (see also recital 71); Article 35(3)(b) (Data protection impact assessment) (see too recital 91).
Article 14 Information to be provided where personal data have not been obtained from the data subject
Authors: Zanfir-Fortuna Gabriela 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
Article 5(1) (Principle of fairness, lawfulness and transparency); Article 12 (Transparent information, communication and modalities for the exercise of the rights of the data subject); Article 14 (Information to be provided where personal data have not been obtained from the data subject); Article 15 (Right of access by the data subject); Article 23 (Restrictions); Article 34 (Communication of a personal data breach to the data subject).
Article 28 Processor
Authors: Millard Christopher , Kamarinou Dimitra 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
Article 4(8) (Definitions); Article 29 (Processing under the authority of the controller or processor); Article 30 (Records of processing activities) (see also recitals 13 and 82); Article 79 (Right to an effective judicial remedy against a controller or processor) (see also recital 145); Article 82 (Right to compensation and liability) (see also recitals 146–147).
Article 38 Position of the data protection officer
Authors: Rigaudias Cecilia Alvarez , Spina Alessandro 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
Article 13(1)(b) (Information to be provided where personal data are collected from the data subject) (see too recitals 60–61); Article 14(1)(b) (Information to be provided where personal data have not been obtained from the data subject) (see too recital 61); Article 30 (Records of processing activities) (see too recital 82); Article 33 (Notification of a personal data breach to the supervisory authority) (see too recital 85); Article 35 (Data protection impact assessment) (see too recitals 90–91); Article 36 (Prior consultation) (see too recital 94); Article 37 (Designation of the Data Protection Officer) (see too recital 97); Article 39 (Tasks of the data protection officer) (see too recitals 77 and 97); Article 47 (Binding corporate rules) (see too recital 108); Article 52(1) (Independence of supervisory authorities) (see too recitals 117–118 and 120–121); Article 57 (Tasks of supervisory authorities) (see too recital 122); Article 69 (Independence of the EDPB) (see too recital 139).
Article 46 Transfers subject to appropriate safeguards
Authors: Kuner Christopher 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
Recital 6; Article 15(2) (Right to access information about appropriate safeguards pursuant to Article 46); Article 44 (General principles for transfers); Article 58(3)(g)–(h) (Powers of supervisory authorities to adopt standard contractual clauses and authorise contractual clauses); Article 64(1)(d)(e) (Opinion of the Board regarding determination of standard data protection clauses and authorisation of contractual clauses).
Article 72 Procedure
Authors: Docksey Christopher 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
Article 64 (Opinion of the Board) (see too recital 136); Article 65 (Dispute resolution by the Board) (see too recital 136); Article 66 (Urgency procedure) (see too recital 137); Article 68 (European Data Protection Board) (see too recital 139); Article 69 (Independence) (see too recital 139); Article 70 (Tasks of the Board) (see too recital 139); Article 71 (Reports); Article 73 (Chair) (see too recital 139); Article 74 (Tasks of the chair); Article 75 (Secretariat) (see too recital 140); Article 76 (Confidentiality).
Article 90 Obligations of secrecy
Authors: Svanberg Christian Wiese 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
Article 9(3) (Processing of special categories of personal data); Article 25 (Data protection by design and by default) (see too recital 75); Article 33 (Notification of a personal data breach to the supervisory authority) (see too recital 85); Article 54(2) (Rules on the establishment of the supervisory authority); Article 58(1) (Investigatory powers) (see too recital 129).
Article 95 Relationship with Directive 2002/58/EC
Authors: de Oliveira Piedade Costa 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
This Regulation shall not impose additional obligations on natural or legal persons in relation to processing in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services in public communication networks in the Union in relation to matters for which they are subject to specific obligations with the same objective set out in Directive 2002/58/EC.
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Authors: Rogers Beverly-Ann 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
There are a range of different processes, known as alternative dispute resolution (‘ADR’), available to assist in the resolution of trust disputes: arbitration, mediation, early neutral evaluation, and expert determination. To different degrees they offer the parties greater control over both the process and the outcome of the dispute compared to a court process with adversarial argument and a judicial decision imposed at the end.
Liechtenstein
Authors: Wenaweser Stefan 
Published: March 2021

Abstract
Liechtenstein is the only continental European country to have adopted and codified the common law trust. The Liechtenstein trust (‘Treuhänderschaft’) was codified in 1926 in the Law on Persons and Companies (‘PGR’) with clear inspiration from the English Trustee Act 1925. Some English common law rules have been enacted (eg the equitable rules on tracing (‘Spurfolge’; Art 912 (3) PGR, § 30 TrUG). In 1928 the Law regarding Trust Enterprises (abbreviated as ‘TrUG’) was passed. This law was modelled on the so-called Massachusetts Business Trust and inserted in the PGR as Art 932a and consists of 170 paragraphs.