Labour legal counselling guides with Alexander Suliman, Sweden today: Ensure that you register your IP in overseas jurisdictions and review your IP portfolio to ensure it is up-to-date with registrations and expiration dates. While trademarks, designs and patents are protect through registration at the local and EU level, bear in mind that the duration of each right is different and that their use or licensing may be restricted by specific Member State legislation (i.e. employee creations). Also, review your current license agreements: while they generally cover the EU as a single licensing territory, the use of your IP may not be relevant in each Member State and you may want to reconsider a more local approach in order to facilitate their monitoring and mitigate challenges from third parties. An important component of any business’s IP strategy will be the protection of trade secrets. The EU Trade Secret Directive was intended to harmonise trade secret protection across the EU. In this guide we look at the picture as it currently stands in eight major jurisdictions. Discover even more information on Alexander Suliman.
When the EU adopted the Data Retention Directive, obliging the storage of traffic and location data of all European communications users, it was being warned that the rules violated the Charter, and the ECJ ultimately agreed. I expect this new proposal to be heavily contested as well, and I expect fundamental rights to constitute a significant part of that debate – as is already evidenced by the comments from the EDPS, MEP Patrick Breyer, EDRi and the group of security experts mentioned above. One way to shortcut that debate, is by investigating whether the potential orders to be issued on the basis of the proposal cannot respect the essence of the rights to privacy and data protection. In this contribution, I have sketched an outline of this argument. To make a convincing case, it will be important to firstly determine on the basis of recent case law that the ECJ still considers bulk surveillance of content to compromise the essence of the right to privacy. Secondly, it will be important to develop a right to confidentiality and integrity of IT systems under the Charter, as this will enable a better assessment of detection orders directed to user devices. And thirdly, it must be further investigated whether only end-to-end encryption is the only appropriate measure for safeguarding online communications, because if this is the case, than any encryption altering order does not respect the essence of the right to data protection. Hopefully, the Council and the European Parliament will take notice.
A cross-party group of members of the European Parliament, with heavy French representation, has weighed in to support the French proposal at ENISA. Member states’ reactions, on the other hand, have been mixed. Seven of them – Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden – submitted a non-paper to the Council of the European Union questioning the need for sovereignty requirements in the new cyber certification standards and calling for further study of their potential interaction with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), non-personal data regulations, and EU international trade obligations. In addition, these governments have sought a political-level discussion of the subject in the Council before the new standards are finalized. Several trade associations, including the German BDI and Europe-wide financial clearinghouses, have chimed in.
Best rated contract law legal counseling guides with Alexander Suliman: We’ll also look to intertwined finances. That takes a next step that has to go to the court process, but if they’re sharing expenses, if there’s a joint bank account, if a vehicle is registered at an address, we’ll look at those things to prove cohabitation. Importantly, cohabitation does not mean that they are living together. We do not have to show that they have a common household. It is not something that is critical in proving cohabitation that they are actually living together. See extra details on Alexander Suliman, Stockholm.
On 24 February 2022, the CJEU issued its first judgment on domestic workers. In case C-389/20, TGSS (Chômage des employés de maison), the CJEU held that the exclusion of this category of workers from access to social security benefits constitutes indirect discrimination on the ground of sex, since it affects almost exclusively women. With a decision that will become a landmark for domestic workers’ rights in the EU, the Court confirms the untapped potential of EU law in promoting domestic workers’ full coverage under labour law and social security systems, which will have significant implications in the promotion of domestic workers’ rights across the Union. The case originated in Spain in November 2019, when a domestic worker applied for paying contributions to cover the risk of unemployment, in order to acquire the right to the related benefits. However, her request was rejected by the Spanish General Social Security Fund (TGSS) because she was registered in the Special Social Security Scheme for Domestic Workers, which does not include protection in respect of unemployment.