Berend Veenstra

🌍 Dutch Emissions Authority wants a minimum threshold for CBAM reporting based on embedded emissions rather than the current €150 low-value relief 🌱 The Dutch Emissions Authority (NEa) urgently calls on the Dutch government to advocate in the EU for an adjustment to the CBAM regulation of 2026. Otherwise, the NEa foresees significant issues in the implementation of this regulation. This would be similar to the UK CBAM’s scope and design, which will enter into force in 2027. The current threshold of €150 per shipment, however, creates significant challenges. This threshold results in a disproportionate burden on Dutch businesses, especially for smaller importers who emit only negligible amounts of CO2. The NEa observes that 2% of importers are responsible for 92% of the imported CO2 emissions, while 78% of importers have only negligible to small emissions. Therefore, the NEa advocates for a new, effective threshold that better aligns with the actual CO2 emissions of the imported goods. A threshold based on the weight of the shipments would be a better measure of the embedded CO2 emissions and significantly reduce the administrative burden for small importers.

47

3 commentaren

𝐄𝐔 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐑𝐮𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐀𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 #8: 𝐅𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐞 In this blog series, Martijn Jongmans and Minos van Joolingen discuss the most relevant topics of EU competition law for distribution agreements. This eighth blog focuses on franchise. #blog #competition #regulatory #distribution #franchise

11

This note is part of a blog series in which Banning Advocaten seeks to provide guidance on the most relevant topics of EU competition law for distribution agreements. In this eighth blog they discuss the distribution method of 𝐅𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠. #Franchising #Banning #dlc #TheNetherlands https://lnkd.in/eswetabF

34

The recent Philips v Belkin decision issued by the Munich Local Division of the #UPC garnered a lot of attention because it related to a standards essential #patent (SEP). However, FRAND and SEP issues didn't really factor into the decision and more interesting (for me at least) was how the Court approached claim construction, given that there was a tension between the prosecution history and the description of the patent as granted. The case related to a power transmitter, and infringement hinged on a particular point of claim interpretation. The claim required a power transmitter which sends an “accept” or “reject” message during a “negotiation phase”. The question was how the 'or' should be interpreted - would the claim be infringed by a device that only ever responds with an “accept” message, or did it require the device to be able to transmit either an “accept” or “reject” message depending on the circumstances? Based on the statements in the prosecution history, it seems that the applicant (at least before grant) intended the claim to be read narrowly and cover only the latter option. However, the description of the patent as granted stated that 'in some embodiments of the invention', the transmitter did not need to send a “reject” message. The Court found that it was more important to read the claims in a way which was consistent with the description and drawings, and so it followed the broader interpretation. As a result, it found that the claim was infringed (in contrast to German national courts, which came to a different conclusion). An interesting point of practice from the UPC, but also an important reminder for patent practitioners to pay attention to what the description says is and isn't an embodiment of the invention! Lots more detail to be found in our recent article, penned by my colleague Oliver Jones, along with myself and John Brunner:

17

1 commentaar

Stibbe Amsterdam is pleased to announce the expansion of its TMT/IP practice with the appointment of Jan-Jaap Koningsveld as counsel. Jan-Jaap brings a wealth of experience in intellectual property (IP), IT, data protection and cybersecurity, offering a distinctive combination of strategic advisory and guidance on complex corporate transactions. Hans Witteveen, managing partner of Stibbe Amsterdam: “We are delighted to welcome Jan-Jaap to our TMT/IP team. He is a highly driven and experienced lawyer who will help us to provide our clients, who increasingly face complex issues in IP, IT, data protection and cybersecurity, with integrated services of the highest standards.” https://stibbe.law/4hS6cX7

70

With at least 70% of national laws shaped by EU legislation, the challenges faced by local courts are often far from local. The adoption of Moonlit.ai by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden for monitoring case law from EU-member states is not just a great validation for moonlit, but also good news for the European legal landscape 🇪🇺💪 ⚖️ www.moonlit.ai #CaseLawMonitoring #CrossBorderResearch #EuropeanLaw #LegalInnovation #EUCaseLaw #JudicialExcellence #Harmonization #RuleOfLaw #MoonlitAI #LegalTech #JusticeForEurope

42

2 commentaren

Jij Broad scope of opt-out withdrawals Article 83(4) of the UPC Agreement provides that an op-out cannot be withdrawn if an action has already been brought before a national court. Before the start of the UPC there was some discussion whether this also applies if a national action has been started and potentially even finished before the start of the UPC. This has now been resolved by the Court of Appeal in an Order of 12 November 2024 in AIM v Supponor; the limitation only applies to national actions started in a participating member state on or after 1 June 2023. In an order of 19 August 2024 in Sibio v Abbott the Court of Appeal confirmed that only member states that have ratified the UPC Agreement qualify as participating member states, so it should be clear that only national actions in such states qualify. Actions started before 1 June 2023, even when still pending, do not block withdrawal of an opt-out. Article 83(4) only applies to actions brought during the transitional period. That period will end on 31 May 2030 (and will most likely not be extended), after which the national courts in the participating member states that have ratified the UPC Agreement will no longer have jurisdiction for European patents, except for national actions that are already pending on that date. This order solves an important issue, since it allows patent holders a broader opportunity to withdraw their opt-outs. There may be an increasing wish to do so, as the UPC has gained confidence among patent holders; there is a clear trend to start patent actions in the UPC instead of national courts. Of course, competitors can still block withdrawals by starting actions in a national court in a participating member state.

17

3 commentaren

Today, in a strategic move to protect essential processes in the #Netherlands from geopolitical shifts, the Dutch government proposed an expansion of the Dutch #FDI regime, specifically targeting sensitive #technologies. This general FDI regime, which covers #mergersandacquisitions, and #investments, is encapsulated in the Act on the Security Screening of Investments, Mergers, and Acquisitions (Wet veiligheidstoets Investeringen, fusies en overnames; "Vifo Act"), introduced in 2023. The Vifo Act currently includes technologies such as semiconductors, photonics, quantum computing, and dual-use and military goods. The proposed expansion encompasses critical technologies like biotechnology, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, sensor and navigation technology, and nuclear technology for medical applications. This proposed broadening of the Vifo Act's scope will have significant implications for M&A #transactions in the Netherlands, necessitating a new level of diligence and strategic planning. Importantly, this expansion implies also that an increased volume of proposed M&A transactions will require notification to the Ministry of Economic Affairs (effectively the Bureau for Investment Screening), impacting the timelines for deal completions. The government has initiated a public consultation process, inviting stakeholders to provide feedback on the proposed expansion, see this link for the relevant documents and timeline https://lnkd.in/gYq85kFD.

15

Now Available in English: The 3rd Edition of the WAMCA Whitepaper - A Third Quantitative Analysis! Deminor General Counsel Netherlands Joeri Klein and Finch Dispute Resolution Partner Koen Rutten, supported by Caspar Vermande, return with a new extensive quantitative analysis of all WAMCA procedures to date.    Request your free copy of the Whitepaper and read about: ➡ All outcomes of WAMCA procedures to date, at first instance and on appeal. ➡ The average processing times of the various steps in WAMCA procedures, the subjects of litigation, the rewards for litigation funders, the total duration to reach a final decision, the types of claimants in WAMCA procedures, and the number of competing claims filed. ➡ The increase in WAMCA procedures concerning privacy violations and the total absence of any new securities-related cases. ➡ The number of WAMCA procedures filed each year since 2020 and the number of WAMCA procedures that have since been finally resolved.    Click the link to access this year's English copy of the 22-page Whitepaper: https://lnkd.in/eM_Sk-vk

32

2 commentaren

Read #WallessTaxCookies Stay tuned! #WallessTax

18

The budget and the haircut Earlier today, the third Tuesday of September 2024, the Dutch budget for 2025 was presented to the House of Representatives. But since a government is the only vessel that leaks from the top, so a decent part of the plans were already known to the general public. But you never know until the ink is dry. Although I have no doubt we will elaborate in more detail via our website and newsletters in the coming days, a quick impression of the proposal for the 30% ruling may be helpful for those interested, especially since I wrote about it a couple of weeks ago. Indeed, after some of the initial plans had leaked into the press. I mentioned on LinkedIn that we were going have to get used to calling the 30%-ruling the 27%-ruling, which looks like it will be becoming reality. The upside (or better said: easing the bad news in) is that for 2025 and 2026, as a transitional measure, the percentage will remain (a maximum of) 30%. You may ask yourself how this all fits into the budget (budgetary neutral is generally the keyword in the budget). You will not be surprised that there is an answer to that (and it is always good to know where that comes from). The minimum threshold will be increased from EUR 46.107 to EUR 50.436, so we are seeing some tightening of the bolts from that end as well (mind you, in the pre-COVID days of 2019 the threshold was EUR 37.743). So, the 30%-ruling got a haircut, nothing too dramatically different and it may be going slightly grey, but it looks like it will be around for quite some time. Reminds me of someone I saw in the mirror this morning. #prinsjesdag #budget #belastingplan2025 #30procentregeling #30percentruling #crowe #crowepeak #globalmobilityservices #gms Huib Van Rumpt Tanja Yakimovich Camilla Rudoj Hans Missaar Wanda Martis - van Leijden Bas Wolberink Sander Storm Jorgo Hameetman Gijs Veenenbos Walter de Regt Maria Shenert Robin Postma Geert-Jan Krol

20

Lexology In-Depth: Tax Disputes and Litigation, edition 12 edited by Reinout de Boer and Michael Molenaars of Stibbe, is now available on Lexology: https://lnkd.in/gGpP_Pyn In-Depth: Tax Disputes and Litigation (formerly The Tax Disputes and Litigation Review) is a practical overview of the common issues that give rise to tax disputes in key jurisdictions, the procedures for resolving those disputes, and the powers and approach of local tax authorities. With a focus on recent developments, it offers insights into the process, timescale and cost of resolving complex difficulties when they arise across multiple jurisdictions.

1

For the first time, the UPC local division of The Hague has addressed the staple patent law principle that is the doctrine of equivalents and shared its views on how it should be applied. The decision offers a first method for evaluating infringement risks by equivalents at the first instance of the UPC. All eyes are now on the UPC Court of Appeal to see whether it upholds or departs from this ruling. For an analysis of the UPC's decision and its implications for stakeholders, read Jones Day's Commentary. https://ow.ly/qzkT50UqkAg #UPC #patentlaw #intellectualproperty

7

"Made in ..." We will discuss EU and Dutch #caselaw on PDO's (protected designations of origin) and GI's (geograpical indications), #trademarks and unfair trade practices concerning geographical or commercial origin. Thanks so much for RP Legal & Tax and TELFA - Trans European Law Firms Alliance for hosting. With Ilaria Carli and Christine Nitschke. See you in Milan! #IntellectualProperty #IP

8

Who is lurking in the shadows of the Dutch court ruling? The Dutch Court of Arbitration has finally ordered the closure of Europe's largest gas field Groningen (developed since 1959). The court issued its ruling based on the assumption that the drilling of wells causes earthquakes. This problem was exacerbated in 2010, and in 2012 Groningen was hit by the strongest earthquake in the region's history with a magnitude of 3.6. This event is of interest in two aspects at once. The findings of Dutch scientists correlate with general statistics around the world. Since 2010 there has been an intensification of seismic events on our planet and since then the number of earthquakes and their magnitude has been growing exponentially. Of course, there is a possibility that drilling wells in Groning may weaken the upper layer of the lithosphere and this will lead to more destruction of the Earth's crust. Bt the scientific community has an obligation to rely on global earthquake statistics, not just the Dutch seismic sensors, for further research. This would provide the court with more objective data and perhaps influence its decision. The second aspect of this case relates to the social sphere. Concerns Shell and ExxonMobil, which operate the Groningen field, have applied to the arbitration court with a claim for compensation for the huge gas reserves they failed to produce. The absurdity of this situation is that the compensation is paid from the state budget (read, taxpayers' pockets). And if the court rules in favor of the corporations, Dutch citizens will have to pay for what they already own. The feeling is that a small group of people are advancing their interests by any means necessary, involving academia and the judiciary. Why waste time and money extracting gas when you can make money from something that will remain in the ground? #Holland #groningen #earthquakes #gas

3

ebl legal services is delighted to announce the addition of Keizers Advocaten, a distinguished law firm based in the heart of Eindhoven, to its organization. This new arrangement reinforces ebl legal services' commitment to delivering seamless, high-quality legal support across borders, ensuring its clients have access to expert advice in key areas of law. Keizers Advocaten brings a wealth of expertise in corporate law, insolvency law, financial law, contract law, employment law, administrative law, and environmental law. Known for their solution-oriented approach, the team at Keizers Advocaten aligns perfectly with ebl legal services' ethos of providing pragmatic, client-focused legal solutions. Keizers Advocaten – now ebl keizers advocaten - shares the enthusiasm for this collaboration. “We are proud to join ebl legal services and contribute to its growing footprint,” said Wim Weijers, partner of the firm. “This partnership offers exciting opportunities to support businesses operating between the Netherlands and neighbouring countries, as well as across the wider European market. Together, we can provide practical, results-driven legal advice tailored to our clients’ needs.” This new alliance underscores ebl legal services’ dedication to creating collaborative relationships with leading law firms to meet the evolving needs of its clients.

57

4 commentaren

Are company lawyers ready for the future? How do customer and client expectations, technology, and market trends influence the future of the legal profession? How well are company lawyers prepared for these challenges? The Future Ready Lawyer Survey 2024 by the Legal & Regulatory division of our Bronze Partner, Wolters Kluwer Belgium Legal, maps these insights through quantitative interviews with 712 lawyers in law firms and company legal departments in the US and nine European countries.   👉 Read more about the survey: NL: https://lnkd.in/eUmW7yvy FR: https://lnkd.in/eUCtJsjy

11

Last week, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that a German Sondervermögen was not subject to Dutch CIT on its income from directly owned Dutch real estate. Reason being that the Sondervermögen did not qualify as a non-resident taxpayer for Dutch CIT purposes. Interested? Read more here https://lawand.tax/4exXITp and feel free to reach out to your L&L contact to discuss potential impact on your structure.  #realestate #dutchsupremecourt #CIT #tax #lawandtax

55