Daños punitivos – En Italia la Corte de Casación abre la puerta

6 de diciembre de 2017

  • Italia
  • Comercio internacional
  • Contratos
  • Derecho internacional
  • Litigios
  • Reclamación de deudas

In 2020, an important revision of the Swiss statute of limitations enters into force. The new law provides for longer limitation periods in cases of personal injury and extends the relative limitation periods in tort and unjust enrichment law from one to three years.

Background of the revision

In June 2018, the Swiss parliament adopted an amendment to the Swiss Code of Obligations (“CO”) pertaining to a revision of the statute of limitations. In November 2018, the Swiss government decided that the revised statute of limitations shall enter into force on 1 January 2020.

The revision was significantly influenced by asbestos cases. Under the current law, damage claims of asbestos victims were time-barred in some cases even before asbestos-related diseases could be diagnosed. In March 2014, the European Court of Human Rights held in Howald Moor and others v. Switzerland that the Swiss statute of limitations amounts in such cases to a violation of article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right of access to a court).

Having said that, the revision does not only concern cases of personal injury, but also includes numerous other important changes as described in the following.

Key changes regarding limitation periods

A. Tort law

In tort law, the new relative limitation period amounts to three years from the date on which the injured party became aware of the damage and of the identity of the person liable (revised Art. 60 para. 1 CO). Under the current law, the relative limitation period amounts to one year only.

With the exception of cases of personal injury, the absolute limitation period remains ten years as from the date when the conduct that caused the damages occurred or ended (revised Art. 60 para. 1 CO).

In cases of personal injury, the new relative limitation period amounts to three years from the date on which the injured party became aware of the damage and of the identity of the person liable. Currently the relative limitation period amounts to one year only.

The new absolute limitation period in cases of personal injury amounts to twenty years after the date when the conduct which caused the damages occurred or ended (new Art. 60 para. 1bis CO). Under the current law, there was no special absolute limitation period for cases of personal injury, so that the ordinary 10-year period applied (Art. 60 para. 1 CO).

If conduct, which gives rise to liability under tort law, is also punishable under criminal law, the (longer) limitation period under criminal law remains applicable (cf. Art. 97 of the Swiss Criminal Code). However, where a first-instance criminal judgment is rendered before the conduct is time-barred under criminal law, the limitation periods ends not earlier than three years as from that criminal judgment (revised Art. 60 para. 2 CO). The current law does not provide for such an additional three-year limitation period.

B. Unjust enrichment law

In unjust enrichment law, the new relative limitation period amounts to three years as from the date on which the injured party knows about the claim (revised Art. 67 para. 1 CO). Under the current law, the relative limitation period amounts to one year only.

The absolute limitation period is not affected by the revision and remains ten years after the date on which the claim arises (revised Art. 67 para. 1 CO).

C. Contract law

With regard to contractual claims, the ordinary limitation period remains ten years from the due date (Art. 127 CO). Furthermore, the shorter limitation period of five years from the due date applicable to (amongst others) claims for rent, interest on capital and other periodic payments, (most) claims out of employment relationships etc. remains unchanged too (Art. 128 CO).

However, in cases of personal injury, the revised statute of limitations introduces a new relative limitation period of three years from the date on which the injured party became aware of the damage, as well as a new absolute limitation period of twenty years after the date when the conduct which caused the damages occurred or ended (new Art. 128a CO). The current law does not provide for distinct relative and absolute limitation periods for contractual claims in cases of personal injury. Instead, the ordinary ten-year limitation period (Art. 127 CO) usually applied to such cases.

D. Summary

In summary, the most important elements of the revised statute of limitations are the longer (trebled) relative limitation periods in tort and unjust enrichment law (i.e., three years instead of one year) and the new special rules for cases of personal injury, which now benefit from a 20-year absolute limitation period.

Transitional provisions / application of the revised statute of limitations to pre-existing claims

The longer limitation periods under the revised CO apply to any claims that are not yet time-barred when the revision enters into force (i.e., on 1 January 2020; revised Art. 49 para. 1, Final Title of the Swiss Civil Code). In other words, the limitation periods of any claims that do not become time-barred until 31 December 2019 at the latest will be prolonged. This is of particular relevance with regard to claims based on tort and unjust enrichment; the short one-year relative limitation periods under the current law will be extended by another two years.

In contrast, the current law remains applicable in case the revised statute of limitations provides for shorter limitation periods (revised Art. 49 para. 2, Final Title of the Swiss Civil Code). This concerns, in particular, contractual claims in cases of personal injury. The new three-year relative limitation period under the revised law might not apply to such claims, as the current statute of limitations does not provide for a relative limitation period at all.

Further changes brought by the revision

In addition to the changes of the limitation periods set out above, the revision of the statute of limitations contains numerous further modifications. Some of them are listed in the following:

  1. Limitation periods do not commence or are suspended in the event that a claim cannot be asserted for objective reasons before any court worldwide (revised Art. 134 para. 1 no. 6 CO). The current law provides for such non-commencement or suspension only if the claim cannot be brought before a Swiss court.
  2. Parties to a dispute may agree in writing that limitation periods shall be suspended during settlement discussions, mediation proceedings or other out-of-court settlement proceedings (revised Art. 134 para. 1 no. 8 CO).
  3. Once a limitation period has commenced to run, waivers of statute of limitation defenses are admissible, but must not exceed ten years (revised Art. 141 para. 1 CO). Any such waivers must be in writing (new Art. 141 para. 1bis CO).
  4. In general terms and conditions (“GTC”), statute of limitation defenses may be waived by the party who makes use of the GTCs only. In contrast, a waiver by the party on whom the GTCs are imposed (e.g., consumers) is ineffective (new Art. 141 para. 1bis CO).
  5. The limitation period for an actio pauliana under the Swiss Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Act (“DEBA”) is extended to from currently two years to three years after service of a loss certificate, the opening of bankruptcy proceedings or the confirmation of a composition agreement with an assignment of assets (whichever is applicable; revised Art. 292 DEBA).

If 2017 was the year of Initial Coin Offerings, 2018 was the year of Blockchain awareness and testing all over the world. From ICO focused guidelines and regulations respectively aimed to alarm and protect investors, we have seen the shift, especially in Europe, to distributed ledger technology (“DLT”) focused guidelines and regulations aimed at protecting citizens on one hand and promote DLT implementations on the other.

Indeed, European Union Member States and the European Parliament started looking deeper into the technology by, for instance, calling for consultations with professionals in order to understand DLT’s potentials for real-world implementations and possible risks.

In this article I am aiming to give a brief snapshot of firstly what are the most notable European initiatives and moves towards promoting Blockchain implementation and secondly current challenges faced by European law makers when dealing with the regulation of distributed ledger technologies.

Europe

Let’s start from the European Blockchain Partnership (“EBP”), a statement made by 25 EU Member States acknowledging the importance of distributed ledger technology for society, in particular when it comes to interoperability, cyber security and efficiency of digital public services. The Partnership is not only an acknowledgement, it is also a commitment from all signatory states to collaborate to build what they envision will be a distributed ledger infrastructure for the delivering of cross-border public services.

Witness of the trust given to the technology is My Health My Data, a EU-backed project that uses DLT to enable patients to efficiently control their digitally recorded health data while securing it from the threat of data breaches. Benefits the EU saw in DLT on this specific project are safety, efficiency but most notably the opportunity that DLT offers data subject to have finally control over their own data, without the need for intermediaries.

Another important initiative proving European interests in testing DLT technologies is the Horizon Prize on “Blockchains for Social Good”, a 5 million Euros worth challenge open to innovators and tech companies to develop scalable, efficient and high-impact decentralized solutions to social innovation challenges.

Moving forward, in December last year, I had the honor to be part of the “ Workshop on Blockchains & Smart Contracts Legal and Regulatory Framework” in Paris, an initiative supported by the EU Blockchain Observatory and Forum (“EUBOF”), a pilot project initiated by the European Parliament. Earlier last year other three workshops were held, the aim of each was to collect knowledge on specific topics from an audience of leading DLT legal and technical professionals. With the knowledge collected, the EUBOF followed up with reports of what was discussed during the workshop and suggest a way forward.

Although not binding, these reports give a reasonably clear guideline to the industry on how existing laws at a European level apply to the technology, or at least should be interpreted, and highlight areas where new regulation is definitely needed. As an example let’s look at the Report on Blockchain & GDPR. If you missed it, the GDPR is the Regulation that protects Europeans personal data and it’s applicable to all companies globally, which are processing data from European citizens. The “right to erasure” embedded in the GDPR, doesn’t allow personal data to be stored on an immutable database, the data subject has to be able to erase data anytime when shared with a service provider and stored somewhere on a database. In the case of Blockchain, the consensus on personal data having to be stored off-chain is therefore unanimous. Storing personal data off-chain and leaving an hash to that data on-chain, is a viable solution if certain precautions are taken in order to avoid the risks of reversibility or linkability of such hash to the personal data stored off-chain, therefore making the hash on-chain personally identifiable information.

However, not all European laws apply to Member States, therefore making it hard to give a EU-wide answer to most DLT compliance challenges in Europe. Member States freedom to legislate is indeed only limited/influenced by two main instruments, Regulations, which are automatically enforceable in each Member State and Directives binding Member States to legislate on specific topics according to a set of specific rules.

Diverging national laws have a great effect on multiple aspects of innovative technologies. Let’s look for instance at the validity of “smart contracts”. When discussing the legal power of automatically enforceable digital contracts, the lack of a European wide legislation on contracts makes it impossible to find an answer applicable to all Member States. For instance, is “offer and acceptance” enough to constitute a contract? What is considered a valid “acceptance”? What is an “obligation”? “Can a digital asset be the object of a legally binding agreement”?

If we try to give a EU-wide answer to the questions such as smart contract validity and enforceability it is apparently not possible since we will need to consider 28 different answers. I, therefore, believe that the future of innovation in Europe will highly depend on the unification of laws.

An example of a unified law that has great benefits on innovation (including DLT) is the Electronic Identification and Trust Services (eIDAS) Regulation, which governs electronic identification including electronic signatures.

The race to regulating DLT in Europe

Let’s now look briefly at a couple of Member States legislations, specifically on Blockchain and cryptocurrencies last year.

EU Member States have been quite creative I would say in regulating the new technology. Let’s start from Malta, which saw a surprising increase of important projects and companies, such as Binance, landing on the beautiful Mediterranean Island thanks to its favorable (or at least felt as such) legislations on DLT. The “Blockchain Island” passed three laws in early July to regulate and supervise Blockchain projects including ICOs, crypto exchanges and DLT, specifically: The Innovative Technology Arrangements and Services Act regulation that aims at recognizing different technology arrangements such as DAOs, smart contracts and in future probably AI machines; The Virtual Financial Assets Act for ICOs and crypto exchanges; The Malta Digital Innovation Authority establishing a new supervisory authority.

Some think the Maltese legislation lacks a comprehensive framework, one that for instance, gives legal personality to Innovative Technology Arrangements. For this reason some are therefore accusing the Maltese lawmakers of rushing into an uncompleted regulatory framework in order to attract business to the island while others seem to positively welcome the laws as a good start for a European wide regulation on DLT and crypto assets.

In December 2018, Malta also initiated a declaration that was then signed by other six Members States, calling for collaboration for the promotion and implementation of DLT on a European level.

France was one of the signatories of such declaration, and it’s worth mentioning since the French Minister for the Economy and Finance approved in September a framework for regulating ICOs and therefore protecting investors’ rights, basically giving the AMF (French Authority for Financial Market) the empowerment to give licenses to companies wanting to raise funds through Initial Coin Offerings.

Last but not least comes Switzerland which although it is not a EU Member State, it has great degree of influence on European and national legislators when it comes to progressive regulations. At the end of December, the Swiss Federal Council released a report on DLT and the law, making a clear statement that the existing Swiss law is sufficient to regulate most matters related to DLT and Blockchain, although some adjustments have to be made. So no new laws but few amendments here and there, which will allow the integration of the specific DLT applications with existing laws in order to ensure legal certainty on certain uncovered matters. Relevant areas of Swiss law that will be amended include the transfer of rights utilizing digital registers, Anti Money Laundering rules specifically for decentralized trading platforms and bankruptcy when that proceeding involves crypto assets.

Conclusions

To summarize, from the approach taken during the past year, it is apparent that there is great interest in Europe to understand the potentials and to soon test implementations of distributed ledger technology. Lawmakers have also an understanding that the technology is in an infant state, it might involve risks, therefore making it complex to set specific rules or to give final answers on the alignment of certain technology applications with existing European or national laws.

To achieve European wide results, however, acknowledgments, guidelines and reports are not enough. The setting of standards for lawmakers applicable to all Member States or even unification of laws in crucial sectors influencing directly or indirectly new technologies, will be the only solution for any innovative technology to be adopted at a European level.

The author of this post is Alessandro Mazzi.

“Influencer Marketing” is a very well known topic to the jurists and operators of the advertising sector dealing with commercial communication.

There is a core principle in communication law: any form of commercial communication shall be clearly recognizable as such.

Before the diffusion of digital communication and, along with it, the proliferation of the so-called «Influencer Marketing», the issue of recognizability of commercial communication was generally discussed when evaluating whether an advertising content was clearly distinguishable from a journalistic or an informative content (such is the longstanding issue regarding the advertorial).

For a short period of time there was a debate regarding the so-called subliminal advertising, which eventually fell into oblivion.

The necessity to point out to the consumer whether the appreciation for a product or a service shown by a well-known person – precisely an “Influencer” – (i.e. the endorsement) is genuine or not has become a much encountered and controversial topic.

It shall not be considered as spontaneous when an individual receives remuneration for wearing a fashion item, for using a smartphone, or simply when he/she receives as a gift the products that he/she promotes or other valuable products.

It is clear and proven that the spontaneous choice of an “idol” by the public has a bigger impact on these same people rather than any traditional way of advertising. Hence the abuse of surreptitious advertising on the less easily monitored channel: the web, precisely.

What measures should be taken to ensure that the consumers can understand clearly whether a post is subject of a contract or not?

The answer would be very simple.

It would be enough to require the sponsored post to contain, in clearly visible characters, terms as “Advertisement”, “Sponsored by”, “Commercial agreement” or similar notices.

In Italy, in absence of a law regulating specifically the matter, both the Istituto della Pubblicità (Italy’s Advertising Self-Regulatory Institute) and the Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (the Competition Authority) have expressed their opinion on this subject.

In the Italian Advertising Self-Regulatory Institute’s digital chart it is written: “in order to make the promotional nature of content posted on social media and content sharing sites recognizable, celebrities/influencers/bloggers must at the top of their post state in a clearly distinguishable manner the words: “Pubblicità/Advertising”, or “Promosso da … brand/Promoted by…brand” or “Sponsorizzato da…brand/Sponsored by…brand” or “in collaborazione con …brand” or “in partnership with the …brand”; and/or within the first three hashtags (#) use one of the following terms: “#Pubblicità/#Advertising”, or “#Sponsorizzato da … brand/#Sponsored by the … brand “ or “#ad” along with “#brand”.

In a press release of 2017 the Italian Competition Authority has required the addressees the use of the following warnings to be placed below the post together with the others hashtags (#), such as “#sponsored, #advertising, #paidad”, or, in the case of products given for free to the celebrity, “#productsuppliedby”; in particular, all these wordings should be followed by the name of the specific brand being advertised.

However, browsing the Instagram’s pages of various Influencers, it is noticeable that only a few of them are actually using the indications provided by the authorities.

And when it happens to came across Instagram’s profiles that use such indications, it is noticeable that the hashtag that is most commonly used is “#ad”, whose effectiveness (especially in Italy where terms such as “advertising”, “Adv” and, even more so, “ad” are not easily decipherable by the average consumer) raises many concerns.

So far the Italian Competition Authority intervened sending moral suasion letters to some of the main influencers and companies producing the branded goods displayed in the posts, but still no self-regulatory, administrative or state measures have been taken.

The same situation of uncertainty is likely to be found in other countries (here you can find a previous Legalmondo post on this topic in Germany: https://www.legalmondo.com/2017/11/germany-product-placement-influencer-marketing/), with the consequence that international companies are operating in an unclear context, in which it is difficult to identify what are the risks arising from behaviours considered as unlawful.

I have therefore decided to write this article in order to assess the state of Influencer Marketing in Italy and in other countries and get a better understanding of the regulations in force, the measures/judgments issued by the competent Authorities, the international trends and the best practices that could be adopted by international companies.

Since I am one of the founders of the Digital Adv Lab – an interdisciplinary observatory that studies the legal implications of marketing and digital communication initiatives – I am interested in getting in touch with all the readers involved in this topic: please feel free to enter a comment and/or contact me.

The author of this post is Elena Carpani.

Poland has recently become quite famous for its skilled and resourceful IT specialists. Each year thousands of new computer engineers (programmers, developers, testers, designers etc.) enter into the market, warmly welcomed by domestic and multinational companies. A big part of these young talents open their own firm or business as free lancers developing software for clients from European countries as well as from US, Canada, Japan, China, etc.

However, companies who want to cooperate with these partners and assign software development to a Polish IT company or freelancer should be aware that the copyright law in Poland is very strict, as it mainly protects the creator and not the client. Therefore, to be on a safe side, it is better to follow these 7 basic rules:

  1. Never start cooperation with an IT specialist or an IT company without a formal agreement. And I mean a real agreement, in a written form, with signatures of persons who can validly contract on behalf of the companies. The form is very important because – under Polish law – copyrights transfer and exclusive license agreements not fulfilling form conditions are null and void. Moreover, if there is no agreement, Polish copyright rules will apply to all intellectual property matters.
  2. Please remember that software is a creation protected by copyright law. Therefore you should consider whether you want to acquire the entire intellectual property rights or you just need a license. If you need a full IP transfer, you need to put it expressly in the agreement; otherwise you will only get a non-exclusive licence. And these, in several cases, will not be useful from a business point of view. If a license is enough, it is advisable to agree if it will be exclusive or non-exclusive.
  3. When drafting an IP clause, be detailed and clear. If you want to be able to decompile and disassembly the binary code, specify it in the IP clause. If you want to be able to introduce modifications to the source code, specify it in the IP clause. If you want to sublicense the software, specify it in the IP clause. The IP clause shall contain the description of any way you want to use the software, whether on mobile devices or on personal computers, any other electronic device or via internet (e.g. cloud computing). And believe me, when I write «specify it in the IP clause» it means that you really, really have to put it there. Otherwise it will be null and void and you may face a situation where your smart IT engineer, after getting paid, will sue you for the IP infringement.
  4. Remember that you should indicate the timeframe and the geographical scope of the license or IP transfer. If you do not specify it expressly in the agreement, you will only be entitled to a 5-year license, automatically expiring afterwards.
  5. Draft carefully a clause related to termination of the agreement. Under Polish law the licensor may terminate the license agreement granted for an indefinite period of time upon 1-year notice. If you do not want to find yourself in a situation where you lose the software IP rights in the middle of a big project, make sure that from the very beginning you are on a safe side.
  6. Make sure that your partner is obliged to transfer you upon request all software documentation and the source code.
  7. Make sure that you have a good indemnification clause with no limitation of liability. Often Polish IT companies subcontract some part of the development work to free lancers. You never know if they will conclude proper agreements with their subcontractors and if they will legally acquire the IP of the software that they will later sell you. There is always the risk that in the future some Polish IT engineer you never met will raise IP infringement claims against you, trying to prove that he/she actually developed the software. In such a situation an indemnification clause will help you recovering the costs from your partner.

Con la reciente sentencia 16601/2017, la Corte Suprema – después de diferentes pronunciamientos contrarios – ha abierto la posibilidad de reconocer en Italia las sentencias extranjeras que contengan daños punitivos.

En este breve artículo veremos en qué consisten los daños punitivos, cuáles son las condiciones por las cuales podrían reconocerse y aplicarse en Italia y, sobretodo, qué medidas conviene tomar para afrontar este nuevo riesgo.

Los daños punitivos, en inglés punitive damages, son un instituto jurídico originario de los ordenamientos anglosajones que prevén la posibilidad de reconocer a la parte perjudicada una indemnización adicional respecto a la compensación del daño sufrido, en los casos en los que el causante del daño haya actuado con dolo o culpa grave (“malice” y “gross negligence”, respectivamente).

Con los daños punitivos, además de la función compensatoria, la indemnización del daño también asume una finalidad sancionadora, típica del derecho penal, actuando como elemento de disuasión ante otros potenciales infractores.

En los ordenamientos en los que se prevén los daños punitivos, el reconocimiento y la cuantificación de la indemnización se someten a la discrecionalidad del juez.

En los Estados Unidos de América los daños punitivos se prevén en los principios de common law, pero se disciplinan de modo diverso en cada uno de los Estados. Sin embargo, en general, se aplican siempre que la conducta del causante del daño haya sido dirigida a causar el daño intencionadamente o, se haya llevado a cabo sin tener en cuenta las normas de seguridad preestablecidas. Por lo general, no pueden reconocerse por el incumplimiento de un contrato, salvo que no se determine como un ilícito (tort) autónomo.

En algunos Estados se prevén límites máximos a los daños punitivos, a veces incorporados en los daños compensatorios, otras veces como cuantía máxima. Además, la Corte Suprema de los EEUU ha intervenido en diferentes casos para limitar el importe de condena.

En los ordenamientos de civil law, entre ellos Italia, el instituto de daños punitivos tradicionalmente no se reconoce, ya que la sanción al causante del daño se considera que queda al margen de los principios del derecho civil, basándose en la concepción de que la indemnización por daños tiene como objetivo restaurar la esfera patrimonial del perjudicado.

En consecuencia, el reconocimiento de los daños punitivos en una sentencia, se obstaculizaban por el límite de orden público y tales sentencias no tenían acceso en el espacio jurídico italiano.

La sentencia de las Secciones Unidas núm. 16601/2017, de 5 de julio de 2017 de la Corte Suprema de Casación ha girado las cartas sobre la mesa.

En el presente caso se solicitó a la Corte de Apelación de Venecia el reconocimiento (ex. Art. 64 de la Ley 218/1995) de tres sentencias de la District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida que, admitió una denuncia de garantía interpuesta por un revendedor americano de cascos contra la sociedad productora italiana, por la cual se había condenado a ésta última al pago de 1.436.136,87 USD (además de gastos e intereses) en base al resarcimiento de los daños causas por un defecto del casco utilizado en un accidente de tráfico.

La Corte de Apelación de Venecia reconoció la eficacia de la sentencia del juez extranjero, considerando que el importe era meramente indemnizatorio y no punitivo. La decisión fue recurrida en Casación por la parte condenada, que sostenía la contrariedad al orden publico de la sentencia estadunidense, en base a la orientación jurisprudencial hasta ese momento.

La Casación ha confirmado la decisión de la Corte de Apelación, considerando que el importe no es punitivo y ha declarado el reconocimiento de la sentencia estadunidense en Italia.

Las Secciones Unidas, por su parte, han aprovechado la ocasión para afrontar la cuestión inherente a la admisibilidad de los daños punitivos en Italia, cambiando la orientación histórica de la Corte Suprema (véase Cass. 1781/2012).

Según la Corte, la noción de responsabilidad civil entendida como mera reparación de los daños sufridos, se debe considerar como obsoleta dada la evolución del instituto a través de intervenciones legislativas y jurisprudenciales nacionales y europeas, que han introducido medidas indemnizatorias con finalidad sancionadora y disuasiva. De hecho, en el ordenamiento italiano es posible encontrar diversos casos de indemnización por daños con finalidad sancionadora: en materia de difamación en medios de comunicación (art. 12 L. 47/48), derechos de autor (art. 158 L 633/41), propiedad industrial (art. 125 D. Lgs 30/2005), abuso del proceso (art. 96.3 c.p.c. y art. 26.2 c.p.a.), derecho laboral (art. 18.14 c.p.c.), derecho de familia (art. 709-ter c.p.c.), etc.

De este modo, la Corte de Casación ha introducido el siguiente principio de derecho: “En el vigente ordenamiento italiano, a la responsabilidad civil no solo se le asigna el deber de restaurar la esfera patrimonial del sujeto que ha sufrido la lesión, porque se consideran incluidas en el sistema la función de disuasión y la función sancionadora de la responsabilidad civil. Por tanto, no es ontológicamente incompatible con el ordenamiento italiano el instituto de origen estadunidense de la indemnización punitiva”.

La consecuencia, a tener en muy cuenta, es que el pronunciamiento abre la puerta a posibles deliberaciones de sentencias extranjeras, que condenen a una de las partes al pago de un importe superior respecto al importe calculado para compensar el prejuicio creado a causa de un daño.

Sin embargo, a tal fin, la Corte Suprema ha dispuesto algunas condiciones para que la sentencia extranjera pueda reconocerse. La decisión ha debido ser tomada en el ordenamiento extranjero en base a:

  1. Garantizar la tipicidad de la condena.
  2. La previsibilidad de la misma.
  3. Los límites cuantificativos.

Los posibles efectos de la Sentencia en el ordenamiento italiano

En primer lugar, hay que tener claro que la Sentencia no ha modificado el sistema indemnizatorio interno del ordenamiento italiano. En otras palabras, la Sentencia no permitirá a los jueces italianos condenar por daños punitivos al interno de los procedimientos italianos.

En cambio, por lo que respecta a las sentencias extranjeras, ahora será posible obtener la indemnización por daños punitivos a través del reconocimiento y la ejecución en el sistema italiano de una decisión extranjera que prevea la condena de dicha tipología de daño, con la condición de que se respeten los mencionados presupuestos.

Por todo lo expuesto, las empresas que hayan invertido o que realicen negocios en países en los que se prevén los daños punitivos, tendrán que tener en consideración dicho riesgo.

Los instrumentos para tutelarse

El empresario quien opere en mercados extranjeros en los que se prevén los daños punitivos debe considerar con atención este riesgo.

La óptica debe ser necesariamente de prevención y los instrumentos a disposición son diversos: en primer lugar, la adopción de cláusulas contractuales que prevean la renuncia del perjudicado a este tipo de daño o, que acuerden un límite a la indemnización de los daños contractuales, por ejemplo limitándolos al valor de los productos o a los servicios ofrecidos.

Es además fundamental, que se conozca la legislación y la jurisprudencia de los mercados en los cuales se opera, incluso indirectamente (por ejemplo, con la distribución comercial de los productos) con el fin de escoger de modo consciente la ley aplicable al contrato y la modalidad de resolución de controversias (por ejemplo, con previsión de la exclusiva jurisdiccional del foro del país que no prevea daños punitivos).

Finalmente, este tipo de responsabilidad y riesgo puede ser objeto de valoración con pólizas aseguradoras que ofrecen una cobertura específica respecto a eventuales condenas de indemnización de daños punitivos.

En base a nuestra experiencia en años asesorando y representando compañías en la distribución comercial (en la jurisdicción española pero con fabricantes o distribuidores extranjeros), los siguientes son los seis elementos esenciales para que fabricantes (proveedores) y minoristas (distribuidores) puedan establecer buenas bases en una relación de distribución.

Estas ideas son relevantes cuando las empresas tienen la intención de iniciar su relación comercial, pero no deben descuidarse y verificarse incluso cuando ya existan esas relaciones.

La firma del contrato

Aunque podría parecer obvio, la firma de un acuerdo de distribución es menos común de lo que parece. A menudo ocurre que a lo largo de la relación extendida, las estructuras corporativas cambian y lo que una vez se firmó con una sociedad, no se ha renovado, adaptado, modificado o reemplazado cuando la situación se ha transformado. Es muy conveniente haber documentado bien la relación en cada momento de su existencia y estar seguro de que lo que se ha previsto legalmente también se pueda cumplir en la relación comercial cotidiana. Es aconsejable que este trabajo previo sea llevado a cabo por especialistas legales coordinados estrechamente con el departamento comercial de la compañía. Las cláusulas perfectamente redactadas desde un punto de vista legal serán inútiles si son superadas o no cumplidas en el día a día. Y, por supuesto, ningún contrato se firma como una «mera formalidad» para luego modificarlo mediante acuerdos o prácticas verbales que lo dejen sin contenido.

La elección correcta del contrato

Si la firma del contrato de distribución es importante, la elección del tipo correcto es esencial. Muchos de los conflictos que ocurren, especialmente en las relaciones a largo plazo, comienzan con la interpretación del tipo de relación que se ha firmado. Incluso con un texto escrito (y con un título expreso), la intención de las partes sigue sin estar clara (y por lo tanto, el acuerdo). ¿Es el «distribuidor» realmente así? ¿Compra y revende o solo existen relaciones de suministro esporádicas? ¿Existe solo una actividad representativa (es decir, el distribuidor es en realidad un «agente»)? ¿Hay una relación mixta (a veces representa, a veces compra y revende)? La lista podría continuar indefinidamente. Incluso en muchas de las relaciones que existen actualmente, estoy seguro de que la interpretación dada por el Proveedor y el Distribuidor podría ser diferente.

Supervisar las relaciones legales y comerciales

Si es bastante frecuente no tener un contrato escrito claro, sucede en casi todas las relaciones de distribución que una vez que se ha firmado el acuerdo, la actividad comercial diaria modifica lo que se ha acordado. ¿Por qué las relaciones comerciales parecen descuidar lo que se ha escrito en un acuerdo? Son bastante frecuentes los contratos en los que se incluyen ciertas obligaciones para los distribuidores (informar sobre el mercado, clientes, compras mínimas), pero que en la práctica no se respetan (parece complicado, existe una buena relación entre las partes, nadie recuerda lo que se había firmado por personas que ya no trabajan en la empresa…). Sin embargo, también es bastante frecuente intentar utilizar esas obligaciones más adelante cuando comienzan los problemas en la relación. En ese momento, las partes intentan esconderse detrás de esos incumplimientos para resolver los contratos, aunque estas prácticas hubieran sido, en cierto modo, aceptadas. Por supuesto, ningún acuerdo puede durar para siempre y, por esa razón, es altamente recomendable una supervisión global y periódico entre el asesor legal (preferentemente uno independiente con el apoyo de los directivos internos) y el departamento comercial para tener en cuenta las nuevas prácticas y tener su reflejo en los documentos contractuales.

Evidencias sobre los clientes

En los contratos de distribución, las evidencias sobre los clientes serán esenciales en caso de resolución. Las partes (principalmente el proveedor) están bastante interesadas en probar quién (proveedor o distribuidor) adquirió los clientes. ¿Son resultado de la actividad del distribuidor o se obtienen como consecuencia de la reputación de la marca? Reunir las pruebas sobre los clientes podría simplificar o incluso evitar futuros conflictos. La importancia de la clientela y su posible actividad futura será un elemento clave para definir la compensación que pueda pretender el distribuidor.

Evidencias sobre compras y ventas

Otro elemento esencial y, a menudo, olvidado es la justificación de las compras al proveedor y las ventas posteriores de los distribuidores a los clientes. En cualquier acuerdo de distribución, los distribuidores adquieren los productos y los revenden a los clientes finales. Una compensación futura al distribuidor considerará la diferencia entre los precios de compra y los precios de reventa (el margen). Por lo tanto, es aconsejable poder establecer la prueba correspondiente sobre dicha información a fin de preparar mejor una posible reclamación.

Daños en caso de resolución de los contratos

Del mismo modo, sería conveniente justificar qué daños se han sufrido como resultado de la resolución de un contrato: ¿ha realizado el distribuidor inversiones por indicación del proveedor que aún no se han amortizado? ¿El distribuidor ha contratado nuevos empleados para una línea de negocio que debe ser descartada debido a la resolución del contrato? ¿El distribuidor ha alquilado nuevas instalaciones firmando contratos a largo plazo debido a las expectativas del acuerdo? Tenga en cuenta que el Distribuidor es un comerciante independiente y, como tal, asume los riesgos de su actividad. Pero en la medida en que actúe en una red de distribución, estará sujeto a las instrucciones, sugerencias y expectativas creadas por el proveedor. Estas pueden ser relevantes para determinar posteriormente los daños causados ​​por la resolución del contrato.

Influencer marketing is the trend in today’s world of advertising. Even though it is obvious that influencer marketing must observe the framework of applicable statutory provisions, the market has long been uncertain about how influencer posts are to be drafted in order to be legally compliant. The current decision of Celle Higher Regional Court (June 08, 2017 – Case 13 U 53/17) offers at least some clarity.

The judgment was issued in relation to an action for injunction by the German Association for Social Competition (Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb) against a German drugstore chain. A 20-year-old Instagram star with 1.3 million followers had advertised the drugstore chain in one of her posts. The post was only marked as advertisement at the bottom with the hashtag “#ad,” which additionally only came second in a list of six hashtags.

Celle Higher Regional Court adjudged that this type of marking was insufficient. The court requested that the commercial purpose of an Instagram post would have to be apparent at first sight. It did not consider use of the hashtag “#ad” in a “hashtag cloud” to be sufficient to mark the post as advertising.

The court left expressly open, however, whether the use of the hashtag “#ad” is generally suitable to mark advertising posts.

The state media authorities (Landesmedienanstalten) already reacted to the judgment, however, and revised their joint guide on advertising issues in social media. It now reads: “When marking a post as PROMOTION (Werbung) or ADVERTISING (Anzeige), you will be on the safe side – that much is certain. […] At the current time, we cannot recommend marking posts as #ad, #sponsored by, or #powered by.” In the future, Instagram itself intends to provide for more transparency on the platform by comprehensibly identifying advertising posts. It is currently testing the introduction of a branded content tool in Germany to make it easier for users to recognize posts as paid advertising.

Practical tip

Advertising posts in social media should always be marked as “promotion” or “advertising” at the beginning of the posts unless their commercial purpose arises directly from the circumstances. Advertisers are also advised to obligate influencers contractually to such legally compliant marking of posts, since the influencers’ behavior may be attributed to the company, as is clearly shown by the recent judgment of Celle Higher Regional Court against the drugstore chain.

The author of this post is Ilja Czernik.

In this clip I briefly introduce the main options to consider when doing business in Iran.
You can read more on this topic in my articles An introduction to Iran Corporations  and Obtaining a Foreign Investment License and browse Legalmondo’s blog for some other  posts on doing business in the region.

Roberto Luzi Crivellini

Áreas de práctica

  • Arbitraje
  • Contratos de distribución
  • Comercio internacional
  • Derecho Internacional Privado
  • Derecho Inmobiliario
Contáctanos Roberto

Contacta con Roberto





    Lea la política de privacidad de Legalmondo.
    Este sitio está protegido por reCAPTCHA y se aplican la Política de privacidad de Google y los Términos de servicio.

    Contratos de distribución comercial – Seis cuestiones clave a considerar

    30 de noviembre de 2017

    • España
    • Agencia
    • Comercio internacional
    • Contratos
    • Contratos de distribución

    In 2020, an important revision of the Swiss statute of limitations enters into force. The new law provides for longer limitation periods in cases of personal injury and extends the relative limitation periods in tort and unjust enrichment law from one to three years.

    Background of the revision

    In June 2018, the Swiss parliament adopted an amendment to the Swiss Code of Obligations (“CO”) pertaining to a revision of the statute of limitations. In November 2018, the Swiss government decided that the revised statute of limitations shall enter into force on 1 January 2020.

    The revision was significantly influenced by asbestos cases. Under the current law, damage claims of asbestos victims were time-barred in some cases even before asbestos-related diseases could be diagnosed. In March 2014, the European Court of Human Rights held in Howald Moor and others v. Switzerland that the Swiss statute of limitations amounts in such cases to a violation of article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right of access to a court).

    Having said that, the revision does not only concern cases of personal injury, but also includes numerous other important changes as described in the following.

    Key changes regarding limitation periods

    A. Tort law

    In tort law, the new relative limitation period amounts to three years from the date on which the injured party became aware of the damage and of the identity of the person liable (revised Art. 60 para. 1 CO). Under the current law, the relative limitation period amounts to one year only.

    With the exception of cases of personal injury, the absolute limitation period remains ten years as from the date when the conduct that caused the damages occurred or ended (revised Art. 60 para. 1 CO).

    In cases of personal injury, the new relative limitation period amounts to three years from the date on which the injured party became aware of the damage and of the identity of the person liable. Currently the relative limitation period amounts to one year only.

    The new absolute limitation period in cases of personal injury amounts to twenty years after the date when the conduct which caused the damages occurred or ended (new Art. 60 para. 1bis CO). Under the current law, there was no special absolute limitation period for cases of personal injury, so that the ordinary 10-year period applied (Art. 60 para. 1 CO).

    If conduct, which gives rise to liability under tort law, is also punishable under criminal law, the (longer) limitation period under criminal law remains applicable (cf. Art. 97 of the Swiss Criminal Code). However, where a first-instance criminal judgment is rendered before the conduct is time-barred under criminal law, the limitation periods ends not earlier than three years as from that criminal judgment (revised Art. 60 para. 2 CO). The current law does not provide for such an additional three-year limitation period.

    B. Unjust enrichment law

    In unjust enrichment law, the new relative limitation period amounts to three years as from the date on which the injured party knows about the claim (revised Art. 67 para. 1 CO). Under the current law, the relative limitation period amounts to one year only.

    The absolute limitation period is not affected by the revision and remains ten years after the date on which the claim arises (revised Art. 67 para. 1 CO).

    C. Contract law

    With regard to contractual claims, the ordinary limitation period remains ten years from the due date (Art. 127 CO). Furthermore, the shorter limitation period of five years from the due date applicable to (amongst others) claims for rent, interest on capital and other periodic payments, (most) claims out of employment relationships etc. remains unchanged too (Art. 128 CO).

    However, in cases of personal injury, the revised statute of limitations introduces a new relative limitation period of three years from the date on which the injured party became aware of the damage, as well as a new absolute limitation period of twenty years after the date when the conduct which caused the damages occurred or ended (new Art. 128a CO). The current law does not provide for distinct relative and absolute limitation periods for contractual claims in cases of personal injury. Instead, the ordinary ten-year limitation period (Art. 127 CO) usually applied to such cases.

    D. Summary

    In summary, the most important elements of the revised statute of limitations are the longer (trebled) relative limitation periods in tort and unjust enrichment law (i.e., three years instead of one year) and the new special rules for cases of personal injury, which now benefit from a 20-year absolute limitation period.

    Transitional provisions / application of the revised statute of limitations to pre-existing claims

    The longer limitation periods under the revised CO apply to any claims that are not yet time-barred when the revision enters into force (i.e., on 1 January 2020; revised Art. 49 para. 1, Final Title of the Swiss Civil Code). In other words, the limitation periods of any claims that do not become time-barred until 31 December 2019 at the latest will be prolonged. This is of particular relevance with regard to claims based on tort and unjust enrichment; the short one-year relative limitation periods under the current law will be extended by another two years.

    In contrast, the current law remains applicable in case the revised statute of limitations provides for shorter limitation periods (revised Art. 49 para. 2, Final Title of the Swiss Civil Code). This concerns, in particular, contractual claims in cases of personal injury. The new three-year relative limitation period under the revised law might not apply to such claims, as the current statute of limitations does not provide for a relative limitation period at all.

    Further changes brought by the revision

    In addition to the changes of the limitation periods set out above, the revision of the statute of limitations contains numerous further modifications. Some of them are listed in the following:

    1. Limitation periods do not commence or are suspended in the event that a claim cannot be asserted for objective reasons before any court worldwide (revised Art. 134 para. 1 no. 6 CO). The current law provides for such non-commencement or suspension only if the claim cannot be brought before a Swiss court.
    2. Parties to a dispute may agree in writing that limitation periods shall be suspended during settlement discussions, mediation proceedings or other out-of-court settlement proceedings (revised Art. 134 para. 1 no. 8 CO).
    3. Once a limitation period has commenced to run, waivers of statute of limitation defenses are admissible, but must not exceed ten years (revised Art. 141 para. 1 CO). Any such waivers must be in writing (new Art. 141 para. 1bis CO).
    4. In general terms and conditions (“GTC”), statute of limitation defenses may be waived by the party who makes use of the GTCs only. In contrast, a waiver by the party on whom the GTCs are imposed (e.g., consumers) is ineffective (new Art. 141 para. 1bis CO).
    5. The limitation period for an actio pauliana under the Swiss Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Act (“DEBA”) is extended to from currently two years to three years after service of a loss certificate, the opening of bankruptcy proceedings or the confirmation of a composition agreement with an assignment of assets (whichever is applicable; revised Art. 292 DEBA).

    If 2017 was the year of Initial Coin Offerings, 2018 was the year of Blockchain awareness and testing all over the world. From ICO focused guidelines and regulations respectively aimed to alarm and protect investors, we have seen the shift, especially in Europe, to distributed ledger technology (“DLT”) focused guidelines and regulations aimed at protecting citizens on one hand and promote DLT implementations on the other.

    Indeed, European Union Member States and the European Parliament started looking deeper into the technology by, for instance, calling for consultations with professionals in order to understand DLT’s potentials for real-world implementations and possible risks.

    In this article I am aiming to give a brief snapshot of firstly what are the most notable European initiatives and moves towards promoting Blockchain implementation and secondly current challenges faced by European law makers when dealing with the regulation of distributed ledger technologies.

    Europe

    Let’s start from the European Blockchain Partnership (“EBP”), a statement made by 25 EU Member States acknowledging the importance of distributed ledger technology for society, in particular when it comes to interoperability, cyber security and efficiency of digital public services. The Partnership is not only an acknowledgement, it is also a commitment from all signatory states to collaborate to build what they envision will be a distributed ledger infrastructure for the delivering of cross-border public services.

    Witness of the trust given to the technology is My Health My Data, a EU-backed project that uses DLT to enable patients to efficiently control their digitally recorded health data while securing it from the threat of data breaches. Benefits the EU saw in DLT on this specific project are safety, efficiency but most notably the opportunity that DLT offers data subject to have finally control over their own data, without the need for intermediaries.

    Another important initiative proving European interests in testing DLT technologies is the Horizon Prize on “Blockchains for Social Good”, a 5 million Euros worth challenge open to innovators and tech companies to develop scalable, efficient and high-impact decentralized solutions to social innovation challenges.

    Moving forward, in December last year, I had the honor to be part of the “ Workshop on Blockchains & Smart Contracts Legal and Regulatory Framework” in Paris, an initiative supported by the EU Blockchain Observatory and Forum (“EUBOF”), a pilot project initiated by the European Parliament. Earlier last year other three workshops were held, the aim of each was to collect knowledge on specific topics from an audience of leading DLT legal and technical professionals. With the knowledge collected, the EUBOF followed up with reports of what was discussed during the workshop and suggest a way forward.

    Although not binding, these reports give a reasonably clear guideline to the industry on how existing laws at a European level apply to the technology, or at least should be interpreted, and highlight areas where new regulation is definitely needed. As an example let’s look at the Report on Blockchain & GDPR. If you missed it, the GDPR is the Regulation that protects Europeans personal data and it’s applicable to all companies globally, which are processing data from European citizens. The “right to erasure” embedded in the GDPR, doesn’t allow personal data to be stored on an immutable database, the data subject has to be able to erase data anytime when shared with a service provider and stored somewhere on a database. In the case of Blockchain, the consensus on personal data having to be stored off-chain is therefore unanimous. Storing personal data off-chain and leaving an hash to that data on-chain, is a viable solution if certain precautions are taken in order to avoid the risks of reversibility or linkability of such hash to the personal data stored off-chain, therefore making the hash on-chain personally identifiable information.

    However, not all European laws apply to Member States, therefore making it hard to give a EU-wide answer to most DLT compliance challenges in Europe. Member States freedom to legislate is indeed only limited/influenced by two main instruments, Regulations, which are automatically enforceable in each Member State and Directives binding Member States to legislate on specific topics according to a set of specific rules.

    Diverging national laws have a great effect on multiple aspects of innovative technologies. Let’s look for instance at the validity of “smart contracts”. When discussing the legal power of automatically enforceable digital contracts, the lack of a European wide legislation on contracts makes it impossible to find an answer applicable to all Member States. For instance, is “offer and acceptance” enough to constitute a contract? What is considered a valid “acceptance”? What is an “obligation”? “Can a digital asset be the object of a legally binding agreement”?

    If we try to give a EU-wide answer to the questions such as smart contract validity and enforceability it is apparently not possible since we will need to consider 28 different answers. I, therefore, believe that the future of innovation in Europe will highly depend on the unification of laws.

    An example of a unified law that has great benefits on innovation (including DLT) is the Electronic Identification and Trust Services (eIDAS) Regulation, which governs electronic identification including electronic signatures.

    The race to regulating DLT in Europe

    Let’s now look briefly at a couple of Member States legislations, specifically on Blockchain and cryptocurrencies last year.

    EU Member States have been quite creative I would say in regulating the new technology. Let’s start from Malta, which saw a surprising increase of important projects and companies, such as Binance, landing on the beautiful Mediterranean Island thanks to its favorable (or at least felt as such) legislations on DLT. The “Blockchain Island” passed three laws in early July to regulate and supervise Blockchain projects including ICOs, crypto exchanges and DLT, specifically: The Innovative Technology Arrangements and Services Act regulation that aims at recognizing different technology arrangements such as DAOs, smart contracts and in future probably AI machines; The Virtual Financial Assets Act for ICOs and crypto exchanges; The Malta Digital Innovation Authority establishing a new supervisory authority.

    Some think the Maltese legislation lacks a comprehensive framework, one that for instance, gives legal personality to Innovative Technology Arrangements. For this reason some are therefore accusing the Maltese lawmakers of rushing into an uncompleted regulatory framework in order to attract business to the island while others seem to positively welcome the laws as a good start for a European wide regulation on DLT and crypto assets.

    In December 2018, Malta also initiated a declaration that was then signed by other six Members States, calling for collaboration for the promotion and implementation of DLT on a European level.

    France was one of the signatories of such declaration, and it’s worth mentioning since the French Minister for the Economy and Finance approved in September a framework for regulating ICOs and therefore protecting investors’ rights, basically giving the AMF (French Authority for Financial Market) the empowerment to give licenses to companies wanting to raise funds through Initial Coin Offerings.

    Last but not least comes Switzerland which although it is not a EU Member State, it has great degree of influence on European and national legislators when it comes to progressive regulations. At the end of December, the Swiss Federal Council released a report on DLT and the law, making a clear statement that the existing Swiss law is sufficient to regulate most matters related to DLT and Blockchain, although some adjustments have to be made. So no new laws but few amendments here and there, which will allow the integration of the specific DLT applications with existing laws in order to ensure legal certainty on certain uncovered matters. Relevant areas of Swiss law that will be amended include the transfer of rights utilizing digital registers, Anti Money Laundering rules specifically for decentralized trading platforms and bankruptcy when that proceeding involves crypto assets.

    Conclusions

    To summarize, from the approach taken during the past year, it is apparent that there is great interest in Europe to understand the potentials and to soon test implementations of distributed ledger technology. Lawmakers have also an understanding that the technology is in an infant state, it might involve risks, therefore making it complex to set specific rules or to give final answers on the alignment of certain technology applications with existing European or national laws.

    To achieve European wide results, however, acknowledgments, guidelines and reports are not enough. The setting of standards for lawmakers applicable to all Member States or even unification of laws in crucial sectors influencing directly or indirectly new technologies, will be the only solution for any innovative technology to be adopted at a European level.

    The author of this post is Alessandro Mazzi.

    “Influencer Marketing” is a very well known topic to the jurists and operators of the advertising sector dealing with commercial communication.

    There is a core principle in communication law: any form of commercial communication shall be clearly recognizable as such.

    Before the diffusion of digital communication and, along with it, the proliferation of the so-called «Influencer Marketing», the issue of recognizability of commercial communication was generally discussed when evaluating whether an advertising content was clearly distinguishable from a journalistic or an informative content (such is the longstanding issue regarding the advertorial).

    For a short period of time there was a debate regarding the so-called subliminal advertising, which eventually fell into oblivion.

    The necessity to point out to the consumer whether the appreciation for a product or a service shown by a well-known person – precisely an “Influencer” – (i.e. the endorsement) is genuine or not has become a much encountered and controversial topic.

    It shall not be considered as spontaneous when an individual receives remuneration for wearing a fashion item, for using a smartphone, or simply when he/she receives as a gift the products that he/she promotes or other valuable products.

    It is clear and proven that the spontaneous choice of an “idol” by the public has a bigger impact on these same people rather than any traditional way of advertising. Hence the abuse of surreptitious advertising on the less easily monitored channel: the web, precisely.

    What measures should be taken to ensure that the consumers can understand clearly whether a post is subject of a contract or not?

    The answer would be very simple.

    It would be enough to require the sponsored post to contain, in clearly visible characters, terms as “Advertisement”, “Sponsored by”, “Commercial agreement” or similar notices.

    In Italy, in absence of a law regulating specifically the matter, both the Istituto della Pubblicità (Italy’s Advertising Self-Regulatory Institute) and the Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (the Competition Authority) have expressed their opinion on this subject.

    In the Italian Advertising Self-Regulatory Institute’s digital chart it is written: “in order to make the promotional nature of content posted on social media and content sharing sites recognizable, celebrities/influencers/bloggers must at the top of their post state in a clearly distinguishable manner the words: “Pubblicità/Advertising”, or “Promosso da … brand/Promoted by…brand” or “Sponsorizzato da…brand/Sponsored by…brand” or “in collaborazione con …brand” or “in partnership with the …brand”; and/or within the first three hashtags (#) use one of the following terms: “#Pubblicità/#Advertising”, or “#Sponsorizzato da … brand/#Sponsored by the … brand “ or “#ad” along with “#brand”.

    In a press release of 2017 the Italian Competition Authority has required the addressees the use of the following warnings to be placed below the post together with the others hashtags (#), such as “#sponsored, #advertising, #paidad”, or, in the case of products given for free to the celebrity, “#productsuppliedby”; in particular, all these wordings should be followed by the name of the specific brand being advertised.

    However, browsing the Instagram’s pages of various Influencers, it is noticeable that only a few of them are actually using the indications provided by the authorities.

    And when it happens to came across Instagram’s profiles that use such indications, it is noticeable that the hashtag that is most commonly used is “#ad”, whose effectiveness (especially in Italy where terms such as “advertising”, “Adv” and, even more so, “ad” are not easily decipherable by the average consumer) raises many concerns.

    So far the Italian Competition Authority intervened sending moral suasion letters to some of the main influencers and companies producing the branded goods displayed in the posts, but still no self-regulatory, administrative or state measures have been taken.

    The same situation of uncertainty is likely to be found in other countries (here you can find a previous Legalmondo post on this topic in Germany: https://www.legalmondo.com/2017/11/germany-product-placement-influencer-marketing/), with the consequence that international companies are operating in an unclear context, in which it is difficult to identify what are the risks arising from behaviours considered as unlawful.

    I have therefore decided to write this article in order to assess the state of Influencer Marketing in Italy and in other countries and get a better understanding of the regulations in force, the measures/judgments issued by the competent Authorities, the international trends and the best practices that could be adopted by international companies.

    Since I am one of the founders of the Digital Adv Lab – an interdisciplinary observatory that studies the legal implications of marketing and digital communication initiatives – I am interested in getting in touch with all the readers involved in this topic: please feel free to enter a comment and/or contact me.

    The author of this post is Elena Carpani.

    Poland has recently become quite famous for its skilled and resourceful IT specialists. Each year thousands of new computer engineers (programmers, developers, testers, designers etc.) enter into the market, warmly welcomed by domestic and multinational companies. A big part of these young talents open their own firm or business as free lancers developing software for clients from European countries as well as from US, Canada, Japan, China, etc.

    However, companies who want to cooperate with these partners and assign software development to a Polish IT company or freelancer should be aware that the copyright law in Poland is very strict, as it mainly protects the creator and not the client. Therefore, to be on a safe side, it is better to follow these 7 basic rules:

    1. Never start cooperation with an IT specialist or an IT company without a formal agreement. And I mean a real agreement, in a written form, with signatures of persons who can validly contract on behalf of the companies. The form is very important because – under Polish law – copyrights transfer and exclusive license agreements not fulfilling form conditions are null and void. Moreover, if there is no agreement, Polish copyright rules will apply to all intellectual property matters.
    2. Please remember that software is a creation protected by copyright law. Therefore you should consider whether you want to acquire the entire intellectual property rights or you just need a license. If you need a full IP transfer, you need to put it expressly in the agreement; otherwise you will only get a non-exclusive licence. And these, in several cases, will not be useful from a business point of view. If a license is enough, it is advisable to agree if it will be exclusive or non-exclusive.
    3. When drafting an IP clause, be detailed and clear. If you want to be able to decompile and disassembly the binary code, specify it in the IP clause. If you want to be able to introduce modifications to the source code, specify it in the IP clause. If you want to sublicense the software, specify it in the IP clause. The IP clause shall contain the description of any way you want to use the software, whether on mobile devices or on personal computers, any other electronic device or via internet (e.g. cloud computing). And believe me, when I write «specify it in the IP clause» it means that you really, really have to put it there. Otherwise it will be null and void and you may face a situation where your smart IT engineer, after getting paid, will sue you for the IP infringement.
    4. Remember that you should indicate the timeframe and the geographical scope of the license or IP transfer. If you do not specify it expressly in the agreement, you will only be entitled to a 5-year license, automatically expiring afterwards.
    5. Draft carefully a clause related to termination of the agreement. Under Polish law the licensor may terminate the license agreement granted for an indefinite period of time upon 1-year notice. If you do not want to find yourself in a situation where you lose the software IP rights in the middle of a big project, make sure that from the very beginning you are on a safe side.
    6. Make sure that your partner is obliged to transfer you upon request all software documentation and the source code.
    7. Make sure that you have a good indemnification clause with no limitation of liability. Often Polish IT companies subcontract some part of the development work to free lancers. You never know if they will conclude proper agreements with their subcontractors and if they will legally acquire the IP of the software that they will later sell you. There is always the risk that in the future some Polish IT engineer you never met will raise IP infringement claims against you, trying to prove that he/she actually developed the software. In such a situation an indemnification clause will help you recovering the costs from your partner.

    Con la reciente sentencia 16601/2017, la Corte Suprema – después de diferentes pronunciamientos contrarios – ha abierto la posibilidad de reconocer en Italia las sentencias extranjeras que contengan daños punitivos.

    En este breve artículo veremos en qué consisten los daños punitivos, cuáles son las condiciones por las cuales podrían reconocerse y aplicarse en Italia y, sobretodo, qué medidas conviene tomar para afrontar este nuevo riesgo.

    Los daños punitivos, en inglés punitive damages, son un instituto jurídico originario de los ordenamientos anglosajones que prevén la posibilidad de reconocer a la parte perjudicada una indemnización adicional respecto a la compensación del daño sufrido, en los casos en los que el causante del daño haya actuado con dolo o culpa grave (“malice” y “gross negligence”, respectivamente).

    Con los daños punitivos, además de la función compensatoria, la indemnización del daño también asume una finalidad sancionadora, típica del derecho penal, actuando como elemento de disuasión ante otros potenciales infractores.

    En los ordenamientos en los que se prevén los daños punitivos, el reconocimiento y la cuantificación de la indemnización se someten a la discrecionalidad del juez.

    En los Estados Unidos de América los daños punitivos se prevén en los principios de common law, pero se disciplinan de modo diverso en cada uno de los Estados. Sin embargo, en general, se aplican siempre que la conducta del causante del daño haya sido dirigida a causar el daño intencionadamente o, se haya llevado a cabo sin tener en cuenta las normas de seguridad preestablecidas. Por lo general, no pueden reconocerse por el incumplimiento de un contrato, salvo que no se determine como un ilícito (tort) autónomo.

    En algunos Estados se prevén límites máximos a los daños punitivos, a veces incorporados en los daños compensatorios, otras veces como cuantía máxima. Además, la Corte Suprema de los EEUU ha intervenido en diferentes casos para limitar el importe de condena.

    En los ordenamientos de civil law, entre ellos Italia, el instituto de daños punitivos tradicionalmente no se reconoce, ya que la sanción al causante del daño se considera que queda al margen de los principios del derecho civil, basándose en la concepción de que la indemnización por daños tiene como objetivo restaurar la esfera patrimonial del perjudicado.

    En consecuencia, el reconocimiento de los daños punitivos en una sentencia, se obstaculizaban por el límite de orden público y tales sentencias no tenían acceso en el espacio jurídico italiano.

    La sentencia de las Secciones Unidas núm. 16601/2017, de 5 de julio de 2017 de la Corte Suprema de Casación ha girado las cartas sobre la mesa.

    En el presente caso se solicitó a la Corte de Apelación de Venecia el reconocimiento (ex. Art. 64 de la Ley 218/1995) de tres sentencias de la District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida que, admitió una denuncia de garantía interpuesta por un revendedor americano de cascos contra la sociedad productora italiana, por la cual se había condenado a ésta última al pago de 1.436.136,87 USD (además de gastos e intereses) en base al resarcimiento de los daños causas por un defecto del casco utilizado en un accidente de tráfico.

    La Corte de Apelación de Venecia reconoció la eficacia de la sentencia del juez extranjero, considerando que el importe era meramente indemnizatorio y no punitivo. La decisión fue recurrida en Casación por la parte condenada, que sostenía la contrariedad al orden publico de la sentencia estadunidense, en base a la orientación jurisprudencial hasta ese momento.

    La Casación ha confirmado la decisión de la Corte de Apelación, considerando que el importe no es punitivo y ha declarado el reconocimiento de la sentencia estadunidense en Italia.

    Las Secciones Unidas, por su parte, han aprovechado la ocasión para afrontar la cuestión inherente a la admisibilidad de los daños punitivos en Italia, cambiando la orientación histórica de la Corte Suprema (véase Cass. 1781/2012).

    Según la Corte, la noción de responsabilidad civil entendida como mera reparación de los daños sufridos, se debe considerar como obsoleta dada la evolución del instituto a través de intervenciones legislativas y jurisprudenciales nacionales y europeas, que han introducido medidas indemnizatorias con finalidad sancionadora y disuasiva. De hecho, en el ordenamiento italiano es posible encontrar diversos casos de indemnización por daños con finalidad sancionadora: en materia de difamación en medios de comunicación (art. 12 L. 47/48), derechos de autor (art. 158 L 633/41), propiedad industrial (art. 125 D. Lgs 30/2005), abuso del proceso (art. 96.3 c.p.c. y art. 26.2 c.p.a.), derecho laboral (art. 18.14 c.p.c.), derecho de familia (art. 709-ter c.p.c.), etc.

    De este modo, la Corte de Casación ha introducido el siguiente principio de derecho: “En el vigente ordenamiento italiano, a la responsabilidad civil no solo se le asigna el deber de restaurar la esfera patrimonial del sujeto que ha sufrido la lesión, porque se consideran incluidas en el sistema la función de disuasión y la función sancionadora de la responsabilidad civil. Por tanto, no es ontológicamente incompatible con el ordenamiento italiano el instituto de origen estadunidense de la indemnización punitiva”.

    La consecuencia, a tener en muy cuenta, es que el pronunciamiento abre la puerta a posibles deliberaciones de sentencias extranjeras, que condenen a una de las partes al pago de un importe superior respecto al importe calculado para compensar el prejuicio creado a causa de un daño.

    Sin embargo, a tal fin, la Corte Suprema ha dispuesto algunas condiciones para que la sentencia extranjera pueda reconocerse. La decisión ha debido ser tomada en el ordenamiento extranjero en base a:

    1. Garantizar la tipicidad de la condena.
    2. La previsibilidad de la misma.
    3. Los límites cuantificativos.

    Los posibles efectos de la Sentencia en el ordenamiento italiano

    En primer lugar, hay que tener claro que la Sentencia no ha modificado el sistema indemnizatorio interno del ordenamiento italiano. En otras palabras, la Sentencia no permitirá a los jueces italianos condenar por daños punitivos al interno de los procedimientos italianos.

    En cambio, por lo que respecta a las sentencias extranjeras, ahora será posible obtener la indemnización por daños punitivos a través del reconocimiento y la ejecución en el sistema italiano de una decisión extranjera que prevea la condena de dicha tipología de daño, con la condición de que se respeten los mencionados presupuestos.

    Por todo lo expuesto, las empresas que hayan invertido o que realicen negocios en países en los que se prevén los daños punitivos, tendrán que tener en consideración dicho riesgo.

    Los instrumentos para tutelarse

    El empresario quien opere en mercados extranjeros en los que se prevén los daños punitivos debe considerar con atención este riesgo.

    La óptica debe ser necesariamente de prevención y los instrumentos a disposición son diversos: en primer lugar, la adopción de cláusulas contractuales que prevean la renuncia del perjudicado a este tipo de daño o, que acuerden un límite a la indemnización de los daños contractuales, por ejemplo limitándolos al valor de los productos o a los servicios ofrecidos.

    Es además fundamental, que se conozca la legislación y la jurisprudencia de los mercados en los cuales se opera, incluso indirectamente (por ejemplo, con la distribución comercial de los productos) con el fin de escoger de modo consciente la ley aplicable al contrato y la modalidad de resolución de controversias (por ejemplo, con previsión de la exclusiva jurisdiccional del foro del país que no prevea daños punitivos).

    Finalmente, este tipo de responsabilidad y riesgo puede ser objeto de valoración con pólizas aseguradoras que ofrecen una cobertura específica respecto a eventuales condenas de indemnización de daños punitivos.

    En base a nuestra experiencia en años asesorando y representando compañías en la distribución comercial (en la jurisdicción española pero con fabricantes o distribuidores extranjeros), los siguientes son los seis elementos esenciales para que fabricantes (proveedores) y minoristas (distribuidores) puedan establecer buenas bases en una relación de distribución.

    Estas ideas son relevantes cuando las empresas tienen la intención de iniciar su relación comercial, pero no deben descuidarse y verificarse incluso cuando ya existan esas relaciones.

    La firma del contrato

    Aunque podría parecer obvio, la firma de un acuerdo de distribución es menos común de lo que parece. A menudo ocurre que a lo largo de la relación extendida, las estructuras corporativas cambian y lo que una vez se firmó con una sociedad, no se ha renovado, adaptado, modificado o reemplazado cuando la situación se ha transformado. Es muy conveniente haber documentado bien la relación en cada momento de su existencia y estar seguro de que lo que se ha previsto legalmente también se pueda cumplir en la relación comercial cotidiana. Es aconsejable que este trabajo previo sea llevado a cabo por especialistas legales coordinados estrechamente con el departamento comercial de la compañía. Las cláusulas perfectamente redactadas desde un punto de vista legal serán inútiles si son superadas o no cumplidas en el día a día. Y, por supuesto, ningún contrato se firma como una «mera formalidad» para luego modificarlo mediante acuerdos o prácticas verbales que lo dejen sin contenido.

    La elección correcta del contrato

    Si la firma del contrato de distribución es importante, la elección del tipo correcto es esencial. Muchos de los conflictos que ocurren, especialmente en las relaciones a largo plazo, comienzan con la interpretación del tipo de relación que se ha firmado. Incluso con un texto escrito (y con un título expreso), la intención de las partes sigue sin estar clara (y por lo tanto, el acuerdo). ¿Es el «distribuidor» realmente así? ¿Compra y revende o solo existen relaciones de suministro esporádicas? ¿Existe solo una actividad representativa (es decir, el distribuidor es en realidad un «agente»)? ¿Hay una relación mixta (a veces representa, a veces compra y revende)? La lista podría continuar indefinidamente. Incluso en muchas de las relaciones que existen actualmente, estoy seguro de que la interpretación dada por el Proveedor y el Distribuidor podría ser diferente.

    Supervisar las relaciones legales y comerciales

    Si es bastante frecuente no tener un contrato escrito claro, sucede en casi todas las relaciones de distribución que una vez que se ha firmado el acuerdo, la actividad comercial diaria modifica lo que se ha acordado. ¿Por qué las relaciones comerciales parecen descuidar lo que se ha escrito en un acuerdo? Son bastante frecuentes los contratos en los que se incluyen ciertas obligaciones para los distribuidores (informar sobre el mercado, clientes, compras mínimas), pero que en la práctica no se respetan (parece complicado, existe una buena relación entre las partes, nadie recuerda lo que se había firmado por personas que ya no trabajan en la empresa…). Sin embargo, también es bastante frecuente intentar utilizar esas obligaciones más adelante cuando comienzan los problemas en la relación. En ese momento, las partes intentan esconderse detrás de esos incumplimientos para resolver los contratos, aunque estas prácticas hubieran sido, en cierto modo, aceptadas. Por supuesto, ningún acuerdo puede durar para siempre y, por esa razón, es altamente recomendable una supervisión global y periódico entre el asesor legal (preferentemente uno independiente con el apoyo de los directivos internos) y el departamento comercial para tener en cuenta las nuevas prácticas y tener su reflejo en los documentos contractuales.

    Evidencias sobre los clientes

    En los contratos de distribución, las evidencias sobre los clientes serán esenciales en caso de resolución. Las partes (principalmente el proveedor) están bastante interesadas en probar quién (proveedor o distribuidor) adquirió los clientes. ¿Son resultado de la actividad del distribuidor o se obtienen como consecuencia de la reputación de la marca? Reunir las pruebas sobre los clientes podría simplificar o incluso evitar futuros conflictos. La importancia de la clientela y su posible actividad futura será un elemento clave para definir la compensación que pueda pretender el distribuidor.

    Evidencias sobre compras y ventas

    Otro elemento esencial y, a menudo, olvidado es la justificación de las compras al proveedor y las ventas posteriores de los distribuidores a los clientes. En cualquier acuerdo de distribución, los distribuidores adquieren los productos y los revenden a los clientes finales. Una compensación futura al distribuidor considerará la diferencia entre los precios de compra y los precios de reventa (el margen). Por lo tanto, es aconsejable poder establecer la prueba correspondiente sobre dicha información a fin de preparar mejor una posible reclamación.

    Daños en caso de resolución de los contratos

    Del mismo modo, sería conveniente justificar qué daños se han sufrido como resultado de la resolución de un contrato: ¿ha realizado el distribuidor inversiones por indicación del proveedor que aún no se han amortizado? ¿El distribuidor ha contratado nuevos empleados para una línea de negocio que debe ser descartada debido a la resolución del contrato? ¿El distribuidor ha alquilado nuevas instalaciones firmando contratos a largo plazo debido a las expectativas del acuerdo? Tenga en cuenta que el Distribuidor es un comerciante independiente y, como tal, asume los riesgos de su actividad. Pero en la medida en que actúe en una red de distribución, estará sujeto a las instrucciones, sugerencias y expectativas creadas por el proveedor. Estas pueden ser relevantes para determinar posteriormente los daños causados ​​por la resolución del contrato.

    Influencer marketing is the trend in today’s world of advertising. Even though it is obvious that influencer marketing must observe the framework of applicable statutory provisions, the market has long been uncertain about how influencer posts are to be drafted in order to be legally compliant. The current decision of Celle Higher Regional Court (June 08, 2017 – Case 13 U 53/17) offers at least some clarity.

    The judgment was issued in relation to an action for injunction by the German Association for Social Competition (Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb) against a German drugstore chain. A 20-year-old Instagram star with 1.3 million followers had advertised the drugstore chain in one of her posts. The post was only marked as advertisement at the bottom with the hashtag “#ad,” which additionally only came second in a list of six hashtags.

    Celle Higher Regional Court adjudged that this type of marking was insufficient. The court requested that the commercial purpose of an Instagram post would have to be apparent at first sight. It did not consider use of the hashtag “#ad” in a “hashtag cloud” to be sufficient to mark the post as advertising.

    The court left expressly open, however, whether the use of the hashtag “#ad” is generally suitable to mark advertising posts.

    The state media authorities (Landesmedienanstalten) already reacted to the judgment, however, and revised their joint guide on advertising issues in social media. It now reads: “When marking a post as PROMOTION (Werbung) or ADVERTISING (Anzeige), you will be on the safe side – that much is certain. […] At the current time, we cannot recommend marking posts as #ad, #sponsored by, or #powered by.” In the future, Instagram itself intends to provide for more transparency on the platform by comprehensibly identifying advertising posts. It is currently testing the introduction of a branded content tool in Germany to make it easier for users to recognize posts as paid advertising.

    Practical tip

    Advertising posts in social media should always be marked as “promotion” or “advertising” at the beginning of the posts unless their commercial purpose arises directly from the circumstances. Advertisers are also advised to obligate influencers contractually to such legally compliant marking of posts, since the influencers’ behavior may be attributed to the company, as is clearly shown by the recent judgment of Celle Higher Regional Court against the drugstore chain.

    The author of this post is Ilja Czernik.

    In this clip I briefly introduce the main options to consider when doing business in Iran.
    You can read more on this topic in my articles An introduction to Iran Corporations  and Obtaining a Foreign Investment License and browse Legalmondo’s blog for some other  posts on doing business in the region.

    Ignacio Alonso

    Áreas de práctica

    • Agencia
    • Derecho Societario
    • Contratos de distribución
    • Franquicia
    Contáctanos Ignacio

    Contacta con Ignacio





      Lea la política de privacidad de Legalmondo.
      Este sitio está protegido por reCAPTCHA y se aplican la Política de privacidad de Google y los Términos de servicio.

      Germany – Product Placement and Influencer Marketing

      28 de noviembre de 2017

      • Alemania
      • Contratos
      • Medios de comunicación
      • Patentes y Marcas

      In 2020, an important revision of the Swiss statute of limitations enters into force. The new law provides for longer limitation periods in cases of personal injury and extends the relative limitation periods in tort and unjust enrichment law from one to three years.

      Background of the revision

      In June 2018, the Swiss parliament adopted an amendment to the Swiss Code of Obligations (“CO”) pertaining to a revision of the statute of limitations. In November 2018, the Swiss government decided that the revised statute of limitations shall enter into force on 1 January 2020.

      The revision was significantly influenced by asbestos cases. Under the current law, damage claims of asbestos victims were time-barred in some cases even before asbestos-related diseases could be diagnosed. In March 2014, the European Court of Human Rights held in Howald Moor and others v. Switzerland that the Swiss statute of limitations amounts in such cases to a violation of article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right of access to a court).

      Having said that, the revision does not only concern cases of personal injury, but also includes numerous other important changes as described in the following.

      Key changes regarding limitation periods

      A. Tort law

      In tort law, the new relative limitation period amounts to three years from the date on which the injured party became aware of the damage and of the identity of the person liable (revised Art. 60 para. 1 CO). Under the current law, the relative limitation period amounts to one year only.

      With the exception of cases of personal injury, the absolute limitation period remains ten years as from the date when the conduct that caused the damages occurred or ended (revised Art. 60 para. 1 CO).

      In cases of personal injury, the new relative limitation period amounts to three years from the date on which the injured party became aware of the damage and of the identity of the person liable. Currently the relative limitation period amounts to one year only.

      The new absolute limitation period in cases of personal injury amounts to twenty years after the date when the conduct which caused the damages occurred or ended (new Art. 60 para. 1bis CO). Under the current law, there was no special absolute limitation period for cases of personal injury, so that the ordinary 10-year period applied (Art. 60 para. 1 CO).

      If conduct, which gives rise to liability under tort law, is also punishable under criminal law, the (longer) limitation period under criminal law remains applicable (cf. Art. 97 of the Swiss Criminal Code). However, where a first-instance criminal judgment is rendered before the conduct is time-barred under criminal law, the limitation periods ends not earlier than three years as from that criminal judgment (revised Art. 60 para. 2 CO). The current law does not provide for such an additional three-year limitation period.

      B. Unjust enrichment law

      In unjust enrichment law, the new relative limitation period amounts to three years as from the date on which the injured party knows about the claim (revised Art. 67 para. 1 CO). Under the current law, the relative limitation period amounts to one year only.

      The absolute limitation period is not affected by the revision and remains ten years after the date on which the claim arises (revised Art. 67 para. 1 CO).

      C. Contract law

      With regard to contractual claims, the ordinary limitation period remains ten years from the due date (Art. 127 CO). Furthermore, the shorter limitation period of five years from the due date applicable to (amongst others) claims for rent, interest on capital and other periodic payments, (most) claims out of employment relationships etc. remains unchanged too (Art. 128 CO).

      However, in cases of personal injury, the revised statute of limitations introduces a new relative limitation period of three years from the date on which the injured party became aware of the damage, as well as a new absolute limitation period of twenty years after the date when the conduct which caused the damages occurred or ended (new Art. 128a CO). The current law does not provide for distinct relative and absolute limitation periods for contractual claims in cases of personal injury. Instead, the ordinary ten-year limitation period (Art. 127 CO) usually applied to such cases.

      D. Summary

      In summary, the most important elements of the revised statute of limitations are the longer (trebled) relative limitation periods in tort and unjust enrichment law (i.e., three years instead of one year) and the new special rules for cases of personal injury, which now benefit from a 20-year absolute limitation period.

      Transitional provisions / application of the revised statute of limitations to pre-existing claims

      The longer limitation periods under the revised CO apply to any claims that are not yet time-barred when the revision enters into force (i.e., on 1 January 2020; revised Art. 49 para. 1, Final Title of the Swiss Civil Code). In other words, the limitation periods of any claims that do not become time-barred until 31 December 2019 at the latest will be prolonged. This is of particular relevance with regard to claims based on tort and unjust enrichment; the short one-year relative limitation periods under the current law will be extended by another two years.

      In contrast, the current law remains applicable in case the revised statute of limitations provides for shorter limitation periods (revised Art. 49 para. 2, Final Title of the Swiss Civil Code). This concerns, in particular, contractual claims in cases of personal injury. The new three-year relative limitation period under the revised law might not apply to such claims, as the current statute of limitations does not provide for a relative limitation period at all.

      Further changes brought by the revision

      In addition to the changes of the limitation periods set out above, the revision of the statute of limitations contains numerous further modifications. Some of them are listed in the following:

      1. Limitation periods do not commence or are suspended in the event that a claim cannot be asserted for objective reasons before any court worldwide (revised Art. 134 para. 1 no. 6 CO). The current law provides for such non-commencement or suspension only if the claim cannot be brought before a Swiss court.
      2. Parties to a dispute may agree in writing that limitation periods shall be suspended during settlement discussions, mediation proceedings or other out-of-court settlement proceedings (revised Art. 134 para. 1 no. 8 CO).
      3. Once a limitation period has commenced to run, waivers of statute of limitation defenses are admissible, but must not exceed ten years (revised Art. 141 para. 1 CO). Any such waivers must be in writing (new Art. 141 para. 1bis CO).
      4. In general terms and conditions (“GTC”), statute of limitation defenses may be waived by the party who makes use of the GTCs only. In contrast, a waiver by the party on whom the GTCs are imposed (e.g., consumers) is ineffective (new Art. 141 para. 1bis CO).
      5. The limitation period for an actio pauliana under the Swiss Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Act (“DEBA”) is extended to from currently two years to three years after service of a loss certificate, the opening of bankruptcy proceedings or the confirmation of a composition agreement with an assignment of assets (whichever is applicable; revised Art. 292 DEBA).

      If 2017 was the year of Initial Coin Offerings, 2018 was the year of Blockchain awareness and testing all over the world. From ICO focused guidelines and regulations respectively aimed to alarm and protect investors, we have seen the shift, especially in Europe, to distributed ledger technology (“DLT”) focused guidelines and regulations aimed at protecting citizens on one hand and promote DLT implementations on the other.

      Indeed, European Union Member States and the European Parliament started looking deeper into the technology by, for instance, calling for consultations with professionals in order to understand DLT’s potentials for real-world implementations and possible risks.

      In this article I am aiming to give a brief snapshot of firstly what are the most notable European initiatives and moves towards promoting Blockchain implementation and secondly current challenges faced by European law makers when dealing with the regulation of distributed ledger technologies.

      Europe

      Let’s start from the European Blockchain Partnership (“EBP”), a statement made by 25 EU Member States acknowledging the importance of distributed ledger technology for society, in particular when it comes to interoperability, cyber security and efficiency of digital public services. The Partnership is not only an acknowledgement, it is also a commitment from all signatory states to collaborate to build what they envision will be a distributed ledger infrastructure for the delivering of cross-border public services.

      Witness of the trust given to the technology is My Health My Data, a EU-backed project that uses DLT to enable patients to efficiently control their digitally recorded health data while securing it from the threat of data breaches. Benefits the EU saw in DLT on this specific project are safety, efficiency but most notably the opportunity that DLT offers data subject to have finally control over their own data, without the need for intermediaries.

      Another important initiative proving European interests in testing DLT technologies is the Horizon Prize on “Blockchains for Social Good”, a 5 million Euros worth challenge open to innovators and tech companies to develop scalable, efficient and high-impact decentralized solutions to social innovation challenges.

      Moving forward, in December last year, I had the honor to be part of the “ Workshop on Blockchains & Smart Contracts Legal and Regulatory Framework” in Paris, an initiative supported by the EU Blockchain Observatory and Forum (“EUBOF”), a pilot project initiated by the European Parliament. Earlier last year other three workshops were held, the aim of each was to collect knowledge on specific topics from an audience of leading DLT legal and technical professionals. With the knowledge collected, the EUBOF followed up with reports of what was discussed during the workshop and suggest a way forward.

      Although not binding, these reports give a reasonably clear guideline to the industry on how existing laws at a European level apply to the technology, or at least should be interpreted, and highlight areas where new regulation is definitely needed. As an example let’s look at the Report on Blockchain & GDPR. If you missed it, the GDPR is the Regulation that protects Europeans personal data and it’s applicable to all companies globally, which are processing data from European citizens. The “right to erasure” embedded in the GDPR, doesn’t allow personal data to be stored on an immutable database, the data subject has to be able to erase data anytime when shared with a service provider and stored somewhere on a database. In the case of Blockchain, the consensus on personal data having to be stored off-chain is therefore unanimous. Storing personal data off-chain and leaving an hash to that data on-chain, is a viable solution if certain precautions are taken in order to avoid the risks of reversibility or linkability of such hash to the personal data stored off-chain, therefore making the hash on-chain personally identifiable information.

      However, not all European laws apply to Member States, therefore making it hard to give a EU-wide answer to most DLT compliance challenges in Europe. Member States freedom to legislate is indeed only limited/influenced by two main instruments, Regulations, which are automatically enforceable in each Member State and Directives binding Member States to legislate on specific topics according to a set of specific rules.

      Diverging national laws have a great effect on multiple aspects of innovative technologies. Let’s look for instance at the validity of “smart contracts”. When discussing the legal power of automatically enforceable digital contracts, the lack of a European wide legislation on contracts makes it impossible to find an answer applicable to all Member States. For instance, is “offer and acceptance” enough to constitute a contract? What is considered a valid “acceptance”? What is an “obligation”? “Can a digital asset be the object of a legally binding agreement”?

      If we try to give a EU-wide answer to the questions such as smart contract validity and enforceability it is apparently not possible since we will need to consider 28 different answers. I, therefore, believe that the future of innovation in Europe will highly depend on the unification of laws.

      An example of a unified law that has great benefits on innovation (including DLT) is the Electronic Identification and Trust Services (eIDAS) Regulation, which governs electronic identification including electronic signatures.

      The race to regulating DLT in Europe

      Let’s now look briefly at a couple of Member States legislations, specifically on Blockchain and cryptocurrencies last year.

      EU Member States have been quite creative I would say in regulating the new technology. Let’s start from Malta, which saw a surprising increase of important projects and companies, such as Binance, landing on the beautiful Mediterranean Island thanks to its favorable (or at least felt as such) legislations on DLT. The “Blockchain Island” passed three laws in early July to regulate and supervise Blockchain projects including ICOs, crypto exchanges and DLT, specifically: The Innovative Technology Arrangements and Services Act regulation that aims at recognizing different technology arrangements such as DAOs, smart contracts and in future probably AI machines; The Virtual Financial Assets Act for ICOs and crypto exchanges; The Malta Digital Innovation Authority establishing a new supervisory authority.

      Some think the Maltese legislation lacks a comprehensive framework, one that for instance, gives legal personality to Innovative Technology Arrangements. For this reason some are therefore accusing the Maltese lawmakers of rushing into an uncompleted regulatory framework in order to attract business to the island while others seem to positively welcome the laws as a good start for a European wide regulation on DLT and crypto assets.

      In December 2018, Malta also initiated a declaration that was then signed by other six Members States, calling for collaboration for the promotion and implementation of DLT on a European level.

      France was one of the signatories of such declaration, and it’s worth mentioning since the French Minister for the Economy and Finance approved in September a framework for regulating ICOs and therefore protecting investors’ rights, basically giving the AMF (French Authority for Financial Market) the empowerment to give licenses to companies wanting to raise funds through Initial Coin Offerings.

      Last but not least comes Switzerland which although it is not a EU Member State, it has great degree of influence on European and national legislators when it comes to progressive regulations. At the end of December, the Swiss Federal Council released a report on DLT and the law, making a clear statement that the existing Swiss law is sufficient to regulate most matters related to DLT and Blockchain, although some adjustments have to be made. So no new laws but few amendments here and there, which will allow the integration of the specific DLT applications with existing laws in order to ensure legal certainty on certain uncovered matters. Relevant areas of Swiss law that will be amended include the transfer of rights utilizing digital registers, Anti Money Laundering rules specifically for decentralized trading platforms and bankruptcy when that proceeding involves crypto assets.

      Conclusions

      To summarize, from the approach taken during the past year, it is apparent that there is great interest in Europe to understand the potentials and to soon test implementations of distributed ledger technology. Lawmakers have also an understanding that the technology is in an infant state, it might involve risks, therefore making it complex to set specific rules or to give final answers on the alignment of certain technology applications with existing European or national laws.

      To achieve European wide results, however, acknowledgments, guidelines and reports are not enough. The setting of standards for lawmakers applicable to all Member States or even unification of laws in crucial sectors influencing directly or indirectly new technologies, will be the only solution for any innovative technology to be adopted at a European level.

      The author of this post is Alessandro Mazzi.

      “Influencer Marketing” is a very well known topic to the jurists and operators of the advertising sector dealing with commercial communication.

      There is a core principle in communication law: any form of commercial communication shall be clearly recognizable as such.

      Before the diffusion of digital communication and, along with it, the proliferation of the so-called «Influencer Marketing», the issue of recognizability of commercial communication was generally discussed when evaluating whether an advertising content was clearly distinguishable from a journalistic or an informative content (such is the longstanding issue regarding the advertorial).

      For a short period of time there was a debate regarding the so-called subliminal advertising, which eventually fell into oblivion.

      The necessity to point out to the consumer whether the appreciation for a product or a service shown by a well-known person – precisely an “Influencer” – (i.e. the endorsement) is genuine or not has become a much encountered and controversial topic.

      It shall not be considered as spontaneous when an individual receives remuneration for wearing a fashion item, for using a smartphone, or simply when he/she receives as a gift the products that he/she promotes or other valuable products.

      It is clear and proven that the spontaneous choice of an “idol” by the public has a bigger impact on these same people rather than any traditional way of advertising. Hence the abuse of surreptitious advertising on the less easily monitored channel: the web, precisely.

      What measures should be taken to ensure that the consumers can understand clearly whether a post is subject of a contract or not?

      The answer would be very simple.

      It would be enough to require the sponsored post to contain, in clearly visible characters, terms as “Advertisement”, “Sponsored by”, “Commercial agreement” or similar notices.

      In Italy, in absence of a law regulating specifically the matter, both the Istituto della Pubblicità (Italy’s Advertising Self-Regulatory Institute) and the Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (the Competition Authority) have expressed their opinion on this subject.

      In the Italian Advertising Self-Regulatory Institute’s digital chart it is written: “in order to make the promotional nature of content posted on social media and content sharing sites recognizable, celebrities/influencers/bloggers must at the top of their post state in a clearly distinguishable manner the words: “Pubblicità/Advertising”, or “Promosso da … brand/Promoted by…brand” or “Sponsorizzato da…brand/Sponsored by…brand” or “in collaborazione con …brand” or “in partnership with the …brand”; and/or within the first three hashtags (#) use one of the following terms: “#Pubblicità/#Advertising”, or “#Sponsorizzato da … brand/#Sponsored by the … brand “ or “#ad” along with “#brand”.

      In a press release of 2017 the Italian Competition Authority has required the addressees the use of the following warnings to be placed below the post together with the others hashtags (#), such as “#sponsored, #advertising, #paidad”, or, in the case of products given for free to the celebrity, “#productsuppliedby”; in particular, all these wordings should be followed by the name of the specific brand being advertised.

      However, browsing the Instagram’s pages of various Influencers, it is noticeable that only a few of them are actually using the indications provided by the authorities.

      And when it happens to came across Instagram’s profiles that use such indications, it is noticeable that the hashtag that is most commonly used is “#ad”, whose effectiveness (especially in Italy where terms such as “advertising”, “Adv” and, even more so, “ad” are not easily decipherable by the average consumer) raises many concerns.

      So far the Italian Competition Authority intervened sending moral suasion letters to some of the main influencers and companies producing the branded goods displayed in the posts, but still no self-regulatory, administrative or state measures have been taken.

      The same situation of uncertainty is likely to be found in other countries (here you can find a previous Legalmondo post on this topic in Germany: https://www.legalmondo.com/2017/11/germany-product-placement-influencer-marketing/), with the consequence that international companies are operating in an unclear context, in which it is difficult to identify what are the risks arising from behaviours considered as unlawful.

      I have therefore decided to write this article in order to assess the state of Influencer Marketing in Italy and in other countries and get a better understanding of the regulations in force, the measures/judgments issued by the competent Authorities, the international trends and the best practices that could be adopted by international companies.

      Since I am one of the founders of the Digital Adv Lab – an interdisciplinary observatory that studies the legal implications of marketing and digital communication initiatives – I am interested in getting in touch with all the readers involved in this topic: please feel free to enter a comment and/or contact me.

      The author of this post is Elena Carpani.

      Poland has recently become quite famous for its skilled and resourceful IT specialists. Each year thousands of new computer engineers (programmers, developers, testers, designers etc.) enter into the market, warmly welcomed by domestic and multinational companies. A big part of these young talents open their own firm or business as free lancers developing software for clients from European countries as well as from US, Canada, Japan, China, etc.

      However, companies who want to cooperate with these partners and assign software development to a Polish IT company or freelancer should be aware that the copyright law in Poland is very strict, as it mainly protects the creator and not the client. Therefore, to be on a safe side, it is better to follow these 7 basic rules:

      1. Never start cooperation with an IT specialist or an IT company without a formal agreement. And I mean a real agreement, in a written form, with signatures of persons who can validly contract on behalf of the companies. The form is very important because – under Polish law – copyrights transfer and exclusive license agreements not fulfilling form conditions are null and void. Moreover, if there is no agreement, Polish copyright rules will apply to all intellectual property matters.
      2. Please remember that software is a creation protected by copyright law. Therefore you should consider whether you want to acquire the entire intellectual property rights or you just need a license. If you need a full IP transfer, you need to put it expressly in the agreement; otherwise you will only get a non-exclusive licence. And these, in several cases, will not be useful from a business point of view. If a license is enough, it is advisable to agree if it will be exclusive or non-exclusive.
      3. When drafting an IP clause, be detailed and clear. If you want to be able to decompile and disassembly the binary code, specify it in the IP clause. If you want to be able to introduce modifications to the source code, specify it in the IP clause. If you want to sublicense the software, specify it in the IP clause. The IP clause shall contain the description of any way you want to use the software, whether on mobile devices or on personal computers, any other electronic device or via internet (e.g. cloud computing). And believe me, when I write «specify it in the IP clause» it means that you really, really have to put it there. Otherwise it will be null and void and you may face a situation where your smart IT engineer, after getting paid, will sue you for the IP infringement.
      4. Remember that you should indicate the timeframe and the geographical scope of the license or IP transfer. If you do not specify it expressly in the agreement, you will only be entitled to a 5-year license, automatically expiring afterwards.
      5. Draft carefully a clause related to termination of the agreement. Under Polish law the licensor may terminate the license agreement granted for an indefinite period of time upon 1-year notice. If you do not want to find yourself in a situation where you lose the software IP rights in the middle of a big project, make sure that from the very beginning you are on a safe side.
      6. Make sure that your partner is obliged to transfer you upon request all software documentation and the source code.
      7. Make sure that you have a good indemnification clause with no limitation of liability. Often Polish IT companies subcontract some part of the development work to free lancers. You never know if they will conclude proper agreements with their subcontractors and if they will legally acquire the IP of the software that they will later sell you. There is always the risk that in the future some Polish IT engineer you never met will raise IP infringement claims against you, trying to prove that he/she actually developed the software. In such a situation an indemnification clause will help you recovering the costs from your partner.

      Con la reciente sentencia 16601/2017, la Corte Suprema – después de diferentes pronunciamientos contrarios – ha abierto la posibilidad de reconocer en Italia las sentencias extranjeras que contengan daños punitivos.

      En este breve artículo veremos en qué consisten los daños punitivos, cuáles son las condiciones por las cuales podrían reconocerse y aplicarse en Italia y, sobretodo, qué medidas conviene tomar para afrontar este nuevo riesgo.

      Los daños punitivos, en inglés punitive damages, son un instituto jurídico originario de los ordenamientos anglosajones que prevén la posibilidad de reconocer a la parte perjudicada una indemnización adicional respecto a la compensación del daño sufrido, en los casos en los que el causante del daño haya actuado con dolo o culpa grave (“malice” y “gross negligence”, respectivamente).

      Con los daños punitivos, además de la función compensatoria, la indemnización del daño también asume una finalidad sancionadora, típica del derecho penal, actuando como elemento de disuasión ante otros potenciales infractores.

      En los ordenamientos en los que se prevén los daños punitivos, el reconocimiento y la cuantificación de la indemnización se someten a la discrecionalidad del juez.

      En los Estados Unidos de América los daños punitivos se prevén en los principios de common law, pero se disciplinan de modo diverso en cada uno de los Estados. Sin embargo, en general, se aplican siempre que la conducta del causante del daño haya sido dirigida a causar el daño intencionadamente o, se haya llevado a cabo sin tener en cuenta las normas de seguridad preestablecidas. Por lo general, no pueden reconocerse por el incumplimiento de un contrato, salvo que no se determine como un ilícito (tort) autónomo.

      En algunos Estados se prevén límites máximos a los daños punitivos, a veces incorporados en los daños compensatorios, otras veces como cuantía máxima. Además, la Corte Suprema de los EEUU ha intervenido en diferentes casos para limitar el importe de condena.

      En los ordenamientos de civil law, entre ellos Italia, el instituto de daños punitivos tradicionalmente no se reconoce, ya que la sanción al causante del daño se considera que queda al margen de los principios del derecho civil, basándose en la concepción de que la indemnización por daños tiene como objetivo restaurar la esfera patrimonial del perjudicado.

      En consecuencia, el reconocimiento de los daños punitivos en una sentencia, se obstaculizaban por el límite de orden público y tales sentencias no tenían acceso en el espacio jurídico italiano.

      La sentencia de las Secciones Unidas núm. 16601/2017, de 5 de julio de 2017 de la Corte Suprema de Casación ha girado las cartas sobre la mesa.

      En el presente caso se solicitó a la Corte de Apelación de Venecia el reconocimiento (ex. Art. 64 de la Ley 218/1995) de tres sentencias de la District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida que, admitió una denuncia de garantía interpuesta por un revendedor americano de cascos contra la sociedad productora italiana, por la cual se había condenado a ésta última al pago de 1.436.136,87 USD (además de gastos e intereses) en base al resarcimiento de los daños causas por un defecto del casco utilizado en un accidente de tráfico.

      La Corte de Apelación de Venecia reconoció la eficacia de la sentencia del juez extranjero, considerando que el importe era meramente indemnizatorio y no punitivo. La decisión fue recurrida en Casación por la parte condenada, que sostenía la contrariedad al orden publico de la sentencia estadunidense, en base a la orientación jurisprudencial hasta ese momento.

      La Casación ha confirmado la decisión de la Corte de Apelación, considerando que el importe no es punitivo y ha declarado el reconocimiento de la sentencia estadunidense en Italia.

      Las Secciones Unidas, por su parte, han aprovechado la ocasión para afrontar la cuestión inherente a la admisibilidad de los daños punitivos en Italia, cambiando la orientación histórica de la Corte Suprema (véase Cass. 1781/2012).

      Según la Corte, la noción de responsabilidad civil entendida como mera reparación de los daños sufridos, se debe considerar como obsoleta dada la evolución del instituto a través de intervenciones legislativas y jurisprudenciales nacionales y europeas, que han introducido medidas indemnizatorias con finalidad sancionadora y disuasiva. De hecho, en el ordenamiento italiano es posible encontrar diversos casos de indemnización por daños con finalidad sancionadora: en materia de difamación en medios de comunicación (art. 12 L. 47/48), derechos de autor (art. 158 L 633/41), propiedad industrial (art. 125 D. Lgs 30/2005), abuso del proceso (art. 96.3 c.p.c. y art. 26.2 c.p.a.), derecho laboral (art. 18.14 c.p.c.), derecho de familia (art. 709-ter c.p.c.), etc.

      De este modo, la Corte de Casación ha introducido el siguiente principio de derecho: “En el vigente ordenamiento italiano, a la responsabilidad civil no solo se le asigna el deber de restaurar la esfera patrimonial del sujeto que ha sufrido la lesión, porque se consideran incluidas en el sistema la función de disuasión y la función sancionadora de la responsabilidad civil. Por tanto, no es ontológicamente incompatible con el ordenamiento italiano el instituto de origen estadunidense de la indemnización punitiva”.

      La consecuencia, a tener en muy cuenta, es que el pronunciamiento abre la puerta a posibles deliberaciones de sentencias extranjeras, que condenen a una de las partes al pago de un importe superior respecto al importe calculado para compensar el prejuicio creado a causa de un daño.

      Sin embargo, a tal fin, la Corte Suprema ha dispuesto algunas condiciones para que la sentencia extranjera pueda reconocerse. La decisión ha debido ser tomada en el ordenamiento extranjero en base a:

      1. Garantizar la tipicidad de la condena.
      2. La previsibilidad de la misma.
      3. Los límites cuantificativos.

      Los posibles efectos de la Sentencia en el ordenamiento italiano

      En primer lugar, hay que tener claro que la Sentencia no ha modificado el sistema indemnizatorio interno del ordenamiento italiano. En otras palabras, la Sentencia no permitirá a los jueces italianos condenar por daños punitivos al interno de los procedimientos italianos.

      En cambio, por lo que respecta a las sentencias extranjeras, ahora será posible obtener la indemnización por daños punitivos a través del reconocimiento y la ejecución en el sistema italiano de una decisión extranjera que prevea la condena de dicha tipología de daño, con la condición de que se respeten los mencionados presupuestos.

      Por todo lo expuesto, las empresas que hayan invertido o que realicen negocios en países en los que se prevén los daños punitivos, tendrán que tener en consideración dicho riesgo.

      Los instrumentos para tutelarse

      El empresario quien opere en mercados extranjeros en los que se prevén los daños punitivos debe considerar con atención este riesgo.

      La óptica debe ser necesariamente de prevención y los instrumentos a disposición son diversos: en primer lugar, la adopción de cláusulas contractuales que prevean la renuncia del perjudicado a este tipo de daño o, que acuerden un límite a la indemnización de los daños contractuales, por ejemplo limitándolos al valor de los productos o a los servicios ofrecidos.

      Es además fundamental, que se conozca la legislación y la jurisprudencia de los mercados en los cuales se opera, incluso indirectamente (por ejemplo, con la distribución comercial de los productos) con el fin de escoger de modo consciente la ley aplicable al contrato y la modalidad de resolución de controversias (por ejemplo, con previsión de la exclusiva jurisdiccional del foro del país que no prevea daños punitivos).

      Finalmente, este tipo de responsabilidad y riesgo puede ser objeto de valoración con pólizas aseguradoras que ofrecen una cobertura específica respecto a eventuales condenas de indemnización de daños punitivos.

      En base a nuestra experiencia en años asesorando y representando compañías en la distribución comercial (en la jurisdicción española pero con fabricantes o distribuidores extranjeros), los siguientes son los seis elementos esenciales para que fabricantes (proveedores) y minoristas (distribuidores) puedan establecer buenas bases en una relación de distribución.

      Estas ideas son relevantes cuando las empresas tienen la intención de iniciar su relación comercial, pero no deben descuidarse y verificarse incluso cuando ya existan esas relaciones.

      La firma del contrato

      Aunque podría parecer obvio, la firma de un acuerdo de distribución es menos común de lo que parece. A menudo ocurre que a lo largo de la relación extendida, las estructuras corporativas cambian y lo que una vez se firmó con una sociedad, no se ha renovado, adaptado, modificado o reemplazado cuando la situación se ha transformado. Es muy conveniente haber documentado bien la relación en cada momento de su existencia y estar seguro de que lo que se ha previsto legalmente también se pueda cumplir en la relación comercial cotidiana. Es aconsejable que este trabajo previo sea llevado a cabo por especialistas legales coordinados estrechamente con el departamento comercial de la compañía. Las cláusulas perfectamente redactadas desde un punto de vista legal serán inútiles si son superadas o no cumplidas en el día a día. Y, por supuesto, ningún contrato se firma como una «mera formalidad» para luego modificarlo mediante acuerdos o prácticas verbales que lo dejen sin contenido.

      La elección correcta del contrato

      Si la firma del contrato de distribución es importante, la elección del tipo correcto es esencial. Muchos de los conflictos que ocurren, especialmente en las relaciones a largo plazo, comienzan con la interpretación del tipo de relación que se ha firmado. Incluso con un texto escrito (y con un título expreso), la intención de las partes sigue sin estar clara (y por lo tanto, el acuerdo). ¿Es el «distribuidor» realmente así? ¿Compra y revende o solo existen relaciones de suministro esporádicas? ¿Existe solo una actividad representativa (es decir, el distribuidor es en realidad un «agente»)? ¿Hay una relación mixta (a veces representa, a veces compra y revende)? La lista podría continuar indefinidamente. Incluso en muchas de las relaciones que existen actualmente, estoy seguro de que la interpretación dada por el Proveedor y el Distribuidor podría ser diferente.

      Supervisar las relaciones legales y comerciales

      Si es bastante frecuente no tener un contrato escrito claro, sucede en casi todas las relaciones de distribución que una vez que se ha firmado el acuerdo, la actividad comercial diaria modifica lo que se ha acordado. ¿Por qué las relaciones comerciales parecen descuidar lo que se ha escrito en un acuerdo? Son bastante frecuentes los contratos en los que se incluyen ciertas obligaciones para los distribuidores (informar sobre el mercado, clientes, compras mínimas), pero que en la práctica no se respetan (parece complicado, existe una buena relación entre las partes, nadie recuerda lo que se había firmado por personas que ya no trabajan en la empresa…). Sin embargo, también es bastante frecuente intentar utilizar esas obligaciones más adelante cuando comienzan los problemas en la relación. En ese momento, las partes intentan esconderse detrás de esos incumplimientos para resolver los contratos, aunque estas prácticas hubieran sido, en cierto modo, aceptadas. Por supuesto, ningún acuerdo puede durar para siempre y, por esa razón, es altamente recomendable una supervisión global y periódico entre el asesor legal (preferentemente uno independiente con el apoyo de los directivos internos) y el departamento comercial para tener en cuenta las nuevas prácticas y tener su reflejo en los documentos contractuales.

      Evidencias sobre los clientes

      En los contratos de distribución, las evidencias sobre los clientes serán esenciales en caso de resolución. Las partes (principalmente el proveedor) están bastante interesadas en probar quién (proveedor o distribuidor) adquirió los clientes. ¿Son resultado de la actividad del distribuidor o se obtienen como consecuencia de la reputación de la marca? Reunir las pruebas sobre los clientes podría simplificar o incluso evitar futuros conflictos. La importancia de la clientela y su posible actividad futura será un elemento clave para definir la compensación que pueda pretender el distribuidor.

      Evidencias sobre compras y ventas

      Otro elemento esencial y, a menudo, olvidado es la justificación de las compras al proveedor y las ventas posteriores de los distribuidores a los clientes. En cualquier acuerdo de distribución, los distribuidores adquieren los productos y los revenden a los clientes finales. Una compensación futura al distribuidor considerará la diferencia entre los precios de compra y los precios de reventa (el margen). Por lo tanto, es aconsejable poder establecer la prueba correspondiente sobre dicha información a fin de preparar mejor una posible reclamación.

      Daños en caso de resolución de los contratos

      Del mismo modo, sería conveniente justificar qué daños se han sufrido como resultado de la resolución de un contrato: ¿ha realizado el distribuidor inversiones por indicación del proveedor que aún no se han amortizado? ¿El distribuidor ha contratado nuevos empleados para una línea de negocio que debe ser descartada debido a la resolución del contrato? ¿El distribuidor ha alquilado nuevas instalaciones firmando contratos a largo plazo debido a las expectativas del acuerdo? Tenga en cuenta que el Distribuidor es un comerciante independiente y, como tal, asume los riesgos de su actividad. Pero en la medida en que actúe en una red de distribución, estará sujeto a las instrucciones, sugerencias y expectativas creadas por el proveedor. Estas pueden ser relevantes para determinar posteriormente los daños causados ​​por la resolución del contrato.

      Influencer marketing is the trend in today’s world of advertising. Even though it is obvious that influencer marketing must observe the framework of applicable statutory provisions, the market has long been uncertain about how influencer posts are to be drafted in order to be legally compliant. The current decision of Celle Higher Regional Court (June 08, 2017 – Case 13 U 53/17) offers at least some clarity.

      The judgment was issued in relation to an action for injunction by the German Association for Social Competition (Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb) against a German drugstore chain. A 20-year-old Instagram star with 1.3 million followers had advertised the drugstore chain in one of her posts. The post was only marked as advertisement at the bottom with the hashtag “#ad,” which additionally only came second in a list of six hashtags.

      Celle Higher Regional Court adjudged that this type of marking was insufficient. The court requested that the commercial purpose of an Instagram post would have to be apparent at first sight. It did not consider use of the hashtag “#ad” in a “hashtag cloud” to be sufficient to mark the post as advertising.

      The court left expressly open, however, whether the use of the hashtag “#ad” is generally suitable to mark advertising posts.

      The state media authorities (Landesmedienanstalten) already reacted to the judgment, however, and revised their joint guide on advertising issues in social media. It now reads: “When marking a post as PROMOTION (Werbung) or ADVERTISING (Anzeige), you will be on the safe side – that much is certain. […] At the current time, we cannot recommend marking posts as #ad, #sponsored by, or #powered by.” In the future, Instagram itself intends to provide for more transparency on the platform by comprehensibly identifying advertising posts. It is currently testing the introduction of a branded content tool in Germany to make it easier for users to recognize posts as paid advertising.

      Practical tip

      Advertising posts in social media should always be marked as “promotion” or “advertising” at the beginning of the posts unless their commercial purpose arises directly from the circumstances. Advertisers are also advised to obligate influencers contractually to such legally compliant marking of posts, since the influencers’ behavior may be attributed to the company, as is clearly shown by the recent judgment of Celle Higher Regional Court against the drugstore chain.

      The author of this post is Ilja Czernik.

      In this clip I briefly introduce the main options to consider when doing business in Iran.
      You can read more on this topic in my articles An introduction to Iran Corporations  and Obtaining a Foreign Investment License and browse Legalmondo’s blog for some other  posts on doing business in the region.

      Doing Business in Iran

      6 de octubre de 2017

      • Irán
      • Contratos
      • Derecho Societario

      In 2020, an important revision of the Swiss statute of limitations enters into force. The new law provides for longer limitation periods in cases of personal injury and extends the relative limitation periods in tort and unjust enrichment law from one to three years.

      Background of the revision

      In June 2018, the Swiss parliament adopted an amendment to the Swiss Code of Obligations (“CO”) pertaining to a revision of the statute of limitations. In November 2018, the Swiss government decided that the revised statute of limitations shall enter into force on 1 January 2020.

      The revision was significantly influenced by asbestos cases. Under the current law, damage claims of asbestos victims were time-barred in some cases even before asbestos-related diseases could be diagnosed. In March 2014, the European Court of Human Rights held in Howald Moor and others v. Switzerland that the Swiss statute of limitations amounts in such cases to a violation of article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right of access to a court).

      Having said that, the revision does not only concern cases of personal injury, but also includes numerous other important changes as described in the following.

      Key changes regarding limitation periods

      A. Tort law

      In tort law, the new relative limitation period amounts to three years from the date on which the injured party became aware of the damage and of the identity of the person liable (revised Art. 60 para. 1 CO). Under the current law, the relative limitation period amounts to one year only.

      With the exception of cases of personal injury, the absolute limitation period remains ten years as from the date when the conduct that caused the damages occurred or ended (revised Art. 60 para. 1 CO).

      In cases of personal injury, the new relative limitation period amounts to three years from the date on which the injured party became aware of the damage and of the identity of the person liable. Currently the relative limitation period amounts to one year only.

      The new absolute limitation period in cases of personal injury amounts to twenty years after the date when the conduct which caused the damages occurred or ended (new Art. 60 para. 1bis CO). Under the current law, there was no special absolute limitation period for cases of personal injury, so that the ordinary 10-year period applied (Art. 60 para. 1 CO).

      If conduct, which gives rise to liability under tort law, is also punishable under criminal law, the (longer) limitation period under criminal law remains applicable (cf. Art. 97 of the Swiss Criminal Code). However, where a first-instance criminal judgment is rendered before the conduct is time-barred under criminal law, the limitation periods ends not earlier than three years as from that criminal judgment (revised Art. 60 para. 2 CO). The current law does not provide for such an additional three-year limitation period.

      B. Unjust enrichment law

      In unjust enrichment law, the new relative limitation period amounts to three years as from the date on which the injured party knows about the claim (revised Art. 67 para. 1 CO). Under the current law, the relative limitation period amounts to one year only.

      The absolute limitation period is not affected by the revision and remains ten years after the date on which the claim arises (revised Art. 67 para. 1 CO).

      C. Contract law

      With regard to contractual claims, the ordinary limitation period remains ten years from the due date (Art. 127 CO). Furthermore, the shorter limitation period of five years from the due date applicable to (amongst others) claims for rent, interest on capital and other periodic payments, (most) claims out of employment relationships etc. remains unchanged too (Art. 128 CO).

      However, in cases of personal injury, the revised statute of limitations introduces a new relative limitation period of three years from the date on which the injured party became aware of the damage, as well as a new absolute limitation period of twenty years after the date when the conduct which caused the damages occurred or ended (new Art. 128a CO). The current law does not provide for distinct relative and absolute limitation periods for contractual claims in cases of personal injury. Instead, the ordinary ten-year limitation period (Art. 127 CO) usually applied to such cases.

      D. Summary

      In summary, the most important elements of the revised statute of limitations are the longer (trebled) relative limitation periods in tort and unjust enrichment law (i.e., three years instead of one year) and the new special rules for cases of personal injury, which now benefit from a 20-year absolute limitation period.

      Transitional provisions / application of the revised statute of limitations to pre-existing claims

      The longer limitation periods under the revised CO apply to any claims that are not yet time-barred when the revision enters into force (i.e., on 1 January 2020; revised Art. 49 para. 1, Final Title of the Swiss Civil Code). In other words, the limitation periods of any claims that do not become time-barred until 31 December 2019 at the latest will be prolonged. This is of particular relevance with regard to claims based on tort and unjust enrichment; the short one-year relative limitation periods under the current law will be extended by another two years.

      In contrast, the current law remains applicable in case the revised statute of limitations provides for shorter limitation periods (revised Art. 49 para. 2, Final Title of the Swiss Civil Code). This concerns, in particular, contractual claims in cases of personal injury. The new three-year relative limitation period under the revised law might not apply to such claims, as the current statute of limitations does not provide for a relative limitation period at all.

      Further changes brought by the revision

      In addition to the changes of the limitation periods set out above, the revision of the statute of limitations contains numerous further modifications. Some of them are listed in the following:

      1. Limitation periods do not commence or are suspended in the event that a claim cannot be asserted for objective reasons before any court worldwide (revised Art. 134 para. 1 no. 6 CO). The current law provides for such non-commencement or suspension only if the claim cannot be brought before a Swiss court.
      2. Parties to a dispute may agree in writing that limitation periods shall be suspended during settlement discussions, mediation proceedings or other out-of-court settlement proceedings (revised Art. 134 para. 1 no. 8 CO).
      3. Once a limitation period has commenced to run, waivers of statute of limitation defenses are admissible, but must not exceed ten years (revised Art. 141 para. 1 CO). Any such waivers must be in writing (new Art. 141 para. 1bis CO).
      4. In general terms and conditions (“GTC”), statute of limitation defenses may be waived by the party who makes use of the GTCs only. In contrast, a waiver by the party on whom the GTCs are imposed (e.g., consumers) is ineffective (new Art. 141 para. 1bis CO).
      5. The limitation period for an actio pauliana under the Swiss Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Act (“DEBA”) is extended to from currently two years to three years after service of a loss certificate, the opening of bankruptcy proceedings or the confirmation of a composition agreement with an assignment of assets (whichever is applicable; revised Art. 292 DEBA).

      If 2017 was the year of Initial Coin Offerings, 2018 was the year of Blockchain awareness and testing all over the world. From ICO focused guidelines and regulations respectively aimed to alarm and protect investors, we have seen the shift, especially in Europe, to distributed ledger technology (“DLT”) focused guidelines and regulations aimed at protecting citizens on one hand and promote DLT implementations on the other.

      Indeed, European Union Member States and the European Parliament started looking deeper into the technology by, for instance, calling for consultations with professionals in order to understand DLT’s potentials for real-world implementations and possible risks.

      In this article I am aiming to give a brief snapshot of firstly what are the most notable European initiatives and moves towards promoting Blockchain implementation and secondly current challenges faced by European law makers when dealing with the regulation of distributed ledger technologies.

      Europe

      Let’s start from the European Blockchain Partnership (“EBP”), a statement made by 25 EU Member States acknowledging the importance of distributed ledger technology for society, in particular when it comes to interoperability, cyber security and efficiency of digital public services. The Partnership is not only an acknowledgement, it is also a commitment from all signatory states to collaborate to build what they envision will be a distributed ledger infrastructure for the delivering of cross-border public services.

      Witness of the trust given to the technology is My Health My Data, a EU-backed project that uses DLT to enable patients to efficiently control their digitally recorded health data while securing it from the threat of data breaches. Benefits the EU saw in DLT on this specific project are safety, efficiency but most notably the opportunity that DLT offers data subject to have finally control over their own data, without the need for intermediaries.

      Another important initiative proving European interests in testing DLT technologies is the Horizon Prize on “Blockchains for Social Good”, a 5 million Euros worth challenge open to innovators and tech companies to develop scalable, efficient and high-impact decentralized solutions to social innovation challenges.

      Moving forward, in December last year, I had the honor to be part of the “ Workshop on Blockchains & Smart Contracts Legal and Regulatory Framework” in Paris, an initiative supported by the EU Blockchain Observatory and Forum (“EUBOF”), a pilot project initiated by the European Parliament. Earlier last year other three workshops were held, the aim of each was to collect knowledge on specific topics from an audience of leading DLT legal and technical professionals. With the knowledge collected, the EUBOF followed up with reports of what was discussed during the workshop and suggest a way forward.

      Although not binding, these reports give a reasonably clear guideline to the industry on how existing laws at a European level apply to the technology, or at least should be interpreted, and highlight areas where new regulation is definitely needed. As an example let’s look at the Report on Blockchain & GDPR. If you missed it, the GDPR is the Regulation that protects Europeans personal data and it’s applicable to all companies globally, which are processing data from European citizens. The “right to erasure” embedded in the GDPR, doesn’t allow personal data to be stored on an immutable database, the data subject has to be able to erase data anytime when shared with a service provider and stored somewhere on a database. In the case of Blockchain, the consensus on personal data having to be stored off-chain is therefore unanimous. Storing personal data off-chain and leaving an hash to that data on-chain, is a viable solution if certain precautions are taken in order to avoid the risks of reversibility or linkability of such hash to the personal data stored off-chain, therefore making the hash on-chain personally identifiable information.

      However, not all European laws apply to Member States, therefore making it hard to give a EU-wide answer to most DLT compliance challenges in Europe. Member States freedom to legislate is indeed only limited/influenced by two main instruments, Regulations, which are automatically enforceable in each Member State and Directives binding Member States to legislate on specific topics according to a set of specific rules.

      Diverging national laws have a great effect on multiple aspects of innovative technologies. Let’s look for instance at the validity of “smart contracts”. When discussing the legal power of automatically enforceable digital contracts, the lack of a European wide legislation on contracts makes it impossible to find an answer applicable to all Member States. For instance, is “offer and acceptance” enough to constitute a contract? What is considered a valid “acceptance”? What is an “obligation”? “Can a digital asset be the object of a legally binding agreement”?

      If we try to give a EU-wide answer to the questions such as smart contract validity and enforceability it is apparently not possible since we will need to consider 28 different answers. I, therefore, believe that the future of innovation in Europe will highly depend on the unification of laws.

      An example of a unified law that has great benefits on innovation (including DLT) is the Electronic Identification and Trust Services (eIDAS) Regulation, which governs electronic identification including electronic signatures.

      The race to regulating DLT in Europe

      Let’s now look briefly at a couple of Member States legislations, specifically on Blockchain and cryptocurrencies last year.

      EU Member States have been quite creative I would say in regulating the new technology. Let’s start from Malta, which saw a surprising increase of important projects and companies, such as Binance, landing on the beautiful Mediterranean Island thanks to its favorable (or at least felt as such) legislations on DLT. The “Blockchain Island” passed three laws in early July to regulate and supervise Blockchain projects including ICOs, crypto exchanges and DLT, specifically: The Innovative Technology Arrangements and Services Act regulation that aims at recognizing different technology arrangements such as DAOs, smart contracts and in future probably AI machines; The Virtual Financial Assets Act for ICOs and crypto exchanges; The Malta Digital Innovation Authority establishing a new supervisory authority.

      Some think the Maltese legislation lacks a comprehensive framework, one that for instance, gives legal personality to Innovative Technology Arrangements. For this reason some are therefore accusing the Maltese lawmakers of rushing into an uncompleted regulatory framework in order to attract business to the island while others seem to positively welcome the laws as a good start for a European wide regulation on DLT and crypto assets.

      In December 2018, Malta also initiated a declaration that was then signed by other six Members States, calling for collaboration for the promotion and implementation of DLT on a European level.

      France was one of the signatories of such declaration, and it’s worth mentioning since the French Minister for the Economy and Finance approved in September a framework for regulating ICOs and therefore protecting investors’ rights, basically giving the AMF (French Authority for Financial Market) the empowerment to give licenses to companies wanting to raise funds through Initial Coin Offerings.

      Last but not least comes Switzerland which although it is not a EU Member State, it has great degree of influence on European and national legislators when it comes to progressive regulations. At the end of December, the Swiss Federal Council released a report on DLT and the law, making a clear statement that the existing Swiss law is sufficient to regulate most matters related to DLT and Blockchain, although some adjustments have to be made. So no new laws but few amendments here and there, which will allow the integration of the specific DLT applications with existing laws in order to ensure legal certainty on certain uncovered matters. Relevant areas of Swiss law that will be amended include the transfer of rights utilizing digital registers, Anti Money Laundering rules specifically for decentralized trading platforms and bankruptcy when that proceeding involves crypto assets.

      Conclusions

      To summarize, from the approach taken during the past year, it is apparent that there is great interest in Europe to understand the potentials and to soon test implementations of distributed ledger technology. Lawmakers have also an understanding that the technology is in an infant state, it might involve risks, therefore making it complex to set specific rules or to give final answers on the alignment of certain technology applications with existing European or national laws.

      To achieve European wide results, however, acknowledgments, guidelines and reports are not enough. The setting of standards for lawmakers applicable to all Member States or even unification of laws in crucial sectors influencing directly or indirectly new technologies, will be the only solution for any innovative technology to be adopted at a European level.

      The author of this post is Alessandro Mazzi.

      “Influencer Marketing” is a very well known topic to the jurists and operators of the advertising sector dealing with commercial communication.

      There is a core principle in communication law: any form of commercial communication shall be clearly recognizable as such.

      Before the diffusion of digital communication and, along with it, the proliferation of the so-called «Influencer Marketing», the issue of recognizability of commercial communication was generally discussed when evaluating whether an advertising content was clearly distinguishable from a journalistic or an informative content (such is the longstanding issue regarding the advertorial).

      For a short period of time there was a debate regarding the so-called subliminal advertising, which eventually fell into oblivion.

      The necessity to point out to the consumer whether the appreciation for a product or a service shown by a well-known person – precisely an “Influencer” – (i.e. the endorsement) is genuine or not has become a much encountered and controversial topic.

      It shall not be considered as spontaneous when an individual receives remuneration for wearing a fashion item, for using a smartphone, or simply when he/she receives as a gift the products that he/she promotes or other valuable products.

      It is clear and proven that the spontaneous choice of an “idol” by the public has a bigger impact on these same people rather than any traditional way of advertising. Hence the abuse of surreptitious advertising on the less easily monitored channel: the web, precisely.

      What measures should be taken to ensure that the consumers can understand clearly whether a post is subject of a contract or not?

      The answer would be very simple.

      It would be enough to require the sponsored post to contain, in clearly visible characters, terms as “Advertisement”, “Sponsored by”, “Commercial agreement” or similar notices.

      In Italy, in absence of a law regulating specifically the matter, both the Istituto della Pubblicità (Italy’s Advertising Self-Regulatory Institute) and the Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (the Competition Authority) have expressed their opinion on this subject.

      In the Italian Advertising Self-Regulatory Institute’s digital chart it is written: “in order to make the promotional nature of content posted on social media and content sharing sites recognizable, celebrities/influencers/bloggers must at the top of their post state in a clearly distinguishable manner the words: “Pubblicità/Advertising”, or “Promosso da … brand/Promoted by…brand” or “Sponsorizzato da…brand/Sponsored by…brand” or “in collaborazione con …brand” or “in partnership with the …brand”; and/or within the first three hashtags (#) use one of the following terms: “#Pubblicità/#Advertising”, or “#Sponsorizzato da … brand/#Sponsored by the … brand “ or “#ad” along with “#brand”.

      In a press release of 2017 the Italian Competition Authority has required the addressees the use of the following warnings to be placed below the post together with the others hashtags (#), such as “#sponsored, #advertising, #paidad”, or, in the case of products given for free to the celebrity, “#productsuppliedby”; in particular, all these wordings should be followed by the name of the specific brand being advertised.

      However, browsing the Instagram’s pages of various Influencers, it is noticeable that only a few of them are actually using the indications provided by the authorities.

      And when it happens to came across Instagram’s profiles that use such indications, it is noticeable that the hashtag that is most commonly used is “#ad”, whose effectiveness (especially in Italy where terms such as “advertising”, “Adv” and, even more so, “ad” are not easily decipherable by the average consumer) raises many concerns.

      So far the Italian Competition Authority intervened sending moral suasion letters to some of the main influencers and companies producing the branded goods displayed in the posts, but still no self-regulatory, administrative or state measures have been taken.

      The same situation of uncertainty is likely to be found in other countries (here you can find a previous Legalmondo post on this topic in Germany: https://www.legalmondo.com/2017/11/germany-product-placement-influencer-marketing/), with the consequence that international companies are operating in an unclear context, in which it is difficult to identify what are the risks arising from behaviours considered as unlawful.

      I have therefore decided to write this article in order to assess the state of Influencer Marketing in Italy and in other countries and get a better understanding of the regulations in force, the measures/judgments issued by the competent Authorities, the international trends and the best practices that could be adopted by international companies.

      Since I am one of the founders of the Digital Adv Lab – an interdisciplinary observatory that studies the legal implications of marketing and digital communication initiatives – I am interested in getting in touch with all the readers involved in this topic: please feel free to enter a comment and/or contact me.

      The author of this post is Elena Carpani.

      Poland has recently become quite famous for its skilled and resourceful IT specialists. Each year thousands of new computer engineers (programmers, developers, testers, designers etc.) enter into the market, warmly welcomed by domestic and multinational companies. A big part of these young talents open their own firm or business as free lancers developing software for clients from European countries as well as from US, Canada, Japan, China, etc.

      However, companies who want to cooperate with these partners and assign software development to a Polish IT company or freelancer should be aware that the copyright law in Poland is very strict, as it mainly protects the creator and not the client. Therefore, to be on a safe side, it is better to follow these 7 basic rules:

      1. Never start cooperation with an IT specialist or an IT company without a formal agreement. And I mean a real agreement, in a written form, with signatures of persons who can validly contract on behalf of the companies. The form is very important because – under Polish law – copyrights transfer and exclusive license agreements not fulfilling form conditions are null and void. Moreover, if there is no agreement, Polish copyright rules will apply to all intellectual property matters.
      2. Please remember that software is a creation protected by copyright law. Therefore you should consider whether you want to acquire the entire intellectual property rights or you just need a license. If you need a full IP transfer, you need to put it expressly in the agreement; otherwise you will only get a non-exclusive licence. And these, in several cases, will not be useful from a business point of view. If a license is enough, it is advisable to agree if it will be exclusive or non-exclusive.
      3. When drafting an IP clause, be detailed and clear. If you want to be able to decompile and disassembly the binary code, specify it in the IP clause. If you want to be able to introduce modifications to the source code, specify it in the IP clause. If you want to sublicense the software, specify it in the IP clause. The IP clause shall contain the description of any way you want to use the software, whether on mobile devices or on personal computers, any other electronic device or via internet (e.g. cloud computing). And believe me, when I write «specify it in the IP clause» it means that you really, really have to put it there. Otherwise it will be null and void and you may face a situation where your smart IT engineer, after getting paid, will sue you for the IP infringement.
      4. Remember that you should indicate the timeframe and the geographical scope of the license or IP transfer. If you do not specify it expressly in the agreement, you will only be entitled to a 5-year license, automatically expiring afterwards.
      5. Draft carefully a clause related to termination of the agreement. Under Polish law the licensor may terminate the license agreement granted for an indefinite period of time upon 1-year notice. If you do not want to find yourself in a situation where you lose the software IP rights in the middle of a big project, make sure that from the very beginning you are on a safe side.
      6. Make sure that your partner is obliged to transfer you upon request all software documentation and the source code.
      7. Make sure that you have a good indemnification clause with no limitation of liability. Often Polish IT companies subcontract some part of the development work to free lancers. You never know if they will conclude proper agreements with their subcontractors and if they will legally acquire the IP of the software that they will later sell you. There is always the risk that in the future some Polish IT engineer you never met will raise IP infringement claims against you, trying to prove that he/she actually developed the software. In such a situation an indemnification clause will help you recovering the costs from your partner.

      Con la reciente sentencia 16601/2017, la Corte Suprema – después de diferentes pronunciamientos contrarios – ha abierto la posibilidad de reconocer en Italia las sentencias extranjeras que contengan daños punitivos.

      En este breve artículo veremos en qué consisten los daños punitivos, cuáles son las condiciones por las cuales podrían reconocerse y aplicarse en Italia y, sobretodo, qué medidas conviene tomar para afrontar este nuevo riesgo.

      Los daños punitivos, en inglés punitive damages, son un instituto jurídico originario de los ordenamientos anglosajones que prevén la posibilidad de reconocer a la parte perjudicada una indemnización adicional respecto a la compensación del daño sufrido, en los casos en los que el causante del daño haya actuado con dolo o culpa grave (“malice” y “gross negligence”, respectivamente).

      Con los daños punitivos, además de la función compensatoria, la indemnización del daño también asume una finalidad sancionadora, típica del derecho penal, actuando como elemento de disuasión ante otros potenciales infractores.

      En los ordenamientos en los que se prevén los daños punitivos, el reconocimiento y la cuantificación de la indemnización se someten a la discrecionalidad del juez.

      En los Estados Unidos de América los daños punitivos se prevén en los principios de common law, pero se disciplinan de modo diverso en cada uno de los Estados. Sin embargo, en general, se aplican siempre que la conducta del causante del daño haya sido dirigida a causar el daño intencionadamente o, se haya llevado a cabo sin tener en cuenta las normas de seguridad preestablecidas. Por lo general, no pueden reconocerse por el incumplimiento de un contrato, salvo que no se determine como un ilícito (tort) autónomo.

      En algunos Estados se prevén límites máximos a los daños punitivos, a veces incorporados en los daños compensatorios, otras veces como cuantía máxima. Además, la Corte Suprema de los EEUU ha intervenido en diferentes casos para limitar el importe de condena.

      En los ordenamientos de civil law, entre ellos Italia, el instituto de daños punitivos tradicionalmente no se reconoce, ya que la sanción al causante del daño se considera que queda al margen de los principios del derecho civil, basándose en la concepción de que la indemnización por daños tiene como objetivo restaurar la esfera patrimonial del perjudicado.

      En consecuencia, el reconocimiento de los daños punitivos en una sentencia, se obstaculizaban por el límite de orden público y tales sentencias no tenían acceso en el espacio jurídico italiano.

      La sentencia de las Secciones Unidas núm. 16601/2017, de 5 de julio de 2017 de la Corte Suprema de Casación ha girado las cartas sobre la mesa.

      En el presente caso se solicitó a la Corte de Apelación de Venecia el reconocimiento (ex. Art. 64 de la Ley 218/1995) de tres sentencias de la District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida que, admitió una denuncia de garantía interpuesta por un revendedor americano de cascos contra la sociedad productora italiana, por la cual se había condenado a ésta última al pago de 1.436.136,87 USD (además de gastos e intereses) en base al resarcimiento de los daños causas por un defecto del casco utilizado en un accidente de tráfico.

      La Corte de Apelación de Venecia reconoció la eficacia de la sentencia del juez extranjero, considerando que el importe era meramente indemnizatorio y no punitivo. La decisión fue recurrida en Casación por la parte condenada, que sostenía la contrariedad al orden publico de la sentencia estadunidense, en base a la orientación jurisprudencial hasta ese momento.

      La Casación ha confirmado la decisión de la Corte de Apelación, considerando que el importe no es punitivo y ha declarado el reconocimiento de la sentencia estadunidense en Italia.

      Las Secciones Unidas, por su parte, han aprovechado la ocasión para afrontar la cuestión inherente a la admisibilidad de los daños punitivos en Italia, cambiando la orientación histórica de la Corte Suprema (véase Cass. 1781/2012).

      Según la Corte, la noción de responsabilidad civil entendida como mera reparación de los daños sufridos, se debe considerar como obsoleta dada la evolución del instituto a través de intervenciones legislativas y jurisprudenciales nacionales y europeas, que han introducido medidas indemnizatorias con finalidad sancionadora y disuasiva. De hecho, en el ordenamiento italiano es posible encontrar diversos casos de indemnización por daños con finalidad sancionadora: en materia de difamación en medios de comunicación (art. 12 L. 47/48), derechos de autor (art. 158 L 633/41), propiedad industrial (art. 125 D. Lgs 30/2005), abuso del proceso (art. 96.3 c.p.c. y art. 26.2 c.p.a.), derecho laboral (art. 18.14 c.p.c.), derecho de familia (art. 709-ter c.p.c.), etc.

      De este modo, la Corte de Casación ha introducido el siguiente principio de derecho: “En el vigente ordenamiento italiano, a la responsabilidad civil no solo se le asigna el deber de restaurar la esfera patrimonial del sujeto que ha sufrido la lesión, porque se consideran incluidas en el sistema la función de disuasión y la función sancionadora de la responsabilidad civil. Por tanto, no es ontológicamente incompatible con el ordenamiento italiano el instituto de origen estadunidense de la indemnización punitiva”.

      La consecuencia, a tener en muy cuenta, es que el pronunciamiento abre la puerta a posibles deliberaciones de sentencias extranjeras, que condenen a una de las partes al pago de un importe superior respecto al importe calculado para compensar el prejuicio creado a causa de un daño.

      Sin embargo, a tal fin, la Corte Suprema ha dispuesto algunas condiciones para que la sentencia extranjera pueda reconocerse. La decisión ha debido ser tomada en el ordenamiento extranjero en base a:

      1. Garantizar la tipicidad de la condena.
      2. La previsibilidad de la misma.
      3. Los límites cuantificativos.

      Los posibles efectos de la Sentencia en el ordenamiento italiano

      En primer lugar, hay que tener claro que la Sentencia no ha modificado el sistema indemnizatorio interno del ordenamiento italiano. En otras palabras, la Sentencia no permitirá a los jueces italianos condenar por daños punitivos al interno de los procedimientos italianos.

      En cambio, por lo que respecta a las sentencias extranjeras, ahora será posible obtener la indemnización por daños punitivos a través del reconocimiento y la ejecución en el sistema italiano de una decisión extranjera que prevea la condena de dicha tipología de daño, con la condición de que se respeten los mencionados presupuestos.

      Por todo lo expuesto, las empresas que hayan invertido o que realicen negocios en países en los que se prevén los daños punitivos, tendrán que tener en consideración dicho riesgo.

      Los instrumentos para tutelarse

      El empresario quien opere en mercados extranjeros en los que se prevén los daños punitivos debe considerar con atención este riesgo.

      La óptica debe ser necesariamente de prevención y los instrumentos a disposición son diversos: en primer lugar, la adopción de cláusulas contractuales que prevean la renuncia del perjudicado a este tipo de daño o, que acuerden un límite a la indemnización de los daños contractuales, por ejemplo limitándolos al valor de los productos o a los servicios ofrecidos.

      Es además fundamental, que se conozca la legislación y la jurisprudencia de los mercados en los cuales se opera, incluso indirectamente (por ejemplo, con la distribución comercial de los productos) con el fin de escoger de modo consciente la ley aplicable al contrato y la modalidad de resolución de controversias (por ejemplo, con previsión de la exclusiva jurisdiccional del foro del país que no prevea daños punitivos).

      Finalmente, este tipo de responsabilidad y riesgo puede ser objeto de valoración con pólizas aseguradoras que ofrecen una cobertura específica respecto a eventuales condenas de indemnización de daños punitivos.

      En base a nuestra experiencia en años asesorando y representando compañías en la distribución comercial (en la jurisdicción española pero con fabricantes o distribuidores extranjeros), los siguientes son los seis elementos esenciales para que fabricantes (proveedores) y minoristas (distribuidores) puedan establecer buenas bases en una relación de distribución.

      Estas ideas son relevantes cuando las empresas tienen la intención de iniciar su relación comercial, pero no deben descuidarse y verificarse incluso cuando ya existan esas relaciones.

      La firma del contrato

      Aunque podría parecer obvio, la firma de un acuerdo de distribución es menos común de lo que parece. A menudo ocurre que a lo largo de la relación extendida, las estructuras corporativas cambian y lo que una vez se firmó con una sociedad, no se ha renovado, adaptado, modificado o reemplazado cuando la situación se ha transformado. Es muy conveniente haber documentado bien la relación en cada momento de su existencia y estar seguro de que lo que se ha previsto legalmente también se pueda cumplir en la relación comercial cotidiana. Es aconsejable que este trabajo previo sea llevado a cabo por especialistas legales coordinados estrechamente con el departamento comercial de la compañía. Las cláusulas perfectamente redactadas desde un punto de vista legal serán inútiles si son superadas o no cumplidas en el día a día. Y, por supuesto, ningún contrato se firma como una «mera formalidad» para luego modificarlo mediante acuerdos o prácticas verbales que lo dejen sin contenido.

      La elección correcta del contrato

      Si la firma del contrato de distribución es importante, la elección del tipo correcto es esencial. Muchos de los conflictos que ocurren, especialmente en las relaciones a largo plazo, comienzan con la interpretación del tipo de relación que se ha firmado. Incluso con un texto escrito (y con un título expreso), la intención de las partes sigue sin estar clara (y por lo tanto, el acuerdo). ¿Es el «distribuidor» realmente así? ¿Compra y revende o solo existen relaciones de suministro esporádicas? ¿Existe solo una actividad representativa (es decir, el distribuidor es en realidad un «agente»)? ¿Hay una relación mixta (a veces representa, a veces compra y revende)? La lista podría continuar indefinidamente. Incluso en muchas de las relaciones que existen actualmente, estoy seguro de que la interpretación dada por el Proveedor y el Distribuidor podría ser diferente.

      Supervisar las relaciones legales y comerciales

      Si es bastante frecuente no tener un contrato escrito claro, sucede en casi todas las relaciones de distribución que una vez que se ha firmado el acuerdo, la actividad comercial diaria modifica lo que se ha acordado. ¿Por qué las relaciones comerciales parecen descuidar lo que se ha escrito en un acuerdo? Son bastante frecuentes los contratos en los que se incluyen ciertas obligaciones para los distribuidores (informar sobre el mercado, clientes, compras mínimas), pero que en la práctica no se respetan (parece complicado, existe una buena relación entre las partes, nadie recuerda lo que se había firmado por personas que ya no trabajan en la empresa…). Sin embargo, también es bastante frecuente intentar utilizar esas obligaciones más adelante cuando comienzan los problemas en la relación. En ese momento, las partes intentan esconderse detrás de esos incumplimientos para resolver los contratos, aunque estas prácticas hubieran sido, en cierto modo, aceptadas. Por supuesto, ningún acuerdo puede durar para siempre y, por esa razón, es altamente recomendable una supervisión global y periódico entre el asesor legal (preferentemente uno independiente con el apoyo de los directivos internos) y el departamento comercial para tener en cuenta las nuevas prácticas y tener su reflejo en los documentos contractuales.

      Evidencias sobre los clientes

      En los contratos de distribución, las evidencias sobre los clientes serán esenciales en caso de resolución. Las partes (principalmente el proveedor) están bastante interesadas en probar quién (proveedor o distribuidor) adquirió los clientes. ¿Son resultado de la actividad del distribuidor o se obtienen como consecuencia de la reputación de la marca? Reunir las pruebas sobre los clientes podría simplificar o incluso evitar futuros conflictos. La importancia de la clientela y su posible actividad futura será un elemento clave para definir la compensación que pueda pretender el distribuidor.

      Evidencias sobre compras y ventas

      Otro elemento esencial y, a menudo, olvidado es la justificación de las compras al proveedor y las ventas posteriores de los distribuidores a los clientes. En cualquier acuerdo de distribución, los distribuidores adquieren los productos y los revenden a los clientes finales. Una compensación futura al distribuidor considerará la diferencia entre los precios de compra y los precios de reventa (el margen). Por lo tanto, es aconsejable poder establecer la prueba correspondiente sobre dicha información a fin de preparar mejor una posible reclamación.

      Daños en caso de resolución de los contratos

      Del mismo modo, sería conveniente justificar qué daños se han sufrido como resultado de la resolución de un contrato: ¿ha realizado el distribuidor inversiones por indicación del proveedor que aún no se han amortizado? ¿El distribuidor ha contratado nuevos empleados para una línea de negocio que debe ser descartada debido a la resolución del contrato? ¿El distribuidor ha alquilado nuevas instalaciones firmando contratos a largo plazo debido a las expectativas del acuerdo? Tenga en cuenta que el Distribuidor es un comerciante independiente y, como tal, asume los riesgos de su actividad. Pero en la medida en que actúe en una red de distribución, estará sujeto a las instrucciones, sugerencias y expectativas creadas por el proveedor. Estas pueden ser relevantes para determinar posteriormente los daños causados ​​por la resolución del contrato.

      Influencer marketing is the trend in today’s world of advertising. Even though it is obvious that influencer marketing must observe the framework of applicable statutory provisions, the market has long been uncertain about how influencer posts are to be drafted in order to be legally compliant. The current decision of Celle Higher Regional Court (June 08, 2017 – Case 13 U 53/17) offers at least some clarity.

      The judgment was issued in relation to an action for injunction by the German Association for Social Competition (Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb) against a German drugstore chain. A 20-year-old Instagram star with 1.3 million followers had advertised the drugstore chain in one of her posts. The post was only marked as advertisement at the bottom with the hashtag “#ad,” which additionally only came second in a list of six hashtags.

      Celle Higher Regional Court adjudged that this type of marking was insufficient. The court requested that the commercial purpose of an Instagram post would have to be apparent at first sight. It did not consider use of the hashtag “#ad” in a “hashtag cloud” to be sufficient to mark the post as advertising.

      The court left expressly open, however, whether the use of the hashtag “#ad” is generally suitable to mark advertising posts.

      The state media authorities (Landesmedienanstalten) already reacted to the judgment, however, and revised their joint guide on advertising issues in social media. It now reads: “When marking a post as PROMOTION (Werbung) or ADVERTISING (Anzeige), you will be on the safe side – that much is certain. […] At the current time, we cannot recommend marking posts as #ad, #sponsored by, or #powered by.” In the future, Instagram itself intends to provide for more transparency on the platform by comprehensibly identifying advertising posts. It is currently testing the introduction of a branded content tool in Germany to make it easier for users to recognize posts as paid advertising.

      Practical tip

      Advertising posts in social media should always be marked as “promotion” or “advertising” at the beginning of the posts unless their commercial purpose arises directly from the circumstances. Advertisers are also advised to obligate influencers contractually to such legally compliant marking of posts, since the influencers’ behavior may be attributed to the company, as is clearly shown by the recent judgment of Celle Higher Regional Court against the drugstore chain.

      The author of this post is Ilja Czernik.

      In this clip I briefly introduce the main options to consider when doing business in Iran.
      You can read more on this topic in my articles An introduction to Iran Corporations  and Obtaining a Foreign Investment License and browse Legalmondo’s blog for some other  posts on doing business in the region.

      Encyeh Sadr

      Áreas de práctica

      • Derecho Aeronáutico
      • Contratos
      • Inversiones
      Contáctanos Encyeh

      Contacta con Encyeh





        Lea la política de privacidad de Legalmondo.
        Este sitio está protegido por reCAPTCHA y se aplican la Política de privacidad de Google y los Términos de servicio.

        France – Abrupt termination of contract

        26 de septiembre de 2017

        • Francia
        • Contratos
        • Contratos de distribución
        • Litigios

        In 2020, an important revision of the Swiss statute of limitations enters into force. The new law provides for longer limitation periods in cases of personal injury and extends the relative limitation periods in tort and unjust enrichment law from one to three years.

        Background of the revision

        In June 2018, the Swiss parliament adopted an amendment to the Swiss Code of Obligations (“CO”) pertaining to a revision of the statute of limitations. In November 2018, the Swiss government decided that the revised statute of limitations shall enter into force on 1 January 2020.

        The revision was significantly influenced by asbestos cases. Under the current law, damage claims of asbestos victims were time-barred in some cases even before asbestos-related diseases could be diagnosed. In March 2014, the European Court of Human Rights held in Howald Moor and others v. Switzerland that the Swiss statute of limitations amounts in such cases to a violation of article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right of access to a court).

        Having said that, the revision does not only concern cases of personal injury, but also includes numerous other important changes as described in the following.

        Key changes regarding limitation periods

        A. Tort law

        In tort law, the new relative limitation period amounts to three years from the date on which the injured party became aware of the damage and of the identity of the person liable (revised Art. 60 para. 1 CO). Under the current law, the relative limitation period amounts to one year only.

        With the exception of cases of personal injury, the absolute limitation period remains ten years as from the date when the conduct that caused the damages occurred or ended (revised Art. 60 para. 1 CO).

        In cases of personal injury, the new relative limitation period amounts to three years from the date on which the injured party became aware of the damage and of the identity of the person liable. Currently the relative limitation period amounts to one year only.

        The new absolute limitation period in cases of personal injury amounts to twenty years after the date when the conduct which caused the damages occurred or ended (new Art. 60 para. 1bis CO). Under the current law, there was no special absolute limitation period for cases of personal injury, so that the ordinary 10-year period applied (Art. 60 para. 1 CO).

        If conduct, which gives rise to liability under tort law, is also punishable under criminal law, the (longer) limitation period under criminal law remains applicable (cf. Art. 97 of the Swiss Criminal Code). However, where a first-instance criminal judgment is rendered before the conduct is time-barred under criminal law, the limitation periods ends not earlier than three years as from that criminal judgment (revised Art. 60 para. 2 CO). The current law does not provide for such an additional three-year limitation period.

        B. Unjust enrichment law

        In unjust enrichment law, the new relative limitation period amounts to three years as from the date on which the injured party knows about the claim (revised Art. 67 para. 1 CO). Under the current law, the relative limitation period amounts to one year only.

        The absolute limitation period is not affected by the revision and remains ten years after the date on which the claim arises (revised Art. 67 para. 1 CO).

        C. Contract law

        With regard to contractual claims, the ordinary limitation period remains ten years from the due date (Art. 127 CO). Furthermore, the shorter limitation period of five years from the due date applicable to (amongst others) claims for rent, interest on capital and other periodic payments, (most) claims out of employment relationships etc. remains unchanged too (Art. 128 CO).

        However, in cases of personal injury, the revised statute of limitations introduces a new relative limitation period of three years from the date on which the injured party became aware of the damage, as well as a new absolute limitation period of twenty years after the date when the conduct which caused the damages occurred or ended (new Art. 128a CO). The current law does not provide for distinct relative and absolute limitation periods for contractual claims in cases of personal injury. Instead, the ordinary ten-year limitation period (Art. 127 CO) usually applied to such cases.

        D. Summary

        In summary, the most important elements of the revised statute of limitations are the longer (trebled) relative limitation periods in tort and unjust enrichment law (i.e., three years instead of one year) and the new special rules for cases of personal injury, which now benefit from a 20-year absolute limitation period.

        Transitional provisions / application of the revised statute of limitations to pre-existing claims

        The longer limitation periods under the revised CO apply to any claims that are not yet time-barred when the revision enters into force (i.e., on 1 January 2020; revised Art. 49 para. 1, Final Title of the Swiss Civil Code). In other words, the limitation periods of any claims that do not become time-barred until 31 December 2019 at the latest will be prolonged. This is of particular relevance with regard to claims based on tort and unjust enrichment; the short one-year relative limitation periods under the current law will be extended by another two years.

        In contrast, the current law remains applicable in case the revised statute of limitations provides for shorter limitation periods (revised Art. 49 para. 2, Final Title of the Swiss Civil Code). This concerns, in particular, contractual claims in cases of personal injury. The new three-year relative limitation period under the revised law might not apply to such claims, as the current statute of limitations does not provide for a relative limitation period at all.

        Further changes brought by the revision

        In addition to the changes of the limitation periods set out above, the revision of the statute of limitations contains numerous further modifications. Some of them are listed in the following:

        1. Limitation periods do not commence or are suspended in the event that a claim cannot be asserted for objective reasons before any court worldwide (revised Art. 134 para. 1 no. 6 CO). The current law provides for such non-commencement or suspension only if the claim cannot be brought before a Swiss court.
        2. Parties to a dispute may agree in writing that limitation periods shall be suspended during settlement discussions, mediation proceedings or other out-of-court settlement proceedings (revised Art. 134 para. 1 no. 8 CO).
        3. Once a limitation period has commenced to run, waivers of statute of limitation defenses are admissible, but must not exceed ten years (revised Art. 141 para. 1 CO). Any such waivers must be in writing (new Art. 141 para. 1bis CO).
        4. In general terms and conditions (“GTC”), statute of limitation defenses may be waived by the party who makes use of the GTCs only. In contrast, a waiver by the party on whom the GTCs are imposed (e.g., consumers) is ineffective (new Art. 141 para. 1bis CO).
        5. The limitation period for an actio pauliana under the Swiss Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Act (“DEBA”) is extended to from currently two years to three years after service of a loss certificate, the opening of bankruptcy proceedings or the confirmation of a composition agreement with an assignment of assets (whichever is applicable; revised Art. 292 DEBA).

        If 2017 was the year of Initial Coin Offerings, 2018 was the year of Blockchain awareness and testing all over the world. From ICO focused guidelines and regulations respectively aimed to alarm and protect investors, we have seen the shift, especially in Europe, to distributed ledger technology (“DLT”) focused guidelines and regulations aimed at protecting citizens on one hand and promote DLT implementations on the other.

        Indeed, European Union Member States and the European Parliament started looking deeper into the technology by, for instance, calling for consultations with professionals in order to understand DLT’s potentials for real-world implementations and possible risks.

        In this article I am aiming to give a brief snapshot of firstly what are the most notable European initiatives and moves towards promoting Blockchain implementation and secondly current challenges faced by European law makers when dealing with the regulation of distributed ledger technologies.

        Europe

        Let’s start from the European Blockchain Partnership (“EBP”), a statement made by 25 EU Member States acknowledging the importance of distributed ledger technology for society, in particular when it comes to interoperability, cyber security and efficiency of digital public services. The Partnership is not only an acknowledgement, it is also a commitment from all signatory states to collaborate to build what they envision will be a distributed ledger infrastructure for the delivering of cross-border public services.

        Witness of the trust given to the technology is My Health My Data, a EU-backed project that uses DLT to enable patients to efficiently control their digitally recorded health data while securing it from the threat of data breaches. Benefits the EU saw in DLT on this specific project are safety, efficiency but most notably the opportunity that DLT offers data subject to have finally control over their own data, without the need for intermediaries.

        Another important initiative proving European interests in testing DLT technologies is the Horizon Prize on “Blockchains for Social Good”, a 5 million Euros worth challenge open to innovators and tech companies to develop scalable, efficient and high-impact decentralized solutions to social innovation challenges.

        Moving forward, in December last year, I had the honor to be part of the “ Workshop on Blockchains & Smart Contracts Legal and Regulatory Framework” in Paris, an initiative supported by the EU Blockchain Observatory and Forum (“EUBOF”), a pilot project initiated by the European Parliament. Earlier last year other three workshops were held, the aim of each was to collect knowledge on specific topics from an audience of leading DLT legal and technical professionals. With the knowledge collected, the EUBOF followed up with reports of what was discussed during the workshop and suggest a way forward.

        Although not binding, these reports give a reasonably clear guideline to the industry on how existing laws at a European level apply to the technology, or at least should be interpreted, and highlight areas where new regulation is definitely needed. As an example let’s look at the Report on Blockchain & GDPR. If you missed it, the GDPR is the Regulation that protects Europeans personal data and it’s applicable to all companies globally, which are processing data from European citizens. The “right to erasure” embedded in the GDPR, doesn’t allow personal data to be stored on an immutable database, the data subject has to be able to erase data anytime when shared with a service provider and stored somewhere on a database. In the case of Blockchain, the consensus on personal data having to be stored off-chain is therefore unanimous. Storing personal data off-chain and leaving an hash to that data on-chain, is a viable solution if certain precautions are taken in order to avoid the risks of reversibility or linkability of such hash to the personal data stored off-chain, therefore making the hash on-chain personally identifiable information.

        However, not all European laws apply to Member States, therefore making it hard to give a EU-wide answer to most DLT compliance challenges in Europe. Member States freedom to legislate is indeed only limited/influenced by two main instruments, Regulations, which are automatically enforceable in each Member State and Directives binding Member States to legislate on specific topics according to a set of specific rules.

        Diverging national laws have a great effect on multiple aspects of innovative technologies. Let’s look for instance at the validity of “smart contracts”. When discussing the legal power of automatically enforceable digital contracts, the lack of a European wide legislation on contracts makes it impossible to find an answer applicable to all Member States. For instance, is “offer and acceptance” enough to constitute a contract? What is considered a valid “acceptance”? What is an “obligation”? “Can a digital asset be the object of a legally binding agreement”?

        If we try to give a EU-wide answer to the questions such as smart contract validity and enforceability it is apparently not possible since we will need to consider 28 different answers. I, therefore, believe that the future of innovation in Europe will highly depend on the unification of laws.

        An example of a unified law that has great benefits on innovation (including DLT) is the Electronic Identification and Trust Services (eIDAS) Regulation, which governs electronic identification including electronic signatures.

        The race to regulating DLT in Europe

        Let’s now look briefly at a couple of Member States legislations, specifically on Blockchain and cryptocurrencies last year.

        EU Member States have been quite creative I would say in regulating the new technology. Let’s start from Malta, which saw a surprising increase of important projects and companies, such as Binance, landing on the beautiful Mediterranean Island thanks to its favorable (or at least felt as such) legislations on DLT. The “Blockchain Island” passed three laws in early July to regulate and supervise Blockchain projects including ICOs, crypto exchanges and DLT, specifically: The Innovative Technology Arrangements and Services Act regulation that aims at recognizing different technology arrangements such as DAOs, smart contracts and in future probably AI machines; The Virtual Financial Assets Act for ICOs and crypto exchanges; The Malta Digital Innovation Authority establishing a new supervisory authority.

        Some think the Maltese legislation lacks a comprehensive framework, one that for instance, gives legal personality to Innovative Technology Arrangements. For this reason some are therefore accusing the Maltese lawmakers of rushing into an uncompleted regulatory framework in order to attract business to the island while others seem to positively welcome the laws as a good start for a European wide regulation on DLT and crypto assets.

        In December 2018, Malta also initiated a declaration that was then signed by other six Members States, calling for collaboration for the promotion and implementation of DLT on a European level.

        France was one of the signatories of such declaration, and it’s worth mentioning since the French Minister for the Economy and Finance approved in September a framework for regulating ICOs and therefore protecting investors’ rights, basically giving the AMF (French Authority for Financial Market) the empowerment to give licenses to companies wanting to raise funds through Initial Coin Offerings.

        Last but not least comes Switzerland which although it is not a EU Member State, it has great degree of influence on European and national legislators when it comes to progressive regulations. At the end of December, the Swiss Federal Council released a report on DLT and the law, making a clear statement that the existing Swiss law is sufficient to regulate most matters related to DLT and Blockchain, although some adjustments have to be made. So no new laws but few amendments here and there, which will allow the integration of the specific DLT applications with existing laws in order to ensure legal certainty on certain uncovered matters. Relevant areas of Swiss law that will be amended include the transfer of rights utilizing digital registers, Anti Money Laundering rules specifically for decentralized trading platforms and bankruptcy when that proceeding involves crypto assets.

        Conclusions

        To summarize, from the approach taken during the past year, it is apparent that there is great interest in Europe to understand the potentials and to soon test implementations of distributed ledger technology. Lawmakers have also an understanding that the technology is in an infant state, it might involve risks, therefore making it complex to set specific rules or to give final answers on the alignment of certain technology applications with existing European or national laws.

        To achieve European wide results, however, acknowledgments, guidelines and reports are not enough. The setting of standards for lawmakers applicable to all Member States or even unification of laws in crucial sectors influencing directly or indirectly new technologies, will be the only solution for any innovative technology to be adopted at a European level.

        The author of this post is Alessandro Mazzi.

        “Influencer Marketing” is a very well known topic to the jurists and operators of the advertising sector dealing with commercial communication.

        There is a core principle in communication law: any form of commercial communication shall be clearly recognizable as such.

        Before the diffusion of digital communication and, along with it, the proliferation of the so-called «Influencer Marketing», the issue of recognizability of commercial communication was generally discussed when evaluating whether an advertising content was clearly distinguishable from a journalistic or an informative content (such is the longstanding issue regarding the advertorial).

        For a short period of time there was a debate regarding the so-called subliminal advertising, which eventually fell into oblivion.

        The necessity to point out to the consumer whether the appreciation for a product or a service shown by a well-known person – precisely an “Influencer” – (i.e. the endorsement) is genuine or not has become a much encountered and controversial topic.

        It shall not be considered as spontaneous when an individual receives remuneration for wearing a fashion item, for using a smartphone, or simply when he/she receives as a gift the products that he/she promotes or other valuable products.

        It is clear and proven that the spontaneous choice of an “idol” by the public has a bigger impact on these same people rather than any traditional way of advertising. Hence the abuse of surreptitious advertising on the less easily monitored channel: the web, precisely.

        What measures should be taken to ensure that the consumers can understand clearly whether a post is subject of a contract or not?

        The answer would be very simple.

        It would be enough to require the sponsored post to contain, in clearly visible characters, terms as “Advertisement”, “Sponsored by”, “Commercial agreement” or similar notices.

        In Italy, in absence of a law regulating specifically the matter, both the Istituto della Pubblicità (Italy’s Advertising Self-Regulatory Institute) and the Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (the Competition Authority) have expressed their opinion on this subject.

        In the Italian Advertising Self-Regulatory Institute’s digital chart it is written: “in order to make the promotional nature of content posted on social media and content sharing sites recognizable, celebrities/influencers/bloggers must at the top of their post state in a clearly distinguishable manner the words: “Pubblicità/Advertising”, or “Promosso da … brand/Promoted by…brand” or “Sponsorizzato da…brand/Sponsored by…brand” or “in collaborazione con …brand” or “in partnership with the …brand”; and/or within the first three hashtags (#) use one of the following terms: “#Pubblicità/#Advertising”, or “#Sponsorizzato da … brand/#Sponsored by the … brand “ or “#ad” along with “#brand”.

        In a press release of 2017 the Italian Competition Authority has required the addressees the use of the following warnings to be placed below the post together with the others hashtags (#), such as “#sponsored, #advertising, #paidad”, or, in the case of products given for free to the celebrity, “#productsuppliedby”; in particular, all these wordings should be followed by the name of the specific brand being advertised.

        However, browsing the Instagram’s pages of various Influencers, it is noticeable that only a few of them are actually using the indications provided by the authorities.

        And when it happens to came across Instagram’s profiles that use such indications, it is noticeable that the hashtag that is most commonly used is “#ad”, whose effectiveness (especially in Italy where terms such as “advertising”, “Adv” and, even more so, “ad” are not easily decipherable by the average consumer) raises many concerns.

        So far the Italian Competition Authority intervened sending moral suasion letters to some of the main influencers and companies producing the branded goods displayed in the posts, but still no self-regulatory, administrative or state measures have been taken.

        The same situation of uncertainty is likely to be found in other countries (here you can find a previous Legalmondo post on this topic in Germany: https://www.legalmondo.com/2017/11/germany-product-placement-influencer-marketing/), with the consequence that international companies are operating in an unclear context, in which it is difficult to identify what are the risks arising from behaviours considered as unlawful.

        I have therefore decided to write this article in order to assess the state of Influencer Marketing in Italy and in other countries and get a better understanding of the regulations in force, the measures/judgments issued by the competent Authorities, the international trends and the best practices that could be adopted by international companies.

        Since I am one of the founders of the Digital Adv Lab – an interdisciplinary observatory that studies the legal implications of marketing and digital communication initiatives – I am interested in getting in touch with all the readers involved in this topic: please feel free to enter a comment and/or contact me.

        The author of this post is Elena Carpani.

        Poland has recently become quite famous for its skilled and resourceful IT specialists. Each year thousands of new computer engineers (programmers, developers, testers, designers etc.) enter into the market, warmly welcomed by domestic and multinational companies. A big part of these young talents open their own firm or business as free lancers developing software for clients from European countries as well as from US, Canada, Japan, China, etc.

        However, companies who want to cooperate with these partners and assign software development to a Polish IT company or freelancer should be aware that the copyright law in Poland is very strict, as it mainly protects the creator and not the client. Therefore, to be on a safe side, it is better to follow these 7 basic rules:

        1. Never start cooperation with an IT specialist or an IT company without a formal agreement. And I mean a real agreement, in a written form, with signatures of persons who can validly contract on behalf of the companies. The form is very important because – under Polish law – copyrights transfer and exclusive license agreements not fulfilling form conditions are null and void. Moreover, if there is no agreement, Polish copyright rules will apply to all intellectual property matters.
        2. Please remember that software is a creation protected by copyright law. Therefore you should consider whether you want to acquire the entire intellectual property rights or you just need a license. If you need a full IP transfer, you need to put it expressly in the agreement; otherwise you will only get a non-exclusive licence. And these, in several cases, will not be useful from a business point of view. If a license is enough, it is advisable to agree if it will be exclusive or non-exclusive.
        3. When drafting an IP clause, be detailed and clear. If you want to be able to decompile and disassembly the binary code, specify it in the IP clause. If you want to be able to introduce modifications to the source code, specify it in the IP clause. If you want to sublicense the software, specify it in the IP clause. The IP clause shall contain the description of any way you want to use the software, whether on mobile devices or on personal computers, any other electronic device or via internet (e.g. cloud computing). And believe me, when I write «specify it in the IP clause» it means that you really, really have to put it there. Otherwise it will be null and void and you may face a situation where your smart IT engineer, after getting paid, will sue you for the IP infringement.
        4. Remember that you should indicate the timeframe and the geographical scope of the license or IP transfer. If you do not specify it expressly in the agreement, you will only be entitled to a 5-year license, automatically expiring afterwards.
        5. Draft carefully a clause related to termination of the agreement. Under Polish law the licensor may terminate the license agreement granted for an indefinite period of time upon 1-year notice. If you do not want to find yourself in a situation where you lose the software IP rights in the middle of a big project, make sure that from the very beginning you are on a safe side.
        6. Make sure that your partner is obliged to transfer you upon request all software documentation and the source code.
        7. Make sure that you have a good indemnification clause with no limitation of liability. Often Polish IT companies subcontract some part of the development work to free lancers. You never know if they will conclude proper agreements with their subcontractors and if they will legally acquire the IP of the software that they will later sell you. There is always the risk that in the future some Polish IT engineer you never met will raise IP infringement claims against you, trying to prove that he/she actually developed the software. In such a situation an indemnification clause will help you recovering the costs from your partner.

        Con la reciente sentencia 16601/2017, la Corte Suprema – después de diferentes pronunciamientos contrarios – ha abierto la posibilidad de reconocer en Italia las sentencias extranjeras que contengan daños punitivos.

        En este breve artículo veremos en qué consisten los daños punitivos, cuáles son las condiciones por las cuales podrían reconocerse y aplicarse en Italia y, sobretodo, qué medidas conviene tomar para afrontar este nuevo riesgo.

        Los daños punitivos, en inglés punitive damages, son un instituto jurídico originario de los ordenamientos anglosajones que prevén la posibilidad de reconocer a la parte perjudicada una indemnización adicional respecto a la compensación del daño sufrido, en los casos en los que el causante del daño haya actuado con dolo o culpa grave (“malice” y “gross negligence”, respectivamente).

        Con los daños punitivos, además de la función compensatoria, la indemnización del daño también asume una finalidad sancionadora, típica del derecho penal, actuando como elemento de disuasión ante otros potenciales infractores.

        En los ordenamientos en los que se prevén los daños punitivos, el reconocimiento y la cuantificación de la indemnización se someten a la discrecionalidad del juez.

        En los Estados Unidos de América los daños punitivos se prevén en los principios de common law, pero se disciplinan de modo diverso en cada uno de los Estados. Sin embargo, en general, se aplican siempre que la conducta del causante del daño haya sido dirigida a causar el daño intencionadamente o, se haya llevado a cabo sin tener en cuenta las normas de seguridad preestablecidas. Por lo general, no pueden reconocerse por el incumplimiento de un contrato, salvo que no se determine como un ilícito (tort) autónomo.

        En algunos Estados se prevén límites máximos a los daños punitivos, a veces incorporados en los daños compensatorios, otras veces como cuantía máxima. Además, la Corte Suprema de los EEUU ha intervenido en diferentes casos para limitar el importe de condena.

        En los ordenamientos de civil law, entre ellos Italia, el instituto de daños punitivos tradicionalmente no se reconoce, ya que la sanción al causante del daño se considera que queda al margen de los principios del derecho civil, basándose en la concepción de que la indemnización por daños tiene como objetivo restaurar la esfera patrimonial del perjudicado.

        En consecuencia, el reconocimiento de los daños punitivos en una sentencia, se obstaculizaban por el límite de orden público y tales sentencias no tenían acceso en el espacio jurídico italiano.

        La sentencia de las Secciones Unidas núm. 16601/2017, de 5 de julio de 2017 de la Corte Suprema de Casación ha girado las cartas sobre la mesa.

        En el presente caso se solicitó a la Corte de Apelación de Venecia el reconocimiento (ex. Art. 64 de la Ley 218/1995) de tres sentencias de la District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida que, admitió una denuncia de garantía interpuesta por un revendedor americano de cascos contra la sociedad productora italiana, por la cual se había condenado a ésta última al pago de 1.436.136,87 USD (además de gastos e intereses) en base al resarcimiento de los daños causas por un defecto del casco utilizado en un accidente de tráfico.

        La Corte de Apelación de Venecia reconoció la eficacia de la sentencia del juez extranjero, considerando que el importe era meramente indemnizatorio y no punitivo. La decisión fue recurrida en Casación por la parte condenada, que sostenía la contrariedad al orden publico de la sentencia estadunidense, en base a la orientación jurisprudencial hasta ese momento.

        La Casación ha confirmado la decisión de la Corte de Apelación, considerando que el importe no es punitivo y ha declarado el reconocimiento de la sentencia estadunidense en Italia.

        Las Secciones Unidas, por su parte, han aprovechado la ocasión para afrontar la cuestión inherente a la admisibilidad de los daños punitivos en Italia, cambiando la orientación histórica de la Corte Suprema (véase Cass. 1781/2012).

        Según la Corte, la noción de responsabilidad civil entendida como mera reparación de los daños sufridos, se debe considerar como obsoleta dada la evolución del instituto a través de intervenciones legislativas y jurisprudenciales nacionales y europeas, que han introducido medidas indemnizatorias con finalidad sancionadora y disuasiva. De hecho, en el ordenamiento italiano es posible encontrar diversos casos de indemnización por daños con finalidad sancionadora: en materia de difamación en medios de comunicación (art. 12 L. 47/48), derechos de autor (art. 158 L 633/41), propiedad industrial (art. 125 D. Lgs 30/2005), abuso del proceso (art. 96.3 c.p.c. y art. 26.2 c.p.a.), derecho laboral (art. 18.14 c.p.c.), derecho de familia (art. 709-ter c.p.c.), etc.

        De este modo, la Corte de Casación ha introducido el siguiente principio de derecho: “En el vigente ordenamiento italiano, a la responsabilidad civil no solo se le asigna el deber de restaurar la esfera patrimonial del sujeto que ha sufrido la lesión, porque se consideran incluidas en el sistema la función de disuasión y la función sancionadora de la responsabilidad civil. Por tanto, no es ontológicamente incompatible con el ordenamiento italiano el instituto de origen estadunidense de la indemnización punitiva”.

        La consecuencia, a tener en muy cuenta, es que el pronunciamiento abre la puerta a posibles deliberaciones de sentencias extranjeras, que condenen a una de las partes al pago de un importe superior respecto al importe calculado para compensar el prejuicio creado a causa de un daño.

        Sin embargo, a tal fin, la Corte Suprema ha dispuesto algunas condiciones para que la sentencia extranjera pueda reconocerse. La decisión ha debido ser tomada en el ordenamiento extranjero en base a:

        1. Garantizar la tipicidad de la condena.
        2. La previsibilidad de la misma.
        3. Los límites cuantificativos.

        Los posibles efectos de la Sentencia en el ordenamiento italiano

        En primer lugar, hay que tener claro que la Sentencia no ha modificado el sistema indemnizatorio interno del ordenamiento italiano. En otras palabras, la Sentencia no permitirá a los jueces italianos condenar por daños punitivos al interno de los procedimientos italianos.

        En cambio, por lo que respecta a las sentencias extranjeras, ahora será posible obtener la indemnización por daños punitivos a través del reconocimiento y la ejecución en el sistema italiano de una decisión extranjera que prevea la condena de dicha tipología de daño, con la condición de que se respeten los mencionados presupuestos.

        Por todo lo expuesto, las empresas que hayan invertido o que realicen negocios en países en los que se prevén los daños punitivos, tendrán que tener en consideración dicho riesgo.

        Los instrumentos para tutelarse

        El empresario quien opere en mercados extranjeros en los que se prevén los daños punitivos debe considerar con atención este riesgo.

        La óptica debe ser necesariamente de prevención y los instrumentos a disposición son diversos: en primer lugar, la adopción de cláusulas contractuales que prevean la renuncia del perjudicado a este tipo de daño o, que acuerden un límite a la indemnización de los daños contractuales, por ejemplo limitándolos al valor de los productos o a los servicios ofrecidos.

        Es además fundamental, que se conozca la legislación y la jurisprudencia de los mercados en los cuales se opera, incluso indirectamente (por ejemplo, con la distribución comercial de los productos) con el fin de escoger de modo consciente la ley aplicable al contrato y la modalidad de resolución de controversias (por ejemplo, con previsión de la exclusiva jurisdiccional del foro del país que no prevea daños punitivos).

        Finalmente, este tipo de responsabilidad y riesgo puede ser objeto de valoración con pólizas aseguradoras que ofrecen una cobertura específica respecto a eventuales condenas de indemnización de daños punitivos.

        En base a nuestra experiencia en años asesorando y representando compañías en la distribución comercial (en la jurisdicción española pero con fabricantes o distribuidores extranjeros), los siguientes son los seis elementos esenciales para que fabricantes (proveedores) y minoristas (distribuidores) puedan establecer buenas bases en una relación de distribución.

        Estas ideas son relevantes cuando las empresas tienen la intención de iniciar su relación comercial, pero no deben descuidarse y verificarse incluso cuando ya existan esas relaciones.

        La firma del contrato

        Aunque podría parecer obvio, la firma de un acuerdo de distribución es menos común de lo que parece. A menudo ocurre que a lo largo de la relación extendida, las estructuras corporativas cambian y lo que una vez se firmó con una sociedad, no se ha renovado, adaptado, modificado o reemplazado cuando la situación se ha transformado. Es muy conveniente haber documentado bien la relación en cada momento de su existencia y estar seguro de que lo que se ha previsto legalmente también se pueda cumplir en la relación comercial cotidiana. Es aconsejable que este trabajo previo sea llevado a cabo por especialistas legales coordinados estrechamente con el departamento comercial de la compañía. Las cláusulas perfectamente redactadas desde un punto de vista legal serán inútiles si son superadas o no cumplidas en el día a día. Y, por supuesto, ningún contrato se firma como una «mera formalidad» para luego modificarlo mediante acuerdos o prácticas verbales que lo dejen sin contenido.

        La elección correcta del contrato

        Si la firma del contrato de distribución es importante, la elección del tipo correcto es esencial. Muchos de los conflictos que ocurren, especialmente en las relaciones a largo plazo, comienzan con la interpretación del tipo de relación que se ha firmado. Incluso con un texto escrito (y con un título expreso), la intención de las partes sigue sin estar clara (y por lo tanto, el acuerdo). ¿Es el «distribuidor» realmente así? ¿Compra y revende o solo existen relaciones de suministro esporádicas? ¿Existe solo una actividad representativa (es decir, el distribuidor es en realidad un «agente»)? ¿Hay una relación mixta (a veces representa, a veces compra y revende)? La lista podría continuar indefinidamente. Incluso en muchas de las relaciones que existen actualmente, estoy seguro de que la interpretación dada por el Proveedor y el Distribuidor podría ser diferente.

        Supervisar las relaciones legales y comerciales

        Si es bastante frecuente no tener un contrato escrito claro, sucede en casi todas las relaciones de distribución que una vez que se ha firmado el acuerdo, la actividad comercial diaria modifica lo que se ha acordado. ¿Por qué las relaciones comerciales parecen descuidar lo que se ha escrito en un acuerdo? Son bastante frecuentes los contratos en los que se incluyen ciertas obligaciones para los distribuidores (informar sobre el mercado, clientes, compras mínimas), pero que en la práctica no se respetan (parece complicado, existe una buena relación entre las partes, nadie recuerda lo que se había firmado por personas que ya no trabajan en la empresa…). Sin embargo, también es bastante frecuente intentar utilizar esas obligaciones más adelante cuando comienzan los problemas en la relación. En ese momento, las partes intentan esconderse detrás de esos incumplimientos para resolver los contratos, aunque estas prácticas hubieran sido, en cierto modo, aceptadas. Por supuesto, ningún acuerdo puede durar para siempre y, por esa razón, es altamente recomendable una supervisión global y periódico entre el asesor legal (preferentemente uno independiente con el apoyo de los directivos internos) y el departamento comercial para tener en cuenta las nuevas prácticas y tener su reflejo en los documentos contractuales.

        Evidencias sobre los clientes

        En los contratos de distribución, las evidencias sobre los clientes serán esenciales en caso de resolución. Las partes (principalmente el proveedor) están bastante interesadas en probar quién (proveedor o distribuidor) adquirió los clientes. ¿Son resultado de la actividad del distribuidor o se obtienen como consecuencia de la reputación de la marca? Reunir las pruebas sobre los clientes podría simplificar o incluso evitar futuros conflictos. La importancia de la clientela y su posible actividad futura será un elemento clave para definir la compensación que pueda pretender el distribuidor.

        Evidencias sobre compras y ventas

        Otro elemento esencial y, a menudo, olvidado es la justificación de las compras al proveedor y las ventas posteriores de los distribuidores a los clientes. En cualquier acuerdo de distribución, los distribuidores adquieren los productos y los revenden a los clientes finales. Una compensación futura al distribuidor considerará la diferencia entre los precios de compra y los precios de reventa (el margen). Por lo tanto, es aconsejable poder establecer la prueba correspondiente sobre dicha información a fin de preparar mejor una posible reclamación.

        Daños en caso de resolución de los contratos

        Del mismo modo, sería conveniente justificar qué daños se han sufrido como resultado de la resolución de un contrato: ¿ha realizado el distribuidor inversiones por indicación del proveedor que aún no se han amortizado? ¿El distribuidor ha contratado nuevos empleados para una línea de negocio que debe ser descartada debido a la resolución del contrato? ¿El distribuidor ha alquilado nuevas instalaciones firmando contratos a largo plazo debido a las expectativas del acuerdo? Tenga en cuenta que el Distribuidor es un comerciante independiente y, como tal, asume los riesgos de su actividad. Pero en la medida en que actúe en una red de distribución, estará sujeto a las instrucciones, sugerencias y expectativas creadas por el proveedor. Estas pueden ser relevantes para determinar posteriormente los daños causados ​​por la resolución del contrato.

        Influencer marketing is the trend in today’s world of advertising. Even though it is obvious that influencer marketing must observe the framework of applicable statutory provisions, the market has long been uncertain about how influencer posts are to be drafted in order to be legally compliant. The current decision of Celle Higher Regional Court (June 08, 2017 – Case 13 U 53/17) offers at least some clarity.

        The judgment was issued in relation to an action for injunction by the German Association for Social Competition (Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb) against a German drugstore chain. A 20-year-old Instagram star with 1.3 million followers had advertised the drugstore chain in one of her posts. The post was only marked as advertisement at the bottom with the hashtag “#ad,” which additionally only came second in a list of six hashtags.

        Celle Higher Regional Court adjudged that this type of marking was insufficient. The court requested that the commercial purpose of an Instagram post would have to be apparent at first sight. It did not consider use of the hashtag “#ad” in a “hashtag cloud” to be sufficient to mark the post as advertising.

        The court left expressly open, however, whether the use of the hashtag “#ad” is generally suitable to mark advertising posts.

        The state media authorities (Landesmedienanstalten) already reacted to the judgment, however, and revised their joint guide on advertising issues in social media. It now reads: “When marking a post as PROMOTION (Werbung) or ADVERTISING (Anzeige), you will be on the safe side – that much is certain. […] At the current time, we cannot recommend marking posts as #ad, #sponsored by, or #powered by.” In the future, Instagram itself intends to provide for more transparency on the platform by comprehensibly identifying advertising posts. It is currently testing the introduction of a branded content tool in Germany to make it easier for users to recognize posts as paid advertising.

        Practical tip

        Advertising posts in social media should always be marked as “promotion” or “advertising” at the beginning of the posts unless their commercial purpose arises directly from the circumstances. Advertisers are also advised to obligate influencers contractually to such legally compliant marking of posts, since the influencers’ behavior may be attributed to the company, as is clearly shown by the recent judgment of Celle Higher Regional Court against the drugstore chain.

        The author of this post is Ilja Czernik.

        In this clip I briefly introduce the main options to consider when doing business in Iran.
        You can read more on this topic in my articles An introduction to Iran Corporations  and Obtaining a Foreign Investment License and browse Legalmondo’s blog for some other  posts on doing business in the region.

        Marika Devaux

        Áreas de práctica

        • Arbitraje
        • Contratos
        • Reclamación de deudas
        • Contratos de distribución
        • Derecho Internacional Privado
        Contáctanos Marika

        Contacta con Marika





          Lea la política de privacidad de Legalmondo.
          Este sitio está protegido por reCAPTCHA y se aplican la Política de privacidad de Google y los Términos de servicio.

          To infinity and beyond – Perpetual contracts under Québec law

          9 de agosto de 2017

          • Canadá
          • Contratos
          • Litigios

          In 2020, an important revision of the Swiss statute of limitations enters into force. The new law provides for longer limitation periods in cases of personal injury and extends the relative limitation periods in tort and unjust enrichment law from one to three years.

          Background of the revision

          In June 2018, the Swiss parliament adopted an amendment to the Swiss Code of Obligations (“CO”) pertaining to a revision of the statute of limitations. In November 2018, the Swiss government decided that the revised statute of limitations shall enter into force on 1 January 2020.

          The revision was significantly influenced by asbestos cases. Under the current law, damage claims of asbestos victims were time-barred in some cases even before asbestos-related diseases could be diagnosed. In March 2014, the European Court of Human Rights held in Howald Moor and others v. Switzerland that the Swiss statute of limitations amounts in such cases to a violation of article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right of access to a court).

          Having said that, the revision does not only concern cases of personal injury, but also includes numerous other important changes as described in the following.

          Key changes regarding limitation periods

          A. Tort law

          In tort law, the new relative limitation period amounts to three years from the date on which the injured party became aware of the damage and of the identity of the person liable (revised Art. 60 para. 1 CO). Under the current law, the relative limitation period amounts to one year only.

          With the exception of cases of personal injury, the absolute limitation period remains ten years as from the date when the conduct that caused the damages occurred or ended (revised Art. 60 para. 1 CO).

          In cases of personal injury, the new relative limitation period amounts to three years from the date on which the injured party became aware of the damage and of the identity of the person liable. Currently the relative limitation period amounts to one year only.

          The new absolute limitation period in cases of personal injury amounts to twenty years after the date when the conduct which caused the damages occurred or ended (new Art. 60 para. 1bis CO). Under the current law, there was no special absolute limitation period for cases of personal injury, so that the ordinary 10-year period applied (Art. 60 para. 1 CO).

          If conduct, which gives rise to liability under tort law, is also punishable under criminal law, the (longer) limitation period under criminal law remains applicable (cf. Art. 97 of the Swiss Criminal Code). However, where a first-instance criminal judgment is rendered before the conduct is time-barred under criminal law, the limitation periods ends not earlier than three years as from that criminal judgment (revised Art. 60 para. 2 CO). The current law does not provide for such an additional three-year limitation period.

          B. Unjust enrichment law

          In unjust enrichment law, the new relative limitation period amounts to three years as from the date on which the injured party knows about the claim (revised Art. 67 para. 1 CO). Under the current law, the relative limitation period amounts to one year only.

          The absolute limitation period is not affected by the revision and remains ten years after the date on which the claim arises (revised Art. 67 para. 1 CO).

          C. Contract law

          With regard to contractual claims, the ordinary limitation period remains ten years from the due date (Art. 127 CO). Furthermore, the shorter limitation period of five years from the due date applicable to (amongst others) claims for rent, interest on capital and other periodic payments, (most) claims out of employment relationships etc. remains unchanged too (Art. 128 CO).

          However, in cases of personal injury, the revised statute of limitations introduces a new relative limitation period of three years from the date on which the injured party became aware of the damage, as well as a new absolute limitation period of twenty years after the date when the conduct which caused the damages occurred or ended (new Art. 128a CO). The current law does not provide for distinct relative and absolute limitation periods for contractual claims in cases of personal injury. Instead, the ordinary ten-year limitation period (Art. 127 CO) usually applied to such cases.

          D. Summary

          In summary, the most important elements of the revised statute of limitations are the longer (trebled) relative limitation periods in tort and unjust enrichment law (i.e., three years instead of one year) and the new special rules for cases of personal injury, which now benefit from a 20-year absolute limitation period.

          Transitional provisions / application of the revised statute of limitations to pre-existing claims

          The longer limitation periods under the revised CO apply to any claims that are not yet time-barred when the revision enters into force (i.e., on 1 January 2020; revised Art. 49 para. 1, Final Title of the Swiss Civil Code). In other words, the limitation periods of any claims that do not become time-barred until 31 December 2019 at the latest will be prolonged. This is of particular relevance with regard to claims based on tort and unjust enrichment; the short one-year relative limitation periods under the current law will be extended by another two years.

          In contrast, the current law remains applicable in case the revised statute of limitations provides for shorter limitation periods (revised Art. 49 para. 2, Final Title of the Swiss Civil Code). This concerns, in particular, contractual claims in cases of personal injury. The new three-year relative limitation period under the revised law might not apply to such claims, as the current statute of limitations does not provide for a relative limitation period at all.

          Further changes brought by the revision

          In addition to the changes of the limitation periods set out above, the revision of the statute of limitations contains numerous further modifications. Some of them are listed in the following:

          1. Limitation periods do not commence or are suspended in the event that a claim cannot be asserted for objective reasons before any court worldwide (revised Art. 134 para. 1 no. 6 CO). The current law provides for such non-commencement or suspension only if the claim cannot be brought before a Swiss court.
          2. Parties to a dispute may agree in writing that limitation periods shall be suspended during settlement discussions, mediation proceedings or other out-of-court settlement proceedings (revised Art. 134 para. 1 no. 8 CO).
          3. Once a limitation period has commenced to run, waivers of statute of limitation defenses are admissible, but must not exceed ten years (revised Art. 141 para. 1 CO). Any such waivers must be in writing (new Art. 141 para. 1bis CO).
          4. In general terms and conditions (“GTC”), statute of limitation defenses may be waived by the party who makes use of the GTCs only. In contrast, a waiver by the party on whom the GTCs are imposed (e.g., consumers) is ineffective (new Art. 141 para. 1bis CO).
          5. The limitation period for an actio pauliana under the Swiss Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Act (“DEBA”) is extended to from currently two years to three years after service of a loss certificate, the opening of bankruptcy proceedings or the confirmation of a composition agreement with an assignment of assets (whichever is applicable; revised Art. 292 DEBA).

          If 2017 was the year of Initial Coin Offerings, 2018 was the year of Blockchain awareness and testing all over the world. From ICO focused guidelines and regulations respectively aimed to alarm and protect investors, we have seen the shift, especially in Europe, to distributed ledger technology (“DLT”) focused guidelines and regulations aimed at protecting citizens on one hand and promote DLT implementations on the other.

          Indeed, European Union Member States and the European Parliament started looking deeper into the technology by, for instance, calling for consultations with professionals in order to understand DLT’s potentials for real-world implementations and possible risks.

          In this article I am aiming to give a brief snapshot of firstly what are the most notable European initiatives and moves towards promoting Blockchain implementation and secondly current challenges faced by European law makers when dealing with the regulation of distributed ledger technologies.

          Europe

          Let’s start from the European Blockchain Partnership (“EBP”), a statement made by 25 EU Member States acknowledging the importance of distributed ledger technology for society, in particular when it comes to interoperability, cyber security and efficiency of digital public services. The Partnership is not only an acknowledgement, it is also a commitment from all signatory states to collaborate to build what they envision will be a distributed ledger infrastructure for the delivering of cross-border public services.

          Witness of the trust given to the technology is My Health My Data, a EU-backed project that uses DLT to enable patients to efficiently control their digitally recorded health data while securing it from the threat of data breaches. Benefits the EU saw in DLT on this specific project are safety, efficiency but most notably the opportunity that DLT offers data subject to have finally control over their own data, without the need for intermediaries.

          Another important initiative proving European interests in testing DLT technologies is the Horizon Prize on “Blockchains for Social Good”, a 5 million Euros worth challenge open to innovators and tech companies to develop scalable, efficient and high-impact decentralized solutions to social innovation challenges.

          Moving forward, in December last year, I had the honor to be part of the “ Workshop on Blockchains & Smart Contracts Legal and Regulatory Framework” in Paris, an initiative supported by the EU Blockchain Observatory and Forum (“EUBOF”), a pilot project initiated by the European Parliament. Earlier last year other three workshops were held, the aim of each was to collect knowledge on specific topics from an audience of leading DLT legal and technical professionals. With the knowledge collected, the EUBOF followed up with reports of what was discussed during the workshop and suggest a way forward.

          Although not binding, these reports give a reasonably clear guideline to the industry on how existing laws at a European level apply to the technology, or at least should be interpreted, and highlight areas where new regulation is definitely needed. As an example let’s look at the Report on Blockchain & GDPR. If you missed it, the GDPR is the Regulation that protects Europeans personal data and it’s applicable to all companies globally, which are processing data from European citizens. The “right to erasure” embedded in the GDPR, doesn’t allow personal data to be stored on an immutable database, the data subject has to be able to erase data anytime when shared with a service provider and stored somewhere on a database. In the case of Blockchain, the consensus on personal data having to be stored off-chain is therefore unanimous. Storing personal data off-chain and leaving an hash to that data on-chain, is a viable solution if certain precautions are taken in order to avoid the risks of reversibility or linkability of such hash to the personal data stored off-chain, therefore making the hash on-chain personally identifiable information.

          However, not all European laws apply to Member States, therefore making it hard to give a EU-wide answer to most DLT compliance challenges in Europe. Member States freedom to legislate is indeed only limited/influenced by two main instruments, Regulations, which are automatically enforceable in each Member State and Directives binding Member States to legislate on specific topics according to a set of specific rules.

          Diverging national laws have a great effect on multiple aspects of innovative technologies. Let’s look for instance at the validity of “smart contracts”. When discussing the legal power of automatically enforceable digital contracts, the lack of a European wide legislation on contracts makes it impossible to find an answer applicable to all Member States. For instance, is “offer and acceptance” enough to constitute a contract? What is considered a valid “acceptance”? What is an “obligation”? “Can a digital asset be the object of a legally binding agreement”?

          If we try to give a EU-wide answer to the questions such as smart contract validity and enforceability it is apparently not possible since we will need to consider 28 different answers. I, therefore, believe that the future of innovation in Europe will highly depend on the unification of laws.

          An example of a unified law that has great benefits on innovation (including DLT) is the Electronic Identification and Trust Services (eIDAS) Regulation, which governs electronic identification including electronic signatures.

          The race to regulating DLT in Europe

          Let’s now look briefly at a couple of Member States legislations, specifically on Blockchain and cryptocurrencies last year.

          EU Member States have been quite creative I would say in regulating the new technology. Let’s start from Malta, which saw a surprising increase of important projects and companies, such as Binance, landing on the beautiful Mediterranean Island thanks to its favorable (or at least felt as such) legislations on DLT. The “Blockchain Island” passed three laws in early July to regulate and supervise Blockchain projects including ICOs, crypto exchanges and DLT, specifically: The Innovative Technology Arrangements and Services Act regulation that aims at recognizing different technology arrangements such as DAOs, smart contracts and in future probably AI machines; The Virtual Financial Assets Act for ICOs and crypto exchanges; The Malta Digital Innovation Authority establishing a new supervisory authority.

          Some think the Maltese legislation lacks a comprehensive framework, one that for instance, gives legal personality to Innovative Technology Arrangements. For this reason some are therefore accusing the Maltese lawmakers of rushing into an uncompleted regulatory framework in order to attract business to the island while others seem to positively welcome the laws as a good start for a European wide regulation on DLT and crypto assets.

          In December 2018, Malta also initiated a declaration that was then signed by other six Members States, calling for collaboration for the promotion and implementation of DLT on a European level.

          France was one of the signatories of such declaration, and it’s worth mentioning since the French Minister for the Economy and Finance approved in September a framework for regulating ICOs and therefore protecting investors’ rights, basically giving the AMF (French Authority for Financial Market) the empowerment to give licenses to companies wanting to raise funds through Initial Coin Offerings.

          Last but not least comes Switzerland which although it is not a EU Member State, it has great degree of influence on European and national legislators when it comes to progressive regulations. At the end of December, the Swiss Federal Council released a report on DLT and the law, making a clear statement that the existing Swiss law is sufficient to regulate most matters related to DLT and Blockchain, although some adjustments have to be made. So no new laws but few amendments here and there, which will allow the integration of the specific DLT applications with existing laws in order to ensure legal certainty on certain uncovered matters. Relevant areas of Swiss law that will be amended include the transfer of rights utilizing digital registers, Anti Money Laundering rules specifically for decentralized trading platforms and bankruptcy when that proceeding involves crypto assets.

          Conclusions

          To summarize, from the approach taken during the past year, it is apparent that there is great interest in Europe to understand the potentials and to soon test implementations of distributed ledger technology. Lawmakers have also an understanding that the technology is in an infant state, it might involve risks, therefore making it complex to set specific rules or to give final answers on the alignment of certain technology applications with existing European or national laws.

          To achieve European wide results, however, acknowledgments, guidelines and reports are not enough. The setting of standards for lawmakers applicable to all Member States or even unification of laws in crucial sectors influencing directly or indirectly new technologies, will be the only solution for any innovative technology to be adopted at a European level.

          The author of this post is Alessandro Mazzi.

          “Influencer Marketing” is a very well known topic to the jurists and operators of the advertising sector dealing with commercial communication.

          There is a core principle in communication law: any form of commercial communication shall be clearly recognizable as such.

          Before the diffusion of digital communication and, along with it, the proliferation of the so-called «Influencer Marketing», the issue of recognizability of commercial communication was generally discussed when evaluating whether an advertising content was clearly distinguishable from a journalistic or an informative content (such is the longstanding issue regarding the advertorial).

          For a short period of time there was a debate regarding the so-called subliminal advertising, which eventually fell into oblivion.

          The necessity to point out to the consumer whether the appreciation for a product or a service shown by a well-known person – precisely an “Influencer” – (i.e. the endorsement) is genuine or not has become a much encountered and controversial topic.

          It shall not be considered as spontaneous when an individual receives remuneration for wearing a fashion item, for using a smartphone, or simply when he/she receives as a gift the products that he/she promotes or other valuable products.

          It is clear and proven that the spontaneous choice of an “idol” by the public has a bigger impact on these same people rather than any traditional way of advertising. Hence the abuse of surreptitious advertising on the less easily monitored channel: the web, precisely.

          What measures should be taken to ensure that the consumers can understand clearly whether a post is subject of a contract or not?

          The answer would be very simple.

          It would be enough to require the sponsored post to contain, in clearly visible characters, terms as “Advertisement”, “Sponsored by”, “Commercial agreement” or similar notices.

          In Italy, in absence of a law regulating specifically the matter, both the Istituto della Pubblicità (Italy’s Advertising Self-Regulatory Institute) and the Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (the Competition Authority) have expressed their opinion on this subject.

          In the Italian Advertising Self-Regulatory Institute’s digital chart it is written: “in order to make the promotional nature of content posted on social media and content sharing sites recognizable, celebrities/influencers/bloggers must at the top of their post state in a clearly distinguishable manner the words: “Pubblicità/Advertising”, or “Promosso da … brand/Promoted by…brand” or “Sponsorizzato da…brand/Sponsored by…brand” or “in collaborazione con …brand” or “in partnership with the …brand”; and/or within the first three hashtags (#) use one of the following terms: “#Pubblicità/#Advertising”, or “#Sponsorizzato da … brand/#Sponsored by the … brand “ or “#ad” along with “#brand”.

          In a press release of 2017 the Italian Competition Authority has required the addressees the use of the following warnings to be placed below the post together with the others hashtags (#), such as “#sponsored, #advertising, #paidad”, or, in the case of products given for free to the celebrity, “#productsuppliedby”; in particular, all these wordings should be followed by the name of the specific brand being advertised.

          However, browsing the Instagram’s pages of various Influencers, it is noticeable that only a few of them are actually using the indications provided by the authorities.

          And when it happens to came across Instagram’s profiles that use such indications, it is noticeable that the hashtag that is most commonly used is “#ad”, whose effectiveness (especially in Italy where terms such as “advertising”, “Adv” and, even more so, “ad” are not easily decipherable by the average consumer) raises many concerns.

          So far the Italian Competition Authority intervened sending moral suasion letters to some of the main influencers and companies producing the branded goods displayed in the posts, but still no self-regulatory, administrative or state measures have been taken.

          The same situation of uncertainty is likely to be found in other countries (here you can find a previous Legalmondo post on this topic in Germany: https://www.legalmondo.com/2017/11/germany-product-placement-influencer-marketing/), with the consequence that international companies are operating in an unclear context, in which it is difficult to identify what are the risks arising from behaviours considered as unlawful.

          I have therefore decided to write this article in order to assess the state of Influencer Marketing in Italy and in other countries and get a better understanding of the regulations in force, the measures/judgments issued by the competent Authorities, the international trends and the best practices that could be adopted by international companies.

          Since I am one of the founders of the Digital Adv Lab – an interdisciplinary observatory that studies the legal implications of marketing and digital communication initiatives – I am interested in getting in touch with all the readers involved in this topic: please feel free to enter a comment and/or contact me.

          The author of this post is Elena Carpani.

          Poland has recently become quite famous for its skilled and resourceful IT specialists. Each year thousands of new computer engineers (programmers, developers, testers, designers etc.) enter into the market, warmly welcomed by domestic and multinational companies. A big part of these young talents open their own firm or business as free lancers developing software for clients from European countries as well as from US, Canada, Japan, China, etc.

          However, companies who want to cooperate with these partners and assign software development to a Polish IT company or freelancer should be aware that the copyright law in Poland is very strict, as it mainly protects the creator and not the client. Therefore, to be on a safe side, it is better to follow these 7 basic rules:

          1. Never start cooperation with an IT specialist or an IT company without a formal agreement. And I mean a real agreement, in a written form, with signatures of persons who can validly contract on behalf of the companies. The form is very important because – under Polish law – copyrights transfer and exclusive license agreements not fulfilling form conditions are null and void. Moreover, if there is no agreement, Polish copyright rules will apply to all intellectual property matters.
          2. Please remember that software is a creation protected by copyright law. Therefore you should consider whether you want to acquire the entire intellectual property rights or you just need a license. If you need a full IP transfer, you need to put it expressly in the agreement; otherwise you will only get a non-exclusive licence. And these, in several cases, will not be useful from a business point of view. If a license is enough, it is advisable to agree if it will be exclusive or non-exclusive.
          3. When drafting an IP clause, be detailed and clear. If you want to be able to decompile and disassembly the binary code, specify it in the IP clause. If you want to be able to introduce modifications to the source code, specify it in the IP clause. If you want to sublicense the software, specify it in the IP clause. The IP clause shall contain the description of any way you want to use the software, whether on mobile devices or on personal computers, any other electronic device or via internet (e.g. cloud computing). And believe me, when I write «specify it in the IP clause» it means that you really, really have to put it there. Otherwise it will be null and void and you may face a situation where your smart IT engineer, after getting paid, will sue you for the IP infringement.
          4. Remember that you should indicate the timeframe and the geographical scope of the license or IP transfer. If you do not specify it expressly in the agreement, you will only be entitled to a 5-year license, automatically expiring afterwards.
          5. Draft carefully a clause related to termination of the agreement. Under Polish law the licensor may terminate the license agreement granted for an indefinite period of time upon 1-year notice. If you do not want to find yourself in a situation where you lose the software IP rights in the middle of a big project, make sure that from the very beginning you are on a safe side.
          6. Make sure that your partner is obliged to transfer you upon request all software documentation and the source code.
          7. Make sure that you have a good indemnification clause with no limitation of liability. Often Polish IT companies subcontract some part of the development work to free lancers. You never know if they will conclude proper agreements with their subcontractors and if they will legally acquire the IP of the software that they will later sell you. There is always the risk that in the future some Polish IT engineer you never met will raise IP infringement claims against you, trying to prove that he/she actually developed the software. In such a situation an indemnification clause will help you recovering the costs from your partner.

          Con la reciente sentencia 16601/2017, la Corte Suprema – después de diferentes pronunciamientos contrarios – ha abierto la posibilidad de reconocer en Italia las sentencias extranjeras que contengan daños punitivos.

          En este breve artículo veremos en qué consisten los daños punitivos, cuáles son las condiciones por las cuales podrían reconocerse y aplicarse en Italia y, sobretodo, qué medidas conviene tomar para afrontar este nuevo riesgo.

          Los daños punitivos, en inglés punitive damages, son un instituto jurídico originario de los ordenamientos anglosajones que prevén la posibilidad de reconocer a la parte perjudicada una indemnización adicional respecto a la compensación del daño sufrido, en los casos en los que el causante del daño haya actuado con dolo o culpa grave (“malice” y “gross negligence”, respectivamente).

          Con los daños punitivos, además de la función compensatoria, la indemnización del daño también asume una finalidad sancionadora, típica del derecho penal, actuando como elemento de disuasión ante otros potenciales infractores.

          En los ordenamientos en los que se prevén los daños punitivos, el reconocimiento y la cuantificación de la indemnización se someten a la discrecionalidad del juez.

          En los Estados Unidos de América los daños punitivos se prevén en los principios de common law, pero se disciplinan de modo diverso en cada uno de los Estados. Sin embargo, en general, se aplican siempre que la conducta del causante del daño haya sido dirigida a causar el daño intencionadamente o, se haya llevado a cabo sin tener en cuenta las normas de seguridad preestablecidas. Por lo general, no pueden reconocerse por el incumplimiento de un contrato, salvo que no se determine como un ilícito (tort) autónomo.

          En algunos Estados se prevén límites máximos a los daños punitivos, a veces incorporados en los daños compensatorios, otras veces como cuantía máxima. Además, la Corte Suprema de los EEUU ha intervenido en diferentes casos para limitar el importe de condena.

          En los ordenamientos de civil law, entre ellos Italia, el instituto de daños punitivos tradicionalmente no se reconoce, ya que la sanción al causante del daño se considera que queda al margen de los principios del derecho civil, basándose en la concepción de que la indemnización por daños tiene como objetivo restaurar la esfera patrimonial del perjudicado.

          En consecuencia, el reconocimiento de los daños punitivos en una sentencia, se obstaculizaban por el límite de orden público y tales sentencias no tenían acceso en el espacio jurídico italiano.

          La sentencia de las Secciones Unidas núm. 16601/2017, de 5 de julio de 2017 de la Corte Suprema de Casación ha girado las cartas sobre la mesa.

          En el presente caso se solicitó a la Corte de Apelación de Venecia el reconocimiento (ex. Art. 64 de la Ley 218/1995) de tres sentencias de la District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida que, admitió una denuncia de garantía interpuesta por un revendedor americano de cascos contra la sociedad productora italiana, por la cual se había condenado a ésta última al pago de 1.436.136,87 USD (además de gastos e intereses) en base al resarcimiento de los daños causas por un defecto del casco utilizado en un accidente de tráfico.

          La Corte de Apelación de Venecia reconoció la eficacia de la sentencia del juez extranjero, considerando que el importe era meramente indemnizatorio y no punitivo. La decisión fue recurrida en Casación por la parte condenada, que sostenía la contrariedad al orden publico de la sentencia estadunidense, en base a la orientación jurisprudencial hasta ese momento.

          La Casación ha confirmado la decisión de la Corte de Apelación, considerando que el importe no es punitivo y ha declarado el reconocimiento de la sentencia estadunidense en Italia.

          Las Secciones Unidas, por su parte, han aprovechado la ocasión para afrontar la cuestión inherente a la admisibilidad de los daños punitivos en Italia, cambiando la orientación histórica de la Corte Suprema (véase Cass. 1781/2012).

          Según la Corte, la noción de responsabilidad civil entendida como mera reparación de los daños sufridos, se debe considerar como obsoleta dada la evolución del instituto a través de intervenciones legislativas y jurisprudenciales nacionales y europeas, que han introducido medidas indemnizatorias con finalidad sancionadora y disuasiva. De hecho, en el ordenamiento italiano es posible encontrar diversos casos de indemnización por daños con finalidad sancionadora: en materia de difamación en medios de comunicación (art. 12 L. 47/48), derechos de autor (art. 158 L 633/41), propiedad industrial (art. 125 D. Lgs 30/2005), abuso del proceso (art. 96.3 c.p.c. y art. 26.2 c.p.a.), derecho laboral (art. 18.14 c.p.c.), derecho de familia (art. 709-ter c.p.c.), etc.

          De este modo, la Corte de Casación ha introducido el siguiente principio de derecho: “En el vigente ordenamiento italiano, a la responsabilidad civil no solo se le asigna el deber de restaurar la esfera patrimonial del sujeto que ha sufrido la lesión, porque se consideran incluidas en el sistema la función de disuasión y la función sancionadora de la responsabilidad civil. Por tanto, no es ontológicamente incompatible con el ordenamiento italiano el instituto de origen estadunidense de la indemnización punitiva”.

          La consecuencia, a tener en muy cuenta, es que el pronunciamiento abre la puerta a posibles deliberaciones de sentencias extranjeras, que condenen a una de las partes al pago de un importe superior respecto al importe calculado para compensar el prejuicio creado a causa de un daño.

          Sin embargo, a tal fin, la Corte Suprema ha dispuesto algunas condiciones para que la sentencia extranjera pueda reconocerse. La decisión ha debido ser tomada en el ordenamiento extranjero en base a:

          1. Garantizar la tipicidad de la condena.
          2. La previsibilidad de la misma.
          3. Los límites cuantificativos.

          Los posibles efectos de la Sentencia en el ordenamiento italiano

          En primer lugar, hay que tener claro que la Sentencia no ha modificado el sistema indemnizatorio interno del ordenamiento italiano. En otras palabras, la Sentencia no permitirá a los jueces italianos condenar por daños punitivos al interno de los procedimientos italianos.

          En cambio, por lo que respecta a las sentencias extranjeras, ahora será posible obtener la indemnización por daños punitivos a través del reconocimiento y la ejecución en el sistema italiano de una decisión extranjera que prevea la condena de dicha tipología de daño, con la condición de que se respeten los mencionados presupuestos.

          Por todo lo expuesto, las empresas que hayan invertido o que realicen negocios en países en los que se prevén los daños punitivos, tendrán que tener en consideración dicho riesgo.

          Los instrumentos para tutelarse

          El empresario quien opere en mercados extranjeros en los que se prevén los daños punitivos debe considerar con atención este riesgo.

          La óptica debe ser necesariamente de prevención y los instrumentos a disposición son diversos: en primer lugar, la adopción de cláusulas contractuales que prevean la renuncia del perjudicado a este tipo de daño o, que acuerden un límite a la indemnización de los daños contractuales, por ejemplo limitándolos al valor de los productos o a los servicios ofrecidos.

          Es además fundamental, que se conozca la legislación y la jurisprudencia de los mercados en los cuales se opera, incluso indirectamente (por ejemplo, con la distribución comercial de los productos) con el fin de escoger de modo consciente la ley aplicable al contrato y la modalidad de resolución de controversias (por ejemplo, con previsión de la exclusiva jurisdiccional del foro del país que no prevea daños punitivos).

          Finalmente, este tipo de responsabilidad y riesgo puede ser objeto de valoración con pólizas aseguradoras que ofrecen una cobertura específica respecto a eventuales condenas de indemnización de daños punitivos.

          En base a nuestra experiencia en años asesorando y representando compañías en la distribución comercial (en la jurisdicción española pero con fabricantes o distribuidores extranjeros), los siguientes son los seis elementos esenciales para que fabricantes (proveedores) y minoristas (distribuidores) puedan establecer buenas bases en una relación de distribución.

          Estas ideas son relevantes cuando las empresas tienen la intención de iniciar su relación comercial, pero no deben descuidarse y verificarse incluso cuando ya existan esas relaciones.

          La firma del contrato

          Aunque podría parecer obvio, la firma de un acuerdo de distribución es menos común de lo que parece. A menudo ocurre que a lo largo de la relación extendida, las estructuras corporativas cambian y lo que una vez se firmó con una sociedad, no se ha renovado, adaptado, modificado o reemplazado cuando la situación se ha transformado. Es muy conveniente haber documentado bien la relación en cada momento de su existencia y estar seguro de que lo que se ha previsto legalmente también se pueda cumplir en la relación comercial cotidiana. Es aconsejable que este trabajo previo sea llevado a cabo por especialistas legales coordinados estrechamente con el departamento comercial de la compañía. Las cláusulas perfectamente redactadas desde un punto de vista legal serán inútiles si son superadas o no cumplidas en el día a día. Y, por supuesto, ningún contrato se firma como una «mera formalidad» para luego modificarlo mediante acuerdos o prácticas verbales que lo dejen sin contenido.

          La elección correcta del contrato

          Si la firma del contrato de distribución es importante, la elección del tipo correcto es esencial. Muchos de los conflictos que ocurren, especialmente en las relaciones a largo plazo, comienzan con la interpretación del tipo de relación que se ha firmado. Incluso con un texto escrito (y con un título expreso), la intención de las partes sigue sin estar clara (y por lo tanto, el acuerdo). ¿Es el «distribuidor» realmente así? ¿Compra y revende o solo existen relaciones de suministro esporádicas? ¿Existe solo una actividad representativa (es decir, el distribuidor es en realidad un «agente»)? ¿Hay una relación mixta (a veces representa, a veces compra y revende)? La lista podría continuar indefinidamente. Incluso en muchas de las relaciones que existen actualmente, estoy seguro de que la interpretación dada por el Proveedor y el Distribuidor podría ser diferente.

          Supervisar las relaciones legales y comerciales

          Si es bastante frecuente no tener un contrato escrito claro, sucede en casi todas las relaciones de distribución que una vez que se ha firmado el acuerdo, la actividad comercial diaria modifica lo que se ha acordado. ¿Por qué las relaciones comerciales parecen descuidar lo que se ha escrito en un acuerdo? Son bastante frecuentes los contratos en los que se incluyen ciertas obligaciones para los distribuidores (informar sobre el mercado, clientes, compras mínimas), pero que en la práctica no se respetan (parece complicado, existe una buena relación entre las partes, nadie recuerda lo que se había firmado por personas que ya no trabajan en la empresa…). Sin embargo, también es bastante frecuente intentar utilizar esas obligaciones más adelante cuando comienzan los problemas en la relación. En ese momento, las partes intentan esconderse detrás de esos incumplimientos para resolver los contratos, aunque estas prácticas hubieran sido, en cierto modo, aceptadas. Por supuesto, ningún acuerdo puede durar para siempre y, por esa razón, es altamente recomendable una supervisión global y periódico entre el asesor legal (preferentemente uno independiente con el apoyo de los directivos internos) y el departamento comercial para tener en cuenta las nuevas prácticas y tener su reflejo en los documentos contractuales.

          Evidencias sobre los clientes

          En los contratos de distribución, las evidencias sobre los clientes serán esenciales en caso de resolución. Las partes (principalmente el proveedor) están bastante interesadas en probar quién (proveedor o distribuidor) adquirió los clientes. ¿Son resultado de la actividad del distribuidor o se obtienen como consecuencia de la reputación de la marca? Reunir las pruebas sobre los clientes podría simplificar o incluso evitar futuros conflictos. La importancia de la clientela y su posible actividad futura será un elemento clave para definir la compensación que pueda pretender el distribuidor.

          Evidencias sobre compras y ventas

          Otro elemento esencial y, a menudo, olvidado es la justificación de las compras al proveedor y las ventas posteriores de los distribuidores a los clientes. En cualquier acuerdo de distribución, los distribuidores adquieren los productos y los revenden a los clientes finales. Una compensación futura al distribuidor considerará la diferencia entre los precios de compra y los precios de reventa (el margen). Por lo tanto, es aconsejable poder establecer la prueba correspondiente sobre dicha información a fin de preparar mejor una posible reclamación.

          Daños en caso de resolución de los contratos

          Del mismo modo, sería conveniente justificar qué daños se han sufrido como resultado de la resolución de un contrato: ¿ha realizado el distribuidor inversiones por indicación del proveedor que aún no se han amortizado? ¿El distribuidor ha contratado nuevos empleados para una línea de negocio que debe ser descartada debido a la resolución del contrato? ¿El distribuidor ha alquilado nuevas instalaciones firmando contratos a largo plazo debido a las expectativas del acuerdo? Tenga en cuenta que el Distribuidor es un comerciante independiente y, como tal, asume los riesgos de su actividad. Pero en la medida en que actúe en una red de distribución, estará sujeto a las instrucciones, sugerencias y expectativas creadas por el proveedor. Estas pueden ser relevantes para determinar posteriormente los daños causados ​​por la resolución del contrato.

          Influencer marketing is the trend in today’s world of advertising. Even though it is obvious that influencer marketing must observe the framework of applicable statutory provisions, the market has long been uncertain about how influencer posts are to be drafted in order to be legally compliant. The current decision of Celle Higher Regional Court (June 08, 2017 – Case 13 U 53/17) offers at least some clarity.

          The judgment was issued in relation to an action for injunction by the German Association for Social Competition (Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb) against a German drugstore chain. A 20-year-old Instagram star with 1.3 million followers had advertised the drugstore chain in one of her posts. The post was only marked as advertisement at the bottom with the hashtag “#ad,” which additionally only came second in a list of six hashtags.

          Celle Higher Regional Court adjudged that this type of marking was insufficient. The court requested that the commercial purpose of an Instagram post would have to be apparent at first sight. It did not consider use of the hashtag “#ad” in a “hashtag cloud” to be sufficient to mark the post as advertising.

          The court left expressly open, however, whether the use of the hashtag “#ad” is generally suitable to mark advertising posts.

          The state media authorities (Landesmedienanstalten) already reacted to the judgment, however, and revised their joint guide on advertising issues in social media. It now reads: “When marking a post as PROMOTION (Werbung) or ADVERTISING (Anzeige), you will be on the safe side – that much is certain. […] At the current time, we cannot recommend marking posts as #ad, #sponsored by, or #powered by.” In the future, Instagram itself intends to provide for more transparency on the platform by comprehensibly identifying advertising posts. It is currently testing the introduction of a branded content tool in Germany to make it easier for users to recognize posts as paid advertising.

          Practical tip

          Advertising posts in social media should always be marked as “promotion” or “advertising” at the beginning of the posts unless their commercial purpose arises directly from the circumstances. Advertisers are also advised to obligate influencers contractually to such legally compliant marking of posts, since the influencers’ behavior may be attributed to the company, as is clearly shown by the recent judgment of Celle Higher Regional Court against the drugstore chain.

          The author of this post is Ilja Czernik.

          In this clip I briefly introduce the main options to consider when doing business in Iran.
          You can read more on this topic in my articles An introduction to Iran Corporations  and Obtaining a Foreign Investment License and browse Legalmondo’s blog for some other  posts on doing business in the region.

          Foreign currency regulations and price controls in Venezuela

          5 de abril de 2017

          • Venezuela
          • Contratos

          In 2020, an important revision of the Swiss statute of limitations enters into force. The new law provides for longer limitation periods in cases of personal injury and extends the relative limitation periods in tort and unjust enrichment law from one to three years.

          Background of the revision

          In June 2018, the Swiss parliament adopted an amendment to the Swiss Code of Obligations (“CO”) pertaining to a revision of the statute of limitations. In November 2018, the Swiss government decided that the revised statute of limitations shall enter into force on 1 January 2020.

          The revision was significantly influenced by asbestos cases. Under the current law, damage claims of asbestos victims were time-barred in some cases even before asbestos-related diseases could be diagnosed. In March 2014, the European Court of Human Rights held in Howald Moor and others v. Switzerland that the Swiss statute of limitations amounts in such cases to a violation of article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right of access to a court).

          Having said that, the revision does not only concern cases of personal injury, but also includes numerous other important changes as described in the following.

          Key changes regarding limitation periods

          A. Tort law

          In tort law, the new relative limitation period amounts to three years from the date on which the injured party became aware of the damage and of the identity of the person liable (revised Art. 60 para. 1 CO). Under the current law, the relative limitation period amounts to one year only.

          With the exception of cases of personal injury, the absolute limitation period remains ten years as from the date when the conduct that caused the damages occurred or ended (revised Art. 60 para. 1 CO).

          In cases of personal injury, the new relative limitation period amounts to three years from the date on which the injured party became aware of the damage and of the identity of the person liable. Currently the relative limitation period amounts to one year only.

          The new absolute limitation period in cases of personal injury amounts to twenty years after the date when the conduct which caused the damages occurred or ended (new Art. 60 para. 1bis CO). Under the current law, there was no special absolute limitation period for cases of personal injury, so that the ordinary 10-year period applied (Art. 60 para. 1 CO).

          If conduct, which gives rise to liability under tort law, is also punishable under criminal law, the (longer) limitation period under criminal law remains applicable (cf. Art. 97 of the Swiss Criminal Code). However, where a first-instance criminal judgment is rendered before the conduct is time-barred under criminal law, the limitation periods ends not earlier than three years as from that criminal judgment (revised Art. 60 para. 2 CO). The current law does not provide for such an additional three-year limitation period.

          B. Unjust enrichment law

          In unjust enrichment law, the new relative limitation period amounts to three years as from the date on which the injured party knows about the claim (revised Art. 67 para. 1 CO). Under the current law, the relative limitation period amounts to one year only.

          The absolute limitation period is not affected by the revision and remains ten years after the date on which the claim arises (revised Art. 67 para. 1 CO).

          C. Contract law

          With regard to contractual claims, the ordinary limitation period remains ten years from the due date (Art. 127 CO). Furthermore, the shorter limitation period of five years from the due date applicable to (amongst others) claims for rent, interest on capital and other periodic payments, (most) claims out of employment relationships etc. remains unchanged too (Art. 128 CO).

          However, in cases of personal injury, the revised statute of limitations introduces a new relative limitation period of three years from the date on which the injured party became aware of the damage, as well as a new absolute limitation period of twenty years after the date when the conduct which caused the damages occurred or ended (new Art. 128a CO). The current law does not provide for distinct relative and absolute limitation periods for contractual claims in cases of personal injury. Instead, the ordinary ten-year limitation period (Art. 127 CO) usually applied to such cases.

          D. Summary

          In summary, the most important elements of the revised statute of limitations are the longer (trebled) relative limitation periods in tort and unjust enrichment law (i.e., three years instead of one year) and the new special rules for cases of personal injury, which now benefit from a 20-year absolute limitation period.

          Transitional provisions / application of the revised statute of limitations to pre-existing claims

          The longer limitation periods under the revised CO apply to any claims that are not yet time-barred when the revision enters into force (i.e., on 1 January 2020; revised Art. 49 para. 1, Final Title of the Swiss Civil Code). In other words, the limitation periods of any claims that do not become time-barred until 31 December 2019 at the latest will be prolonged. This is of particular relevance with regard to claims based on tort and unjust enrichment; the short one-year relative limitation periods under the current law will be extended by another two years.

          In contrast, the current law remains applicable in case the revised statute of limitations provides for shorter limitation periods (revised Art. 49 para. 2, Final Title of the Swiss Civil Code). This concerns, in particular, contractual claims in cases of personal injury. The new three-year relative limitation period under the revised law might not apply to such claims, as the current statute of limitations does not provide for a relative limitation period at all.

          Further changes brought by the revision

          In addition to the changes of the limitation periods set out above, the revision of the statute of limitations contains numerous further modifications. Some of them are listed in the following:

          1. Limitation periods do not commence or are suspended in the event that a claim cannot be asserted for objective reasons before any court worldwide (revised Art. 134 para. 1 no. 6 CO). The current law provides for such non-commencement or suspension only if the claim cannot be brought before a Swiss court.
          2. Parties to a dispute may agree in writing that limitation periods shall be suspended during settlement discussions, mediation proceedings or other out-of-court settlement proceedings (revised Art. 134 para. 1 no. 8 CO).
          3. Once a limitation period has commenced to run, waivers of statute of limitation defenses are admissible, but must not exceed ten years (revised Art. 141 para. 1 CO). Any such waivers must be in writing (new Art. 141 para. 1bis CO).
          4. In general terms and conditions (“GTC”), statute of limitation defenses may be waived by the party who makes use of the GTCs only. In contrast, a waiver by the party on whom the GTCs are imposed (e.g., consumers) is ineffective (new Art. 141 para. 1bis CO).
          5. The limitation period for an actio pauliana under the Swiss Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Act (“DEBA”) is extended to from currently two years to three years after service of a loss certificate, the opening of bankruptcy proceedings or the confirmation of a composition agreement with an assignment of assets (whichever is applicable; revised Art. 292 DEBA).

          If 2017 was the year of Initial Coin Offerings, 2018 was the year of Blockchain awareness and testing all over the world. From ICO focused guidelines and regulations respectively aimed to alarm and protect investors, we have seen the shift, especially in Europe, to distributed ledger technology (“DLT”) focused guidelines and regulations aimed at protecting citizens on one hand and promote DLT implementations on the other.

          Indeed, European Union Member States and the European Parliament started looking deeper into the technology by, for instance, calling for consultations with professionals in order to understand DLT’s potentials for real-world implementations and possible risks.

          In this article I am aiming to give a brief snapshot of firstly what are the most notable European initiatives and moves towards promoting Blockchain implementation and secondly current challenges faced by European law makers when dealing with the regulation of distributed ledger technologies.

          Europe

          Let’s start from the European Blockchain Partnership (“EBP”), a statement made by 25 EU Member States acknowledging the importance of distributed ledger technology for society, in particular when it comes to interoperability, cyber security and efficiency of digital public services. The Partnership is not only an acknowledgement, it is also a commitment from all signatory states to collaborate to build what they envision will be a distributed ledger infrastructure for the delivering of cross-border public services.

          Witness of the trust given to the technology is My Health My Data, a EU-backed project that uses DLT to enable patients to efficiently control their digitally recorded health data while securing it from the threat of data breaches. Benefits the EU saw in DLT on this specific project are safety, efficiency but most notably the opportunity that DLT offers data subject to have finally control over their own data, without the need for intermediaries.

          Another important initiative proving European interests in testing DLT technologies is the Horizon Prize on “Blockchains for Social Good”, a 5 million Euros worth challenge open to innovators and tech companies to develop scalable, efficient and high-impact decentralized solutions to social innovation challenges.

          Moving forward, in December last year, I had the honor to be part of the “ Workshop on Blockchains & Smart Contracts Legal and Regulatory Framework” in Paris, an initiative supported by the EU Blockchain Observatory and Forum (“EUBOF”), a pilot project initiated by the European Parliament. Earlier last year other three workshops were held, the aim of each was to collect knowledge on specific topics from an audience of leading DLT legal and technical professionals. With the knowledge collected, the EUBOF followed up with reports of what was discussed during the workshop and suggest a way forward.

          Although not binding, these reports give a reasonably clear guideline to the industry on how existing laws at a European level apply to the technology, or at least should be interpreted, and highlight areas where new regulation is definitely needed. As an example let’s look at the Report on Blockchain & GDPR. If you missed it, the GDPR is the Regulation that protects Europeans personal data and it’s applicable to all companies globally, which are processing data from European citizens. The “right to erasure” embedded in the GDPR, doesn’t allow personal data to be stored on an immutable database, the data subject has to be able to erase data anytime when shared with a service provider and stored somewhere on a database. In the case of Blockchain, the consensus on personal data having to be stored off-chain is therefore unanimous. Storing personal data off-chain and leaving an hash to that data on-chain, is a viable solution if certain precautions are taken in order to avoid the risks of reversibility or linkability of such hash to the personal data stored off-chain, therefore making the hash on-chain personally identifiable information.

          However, not all European laws apply to Member States, therefore making it hard to give a EU-wide answer to most DLT compliance challenges in Europe. Member States freedom to legislate is indeed only limited/influenced by two main instruments, Regulations, which are automatically enforceable in each Member State and Directives binding Member States to legislate on specific topics according to a set of specific rules.

          Diverging national laws have a great effect on multiple aspects of innovative technologies. Let’s look for instance at the validity of “smart contracts”. When discussing the legal power of automatically enforceable digital contracts, the lack of a European wide legislation on contracts makes it impossible to find an answer applicable to all Member States. For instance, is “offer and acceptance” enough to constitute a contract? What is considered a valid “acceptance”? What is an “obligation”? “Can a digital asset be the object of a legally binding agreement”?

          If we try to give a EU-wide answer to the questions such as smart contract validity and enforceability it is apparently not possible since we will need to consider 28 different answers. I, therefore, believe that the future of innovation in Europe will highly depend on the unification of laws.

          An example of a unified law that has great benefits on innovation (including DLT) is the Electronic Identification and Trust Services (eIDAS) Regulation, which governs electronic identification including electronic signatures.

          The race to regulating DLT in Europe

          Let’s now look briefly at a couple of Member States legislations, specifically on Blockchain and cryptocurrencies last year.

          EU Member States have been quite creative I would say in regulating the new technology. Let’s start from Malta, which saw a surprising increase of important projects and companies, such as Binance, landing on the beautiful Mediterranean Island thanks to its favorable (or at least felt as such) legislations on DLT. The “Blockchain Island” passed three laws in early July to regulate and supervise Blockchain projects including ICOs, crypto exchanges and DLT, specifically: The Innovative Technology Arrangements and Services Act regulation that aims at recognizing different technology arrangements such as DAOs, smart contracts and in future probably AI machines; The Virtual Financial Assets Act for ICOs and crypto exchanges; The Malta Digital Innovation Authority establishing a new supervisory authority.

          Some think the Maltese legislation lacks a comprehensive framework, one that for instance, gives legal personality to Innovative Technology Arrangements. For this reason some are therefore accusing the Maltese lawmakers of rushing into an uncompleted regulatory framework in order to attract business to the island while others seem to positively welcome the laws as a good start for a European wide regulation on DLT and crypto assets.

          In December 2018, Malta also initiated a declaration that was then signed by other six Members States, calling for collaboration for the promotion and implementation of DLT on a European level.

          France was one of the signatories of such declaration, and it’s worth mentioning since the French Minister for the Economy and Finance approved in September a framework for regulating ICOs and therefore protecting investors’ rights, basically giving the AMF (French Authority for Financial Market) the empowerment to give licenses to companies wanting to raise funds through Initial Coin Offerings.

          Last but not least comes Switzerland which although it is not a EU Member State, it has great degree of influence on European and national legislators when it comes to progressive regulations. At the end of December, the Swiss Federal Council released a report on DLT and the law, making a clear statement that the existing Swiss law is sufficient to regulate most matters related to DLT and Blockchain, although some adjustments have to be made. So no new laws but few amendments here and there, which will allow the integration of the specific DLT applications with existing laws in order to ensure legal certainty on certain uncovered matters. Relevant areas of Swiss law that will be amended include the transfer of rights utilizing digital registers, Anti Money Laundering rules specifically for decentralized trading platforms and bankruptcy when that proceeding involves crypto assets.

          Conclusions

          To summarize, from the approach taken during the past year, it is apparent that there is great interest in Europe to understand the potentials and to soon test implementations of distributed ledger technology. Lawmakers have also an understanding that the technology is in an infant state, it might involve risks, therefore making it complex to set specific rules or to give final answers on the alignment of certain technology applications with existing European or national laws.

          To achieve European wide results, however, acknowledgments, guidelines and reports are not enough. The setting of standards for lawmakers applicable to all Member States or even unification of laws in crucial sectors influencing directly or indirectly new technologies, will be the only solution for any innovative technology to be adopted at a European level.

          The author of this post is Alessandro Mazzi.

          “Influencer Marketing” is a very well known topic to the jurists and operators of the advertising sector dealing with commercial communication.

          There is a core principle in communication law: any form of commercial communication shall be clearly recognizable as such.

          Before the diffusion of digital communication and, along with it, the proliferation of the so-called «Influencer Marketing», the issue of recognizability of commercial communication was generally discussed when evaluating whether an advertising content was clearly distinguishable from a journalistic or an informative content (such is the longstanding issue regarding the advertorial).

          For a short period of time there was a debate regarding the so-called subliminal advertising, which eventually fell into oblivion.

          The necessity to point out to the consumer whether the appreciation for a product or a service shown by a well-known person – precisely an “Influencer” – (i.e. the endorsement) is genuine or not has become a much encountered and controversial topic.

          It shall not be considered as spontaneous when an individual receives remuneration for wearing a fashion item, for using a smartphone, or simply when he/she receives as a gift the products that he/she promotes or other valuable products.

          It is clear and proven that the spontaneous choice of an “idol” by the public has a bigger impact on these same people rather than any traditional way of advertising. Hence the abuse of surreptitious advertising on the less easily monitored channel: the web, precisely.

          What measures should be taken to ensure that the consumers can understand clearly whether a post is subject of a contract or not?

          The answer would be very simple.

          It would be enough to require the sponsored post to contain, in clearly visible characters, terms as “Advertisement”, “Sponsored by”, “Commercial agreement” or similar notices.

          In Italy, in absence of a law regulating specifically the matter, both the Istituto della Pubblicità (Italy’s Advertising Self-Regulatory Institute) and the Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (the Competition Authority) have expressed their opinion on this subject.

          In the Italian Advertising Self-Regulatory Institute’s digital chart it is written: “in order to make the promotional nature of content posted on social media and content sharing sites recognizable, celebrities/influencers/bloggers must at the top of their post state in a clearly distinguishable manner the words: “Pubblicità/Advertising”, or “Promosso da … brand/Promoted by…brand” or “Sponsorizzato da…brand/Sponsored by…brand” or “in collaborazione con …brand” or “in partnership with the …brand”; and/or within the first three hashtags (#) use one of the following terms: “#Pubblicità/#Advertising”, or “#Sponsorizzato da … brand/#Sponsored by the … brand “ or “#ad” along with “#brand”.

          In a press release of 2017 the Italian Competition Authority has required the addressees the use of the following warnings to be placed below the post together with the others hashtags (#), such as “#sponsored, #advertising, #paidad”, or, in the case of products given for free to the celebrity, “#productsuppliedby”; in particular, all these wordings should be followed by the name of the specific brand being advertised.

          However, browsing the Instagram’s pages of various Influencers, it is noticeable that only a few of them are actually using the indications provided by the authorities.

          And when it happens to came across Instagram’s profiles that use such indications, it is noticeable that the hashtag that is most commonly used is “#ad”, whose effectiveness (especially in Italy where terms such as “advertising”, “Adv” and, even more so, “ad” are not easily decipherable by the average consumer) raises many concerns.

          So far the Italian Competition Authority intervened sending moral suasion letters to some of the main influencers and companies producing the branded goods displayed in the posts, but still no self-regulatory, administrative or state measures have been taken.

          The same situation of uncertainty is likely to be found in other countries (here you can find a previous Legalmondo post on this topic in Germany: https://www.legalmondo.com/2017/11/germany-product-placement-influencer-marketing/), with the consequence that international companies are operating in an unclear context, in which it is difficult to identify what are the risks arising from behaviours considered as unlawful.

          I have therefore decided to write this article in order to assess the state of Influencer Marketing in Italy and in other countries and get a better understanding of the regulations in force, the measures/judgments issued by the competent Authorities, the international trends and the best practices that could be adopted by international companies.

          Since I am one of the founders of the Digital Adv Lab – an interdisciplinary observatory that studies the legal implications of marketing and digital communication initiatives – I am interested in getting in touch with all the readers involved in this topic: please feel free to enter a comment and/or contact me.

          The author of this post is Elena Carpani.

          Poland has recently become quite famous for its skilled and resourceful IT specialists. Each year thousands of new computer engineers (programmers, developers, testers, designers etc.) enter into the market, warmly welcomed by domestic and multinational companies. A big part of these young talents open their own firm or business as free lancers developing software for clients from European countries as well as from US, Canada, Japan, China, etc.

          However, companies who want to cooperate with these partners and assign software development to a Polish IT company or freelancer should be aware that the copyright law in Poland is very strict, as it mainly protects the creator and not the client. Therefore, to be on a safe side, it is better to follow these 7 basic rules:

          1. Never start cooperation with an IT specialist or an IT company without a formal agreement. And I mean a real agreement, in a written form, with signatures of persons who can validly contract on behalf of the companies. The form is very important because – under Polish law – copyrights transfer and exclusive license agreements not fulfilling form conditions are null and void. Moreover, if there is no agreement, Polish copyright rules will apply to all intellectual property matters.
          2. Please remember that software is a creation protected by copyright law. Therefore you should consider whether you want to acquire the entire intellectual property rights or you just need a license. If you need a full IP transfer, you need to put it expressly in the agreement; otherwise you will only get a non-exclusive licence. And these, in several cases, will not be useful from a business point of view. If a license is enough, it is advisable to agree if it will be exclusive or non-exclusive.
          3. When drafting an IP clause, be detailed and clear. If you want to be able to decompile and disassembly the binary code, specify it in the IP clause. If you want to be able to introduce modifications to the source code, specify it in the IP clause. If you want to sublicense the software, specify it in the IP clause. The IP clause shall contain the description of any way you want to use the software, whether on mobile devices or on personal computers, any other electronic device or via internet (e.g. cloud computing). And believe me, when I write «specify it in the IP clause» it means that you really, really have to put it there. Otherwise it will be null and void and you may face a situation where your smart IT engineer, after getting paid, will sue you for the IP infringement.
          4. Remember that you should indicate the timeframe and the geographical scope of the license or IP transfer. If you do not specify it expressly in the agreement, you will only be entitled to a 5-year license, automatically expiring afterwards.
          5. Draft carefully a clause related to termination of the agreement. Under Polish law the licensor may terminate the license agreement granted for an indefinite period of time upon 1-year notice. If you do not want to find yourself in a situation where you lose the software IP rights in the middle of a big project, make sure that from the very beginning you are on a safe side.
          6. Make sure that your partner is obliged to transfer you upon request all software documentation and the source code.
          7. Make sure that you have a good indemnification clause with no limitation of liability. Often Polish IT companies subcontract some part of the development work to free lancers. You never know if they will conclude proper agreements with their subcontractors and if they will legally acquire the IP of the software that they will later sell you. There is always the risk that in the future some Polish IT engineer you never met will raise IP infringement claims against you, trying to prove that he/she actually developed the software. In such a situation an indemnification clause will help you recovering the costs from your partner.

          Con la reciente sentencia 16601/2017, la Corte Suprema – después de diferentes pronunciamientos contrarios – ha abierto la posibilidad de reconocer en Italia las sentencias extranjeras que contengan daños punitivos.

          En este breve artículo veremos en qué consisten los daños punitivos, cuáles son las condiciones por las cuales podrían reconocerse y aplicarse en Italia y, sobretodo, qué medidas conviene tomar para afrontar este nuevo riesgo.

          Los daños punitivos, en inglés punitive damages, son un instituto jurídico originario de los ordenamientos anglosajones que prevén la posibilidad de reconocer a la parte perjudicada una indemnización adicional respecto a la compensación del daño sufrido, en los casos en los que el causante del daño haya actuado con dolo o culpa grave (“malice” y “gross negligence”, respectivamente).

          Con los daños punitivos, además de la función compensatoria, la indemnización del daño también asume una finalidad sancionadora, típica del derecho penal, actuando como elemento de disuasión ante otros potenciales infractores.

          En los ordenamientos en los que se prevén los daños punitivos, el reconocimiento y la cuantificación de la indemnización se someten a la discrecionalidad del juez.

          En los Estados Unidos de América los daños punitivos se prevén en los principios de common law, pero se disciplinan de modo diverso en cada uno de los Estados. Sin embargo, en general, se aplican siempre que la conducta del causante del daño haya sido dirigida a causar el daño intencionadamente o, se haya llevado a cabo sin tener en cuenta las normas de seguridad preestablecidas. Por lo general, no pueden reconocerse por el incumplimiento de un contrato, salvo que no se determine como un ilícito (tort) autónomo.

          En algunos Estados se prevén límites máximos a los daños punitivos, a veces incorporados en los daños compensatorios, otras veces como cuantía máxima. Además, la Corte Suprema de los EEUU ha intervenido en diferentes casos para limitar el importe de condena.

          En los ordenamientos de civil law, entre ellos Italia, el instituto de daños punitivos tradicionalmente no se reconoce, ya que la sanción al causante del daño se considera que queda al margen de los principios del derecho civil, basándose en la concepción de que la indemnización por daños tiene como objetivo restaurar la esfera patrimonial del perjudicado.

          En consecuencia, el reconocimiento de los daños punitivos en una sentencia, se obstaculizaban por el límite de orden público y tales sentencias no tenían acceso en el espacio jurídico italiano.

          La sentencia de las Secciones Unidas núm. 16601/2017, de 5 de julio de 2017 de la Corte Suprema de Casación ha girado las cartas sobre la mesa.

          En el presente caso se solicitó a la Corte de Apelación de Venecia el reconocimiento (ex. Art. 64 de la Ley 218/1995) de tres sentencias de la District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida que, admitió una denuncia de garantía interpuesta por un revendedor americano de cascos contra la sociedad productora italiana, por la cual se había condenado a ésta última al pago de 1.436.136,87 USD (además de gastos e intereses) en base al resarcimiento de los daños causas por un defecto del casco utilizado en un accidente de tráfico.

          La Corte de Apelación de Venecia reconoció la eficacia de la sentencia del juez extranjero, considerando que el importe era meramente indemnizatorio y no punitivo. La decisión fue recurrida en Casación por la parte condenada, que sostenía la contrariedad al orden publico de la sentencia estadunidense, en base a la orientación jurisprudencial hasta ese momento.

          La Casación ha confirmado la decisión de la Corte de Apelación, considerando que el importe no es punitivo y ha declarado el reconocimiento de la sentencia estadunidense en Italia.

          Las Secciones Unidas, por su parte, han aprovechado la ocasión para afrontar la cuestión inherente a la admisibilidad de los daños punitivos en Italia, cambiando la orientación histórica de la Corte Suprema (véase Cass. 1781/2012).

          Según la Corte, la noción de responsabilidad civil entendida como mera reparación de los daños sufridos, se debe considerar como obsoleta dada la evolución del instituto a través de intervenciones legislativas y jurisprudenciales nacionales y europeas, que han introducido medidas indemnizatorias con finalidad sancionadora y disuasiva. De hecho, en el ordenamiento italiano es posible encontrar diversos casos de indemnización por daños con finalidad sancionadora: en materia de difamación en medios de comunicación (art. 12 L. 47/48), derechos de autor (art. 158 L 633/41), propiedad industrial (art. 125 D. Lgs 30/2005), abuso del proceso (art. 96.3 c.p.c. y art. 26.2 c.p.a.), derecho laboral (art. 18.14 c.p.c.), derecho de familia (art. 709-ter c.p.c.), etc.

          De este modo, la Corte de Casación ha introducido el siguiente principio de derecho: “En el vigente ordenamiento italiano, a la responsabilidad civil no solo se le asigna el deber de restaurar la esfera patrimonial del sujeto que ha sufrido la lesión, porque se consideran incluidas en el sistema la función de disuasión y la función sancionadora de la responsabilidad civil. Por tanto, no es ontológicamente incompatible con el ordenamiento italiano el instituto de origen estadunidense de la indemnización punitiva”.

          La consecuencia, a tener en muy cuenta, es que el pronunciamiento abre la puerta a posibles deliberaciones de sentencias extranjeras, que condenen a una de las partes al pago de un importe superior respecto al importe calculado para compensar el prejuicio creado a causa de un daño.

          Sin embargo, a tal fin, la Corte Suprema ha dispuesto algunas condiciones para que la sentencia extranjera pueda reconocerse. La decisión ha debido ser tomada en el ordenamiento extranjero en base a:

          1. Garantizar la tipicidad de la condena.
          2. La previsibilidad de la misma.
          3. Los límites cuantificativos.

          Los posibles efectos de la Sentencia en el ordenamiento italiano

          En primer lugar, hay que tener claro que la Sentencia no ha modificado el sistema indemnizatorio interno del ordenamiento italiano. En otras palabras, la Sentencia no permitirá a los jueces italianos condenar por daños punitivos al interno de los procedimientos italianos.

          En cambio, por lo que respecta a las sentencias extranjeras, ahora será posible obtener la indemnización por daños punitivos a través del reconocimiento y la ejecución en el sistema italiano de una decisión extranjera que prevea la condena de dicha tipología de daño, con la condición de que se respeten los mencionados presupuestos.

          Por todo lo expuesto, las empresas que hayan invertido o que realicen negocios en países en los que se prevén los daños punitivos, tendrán que tener en consideración dicho riesgo.

          Los instrumentos para tutelarse

          El empresario quien opere en mercados extranjeros en los que se prevén los daños punitivos debe considerar con atención este riesgo.

          La óptica debe ser necesariamente de prevención y los instrumentos a disposición son diversos: en primer lugar, la adopción de cláusulas contractuales que prevean la renuncia del perjudicado a este tipo de daño o, que acuerden un límite a la indemnización de los daños contractuales, por ejemplo limitándolos al valor de los productos o a los servicios ofrecidos.

          Es además fundamental, que se conozca la legislación y la jurisprudencia de los mercados en los cuales se opera, incluso indirectamente (por ejemplo, con la distribución comercial de los productos) con el fin de escoger de modo consciente la ley aplicable al contrato y la modalidad de resolución de controversias (por ejemplo, con previsión de la exclusiva jurisdiccional del foro del país que no prevea daños punitivos).

          Finalmente, este tipo de responsabilidad y riesgo puede ser objeto de valoración con pólizas aseguradoras que ofrecen una cobertura específica respecto a eventuales condenas de indemnización de daños punitivos.

          En base a nuestra experiencia en años asesorando y representando compañías en la distribución comercial (en la jurisdicción española pero con fabricantes o distribuidores extranjeros), los siguientes son los seis elementos esenciales para que fabricantes (proveedores) y minoristas (distribuidores) puedan establecer buenas bases en una relación de distribución.

          Estas ideas son relevantes cuando las empresas tienen la intención de iniciar su relación comercial, pero no deben descuidarse y verificarse incluso cuando ya existan esas relaciones.

          La firma del contrato

          Aunque podría parecer obvio, la firma de un acuerdo de distribución es menos común de lo que parece. A menudo ocurre que a lo largo de la relación extendida, las estructuras corporativas cambian y lo que una vez se firmó con una sociedad, no se ha renovado, adaptado, modificado o reemplazado cuando la situación se ha transformado. Es muy conveniente haber documentado bien la relación en cada momento de su existencia y estar seguro de que lo que se ha previsto legalmente también se pueda cumplir en la relación comercial cotidiana. Es aconsejable que este trabajo previo sea llevado a cabo por especialistas legales coordinados estrechamente con el departamento comercial de la compañía. Las cláusulas perfectamente redactadas desde un punto de vista legal serán inútiles si son superadas o no cumplidas en el día a día. Y, por supuesto, ningún contrato se firma como una «mera formalidad» para luego modificarlo mediante acuerdos o prácticas verbales que lo dejen sin contenido.

          La elección correcta del contrato

          Si la firma del contrato de distribución es importante, la elección del tipo correcto es esencial. Muchos de los conflictos que ocurren, especialmente en las relaciones a largo plazo, comienzan con la interpretación del tipo de relación que se ha firmado. Incluso con un texto escrito (y con un título expreso), la intención de las partes sigue sin estar clara (y por lo tanto, el acuerdo). ¿Es el «distribuidor» realmente así? ¿Compra y revende o solo existen relaciones de suministro esporádicas? ¿Existe solo una actividad representativa (es decir, el distribuidor es en realidad un «agente»)? ¿Hay una relación mixta (a veces representa, a veces compra y revende)? La lista podría continuar indefinidamente. Incluso en muchas de las relaciones que existen actualmente, estoy seguro de que la interpretación dada por el Proveedor y el Distribuidor podría ser diferente.

          Supervisar las relaciones legales y comerciales

          Si es bastante frecuente no tener un contrato escrito claro, sucede en casi todas las relaciones de distribución que una vez que se ha firmado el acuerdo, la actividad comercial diaria modifica lo que se ha acordado. ¿Por qué las relaciones comerciales parecen descuidar lo que se ha escrito en un acuerdo? Son bastante frecuentes los contratos en los que se incluyen ciertas obligaciones para los distribuidores (informar sobre el mercado, clientes, compras mínimas), pero que en la práctica no se respetan (parece complicado, existe una buena relación entre las partes, nadie recuerda lo que se había firmado por personas que ya no trabajan en la empresa…). Sin embargo, también es bastante frecuente intentar utilizar esas obligaciones más adelante cuando comienzan los problemas en la relación. En ese momento, las partes intentan esconderse detrás de esos incumplimientos para resolver los contratos, aunque estas prácticas hubieran sido, en cierto modo, aceptadas. Por supuesto, ningún acuerdo puede durar para siempre y, por esa razón, es altamente recomendable una supervisión global y periódico entre el asesor legal (preferentemente uno independiente con el apoyo de los directivos internos) y el departamento comercial para tener en cuenta las nuevas prácticas y tener su reflejo en los documentos contractuales.

          Evidencias sobre los clientes

          En los contratos de distribución, las evidencias sobre los clientes serán esenciales en caso de resolución. Las partes (principalmente el proveedor) están bastante interesadas en probar quién (proveedor o distribuidor) adquirió los clientes. ¿Son resultado de la actividad del distribuidor o se obtienen como consecuencia de la reputación de la marca? Reunir las pruebas sobre los clientes podría simplificar o incluso evitar futuros conflictos. La importancia de la clientela y su posible actividad futura será un elemento clave para definir la compensación que pueda pretender el distribuidor.

          Evidencias sobre compras y ventas

          Otro elemento esencial y, a menudo, olvidado es la justificación de las compras al proveedor y las ventas posteriores de los distribuidores a los clientes. En cualquier acuerdo de distribución, los distribuidores adquieren los productos y los revenden a los clientes finales. Una compensación futura al distribuidor considerará la diferencia entre los precios de compra y los precios de reventa (el margen). Por lo tanto, es aconsejable poder establecer la prueba correspondiente sobre dicha información a fin de preparar mejor una posible reclamación.

          Daños en caso de resolución de los contratos

          Del mismo modo, sería conveniente justificar qué daños se han sufrido como resultado de la resolución de un contrato: ¿ha realizado el distribuidor inversiones por indicación del proveedor que aún no se han amortizado? ¿El distribuidor ha contratado nuevos empleados para una línea de negocio que debe ser descartada debido a la resolución del contrato? ¿El distribuidor ha alquilado nuevas instalaciones firmando contratos a largo plazo debido a las expectativas del acuerdo? Tenga en cuenta que el Distribuidor es un comerciante independiente y, como tal, asume los riesgos de su actividad. Pero en la medida en que actúe en una red de distribución, estará sujeto a las instrucciones, sugerencias y expectativas creadas por el proveedor. Estas pueden ser relevantes para determinar posteriormente los daños causados ​​por la resolución del contrato.

          Influencer marketing is the trend in today’s world of advertising. Even though it is obvious that influencer marketing must observe the framework of applicable statutory provisions, the market has long been uncertain about how influencer posts are to be drafted in order to be legally compliant. The current decision of Celle Higher Regional Court (June 08, 2017 – Case 13 U 53/17) offers at least some clarity.

          The judgment was issued in relation to an action for injunction by the German Association for Social Competition (Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb) against a German drugstore chain. A 20-year-old Instagram star with 1.3 million followers had advertised the drugstore chain in one of her posts. The post was only marked as advertisement at the bottom with the hashtag “#ad,” which additionally only came second in a list of six hashtags.

          Celle Higher Regional Court adjudged that this type of marking was insufficient. The court requested that the commercial purpose of an Instagram post would have to be apparent at first sight. It did not consider use of the hashtag “#ad” in a “hashtag cloud” to be sufficient to mark the post as advertising.

          The court left expressly open, however, whether the use of the hashtag “#ad” is generally suitable to mark advertising posts.

          The state media authorities (Landesmedienanstalten) already reacted to the judgment, however, and revised their joint guide on advertising issues in social media. It now reads: “When marking a post as PROMOTION (Werbung) or ADVERTISING (Anzeige), you will be on the safe side – that much is certain. […] At the current time, we cannot recommend marking posts as #ad, #sponsored by, or #powered by.” In the future, Instagram itself intends to provide for more transparency on the platform by comprehensibly identifying advertising posts. It is currently testing the introduction of a branded content tool in Germany to make it easier for users to recognize posts as paid advertising.

          Practical tip

          Advertising posts in social media should always be marked as “promotion” or “advertising” at the beginning of the posts unless their commercial purpose arises directly from the circumstances. Advertisers are also advised to obligate influencers contractually to such legally compliant marking of posts, since the influencers’ behavior may be attributed to the company, as is clearly shown by the recent judgment of Celle Higher Regional Court against the drugstore chain.

          The author of this post is Ilja Czernik.

          In this clip I briefly introduce the main options to consider when doing business in Iran.
          You can read more on this topic in my articles An introduction to Iran Corporations  and Obtaining a Foreign Investment License and browse Legalmondo’s blog for some other  posts on doing business in the region.

          Enforcement of foreign decisions and arbitral awards in Venezuela

          21 de marzo de 2017

          • Venezuela
          • Arbitraje
          • Contratos
          • Litigios

          In 2020, an important revision of the Swiss statute of limitations enters into force. The new law provides for longer limitation periods in cases of personal injury and extends the relative limitation periods in tort and unjust enrichment law from one to three years.

          Background of the revision

          In June 2018, the Swiss parliament adopted an amendment to the Swiss Code of Obligations (“CO”) pertaining to a revision of the statute of limitations. In November 2018, the Swiss government decided that the revised statute of limitations shall enter into force on 1 January 2020.

          The revision was significantly influenced by asbestos cases. Under the current law, damage claims of asbestos victims were time-barred in some cases even before asbestos-related diseases could be diagnosed. In March 2014, the European Court of Human Rights held in Howald Moor and others v. Switzerland that the Swiss statute of limitations amounts in such cases to a violation of article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right of access to a court).

          Having said that, the revision does not only concern cases of personal injury, but also includes numerous other important changes as described in the following.

          Key changes regarding limitation periods

          A. Tort law

          In tort law, the new relative limitation period amounts to three years from the date on which the injured party became aware of the damage and of the identity of the person liable (revised Art. 60 para. 1 CO). Under the current law, the relative limitation period amounts to one year only.

          With the exception of cases of personal injury, the absolute limitation period remains ten years as from the date when the conduct that caused the damages occurred or ended (revised Art. 60 para. 1 CO).

          In cases of personal injury, the new relative limitation period amounts to three years from the date on which the injured party became aware of the damage and of the identity of the person liable. Currently the relative limitation period amounts to one year only.

          The new absolute limitation period in cases of personal injury amounts to twenty years after the date when the conduct which caused the damages occurred or ended (new Art. 60 para. 1bis CO). Under the current law, there was no special absolute limitation period for cases of personal injury, so that the ordinary 10-year period applied (Art. 60 para. 1 CO).

          If conduct, which gives rise to liability under tort law, is also punishable under criminal law, the (longer) limitation period under criminal law remains applicable (cf. Art. 97 of the Swiss Criminal Code). However, where a first-instance criminal judgment is rendered before the conduct is time-barred under criminal law, the limitation periods ends not earlier than three years as from that criminal judgment (revised Art. 60 para. 2 CO). The current law does not provide for such an additional three-year limitation period.

          B. Unjust enrichment law

          In unjust enrichment law, the new relative limitation period amounts to three years as from the date on which the injured party knows about the claim (revised Art. 67 para. 1 CO). Under the current law, the relative limitation period amounts to one year only.

          The absolute limitation period is not affected by the revision and remains ten years after the date on which the claim arises (revised Art. 67 para. 1 CO).

          C. Contract law

          With regard to contractual claims, the ordinary limitation period remains ten years from the due date (Art. 127 CO). Furthermore, the shorter limitation period of five years from the due date applicable to (amongst others) claims for rent, interest on capital and other periodic payments, (most) claims out of employment relationships etc. remains unchanged too (Art. 128 CO).

          However, in cases of personal injury, the revised statute of limitations introduces a new relative limitation period of three years from the date on which the injured party became aware of the damage, as well as a new absolute limitation period of twenty years after the date when the conduct which caused the damages occurred or ended (new Art. 128a CO). The current law does not provide for distinct relative and absolute limitation periods for contractual claims in cases of personal injury. Instead, the ordinary ten-year limitation period (Art. 127 CO) usually applied to such cases.

          D. Summary

          In summary, the most important elements of the revised statute of limitations are the longer (trebled) relative limitation periods in tort and unjust enrichment law (i.e., three years instead of one year) and the new special rules for cases of personal injury, which now benefit from a 20-year absolute limitation period.

          Transitional provisions / application of the revised statute of limitations to pre-existing claims

          The longer limitation periods under the revised CO apply to any claims that are not yet time-barred when the revision enters into force (i.e., on 1 January 2020; revised Art. 49 para. 1, Final Title of the Swiss Civil Code). In other words, the limitation periods of any claims that do not become time-barred until 31 December 2019 at the latest will be prolonged. This is of particular relevance with regard to claims based on tort and unjust enrichment; the short one-year relative limitation periods under the current law will be extended by another two years.

          In contrast, the current law remains applicable in case the revised statute of limitations provides for shorter limitation periods (revised Art. 49 para. 2, Final Title of the Swiss Civil Code). This concerns, in particular, contractual claims in cases of personal injury. The new three-year relative limitation period under the revised law might not apply to such claims, as the current statute of limitations does not provide for a relative limitation period at all.

          Further changes brought by the revision

          In addition to the changes of the limitation periods set out above, the revision of the statute of limitations contains numerous further modifications. Some of them are listed in the following:

          1. Limitation periods do not commence or are suspended in the event that a claim cannot be asserted for objective reasons before any court worldwide (revised Art. 134 para. 1 no. 6 CO). The current law provides for such non-commencement or suspension only if the claim cannot be brought before a Swiss court.
          2. Parties to a dispute may agree in writing that limitation periods shall be suspended during settlement discussions, mediation proceedings or other out-of-court settlement proceedings (revised Art. 134 para. 1 no. 8 CO).
          3. Once a limitation period has commenced to run, waivers of statute of limitation defenses are admissible, but must not exceed ten years (revised Art. 141 para. 1 CO). Any such waivers must be in writing (new Art. 141 para. 1bis CO).
          4. In general terms and conditions (“GTC”), statute of limitation defenses may be waived by the party who makes use of the GTCs only. In contrast, a waiver by the party on whom the GTCs are imposed (e.g., consumers) is ineffective (new Art. 141 para. 1bis CO).
          5. The limitation period for an actio pauliana under the Swiss Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Act (“DEBA”) is extended to from currently two years to three years after service of a loss certificate, the opening of bankruptcy proceedings or the confirmation of a composition agreement with an assignment of assets (whichever is applicable; revised Art. 292 DEBA).

          If 2017 was the year of Initial Coin Offerings, 2018 was the year of Blockchain awareness and testing all over the world. From ICO focused guidelines and regulations respectively aimed to alarm and protect investors, we have seen the shift, especially in Europe, to distributed ledger technology (“DLT”) focused guidelines and regulations aimed at protecting citizens on one hand and promote DLT implementations on the other.

          Indeed, European Union Member States and the European Parliament started looking deeper into the technology by, for instance, calling for consultations with professionals in order to understand DLT’s potentials for real-world implementations and possible risks.

          In this article I am aiming to give a brief snapshot of firstly what are the most notable European initiatives and moves towards promoting Blockchain implementation and secondly current challenges faced by European law makers when dealing with the regulation of distributed ledger technologies.

          Europe

          Let’s start from the European Blockchain Partnership (“EBP”), a statement made by 25 EU Member States acknowledging the importance of distributed ledger technology for society, in particular when it comes to interoperability, cyber security and efficiency of digital public services. The Partnership is not only an acknowledgement, it is also a commitment from all signatory states to collaborate to build what they envision will be a distributed ledger infrastructure for the delivering of cross-border public services.

          Witness of the trust given to the technology is My Health My Data, a EU-backed project that uses DLT to enable patients to efficiently control their digitally recorded health data while securing it from the threat of data breaches. Benefits the EU saw in DLT on this specific project are safety, efficiency but most notably the opportunity that DLT offers data subject to have finally control over their own data, without the need for intermediaries.

          Another important initiative proving European interests in testing DLT technologies is the Horizon Prize on “Blockchains for Social Good”, a 5 million Euros worth challenge open to innovators and tech companies to develop scalable, efficient and high-impact decentralized solutions to social innovation challenges.

          Moving forward, in December last year, I had the honor to be part of the “ Workshop on Blockchains & Smart Contracts Legal and Regulatory Framework” in Paris, an initiative supported by the EU Blockchain Observatory and Forum (“EUBOF”), a pilot project initiated by the European Parliament. Earlier last year other three workshops were held, the aim of each was to collect knowledge on specific topics from an audience of leading DLT legal and technical professionals. With the knowledge collected, the EUBOF followed up with reports of what was discussed during the workshop and suggest a way forward.

          Although not binding, these reports give a reasonably clear guideline to the industry on how existing laws at a European level apply to the technology, or at least should be interpreted, and highlight areas where new regulation is definitely needed. As an example let’s look at the Report on Blockchain & GDPR. If you missed it, the GDPR is the Regulation that protects Europeans personal data and it’s applicable to all companies globally, which are processing data from European citizens. The “right to erasure” embedded in the GDPR, doesn’t allow personal data to be stored on an immutable database, the data subject has to be able to erase data anytime when shared with a service provider and stored somewhere on a database. In the case of Blockchain, the consensus on personal data having to be stored off-chain is therefore unanimous. Storing personal data off-chain and leaving an hash to that data on-chain, is a viable solution if certain precautions are taken in order to avoid the risks of reversibility or linkability of such hash to the personal data stored off-chain, therefore making the hash on-chain personally identifiable information.

          However, not all European laws apply to Member States, therefore making it hard to give a EU-wide answer to most DLT compliance challenges in Europe. Member States freedom to legislate is indeed only limited/influenced by two main instruments, Regulations, which are automatically enforceable in each Member State and Directives binding Member States to legislate on specific topics according to a set of specific rules.

          Diverging national laws have a great effect on multiple aspects of innovative technologies. Let’s look for instance at the validity of “smart contracts”. When discussing the legal power of automatically enforceable digital contracts, the lack of a European wide legislation on contracts makes it impossible to find an answer applicable to all Member States. For instance, is “offer and acceptance” enough to constitute a contract? What is considered a valid “acceptance”? What is an “obligation”? “Can a digital asset be the object of a legally binding agreement”?

          If we try to give a EU-wide answer to the questions such as smart contract validity and enforceability it is apparently not possible since we will need to consider 28 different answers. I, therefore, believe that the future of innovation in Europe will highly depend on the unification of laws.

          An example of a unified law that has great benefits on innovation (including DLT) is the Electronic Identification and Trust Services (eIDAS) Regulation, which governs electronic identification including electronic signatures.

          The race to regulating DLT in Europe

          Let’s now look briefly at a couple of Member States legislations, specifically on Blockchain and cryptocurrencies last year.

          EU Member States have been quite creative I would say in regulating the new technology. Let’s start from Malta, which saw a surprising increase of important projects and companies, such as Binance, landing on the beautiful Mediterranean Island thanks to its favorable (or at least felt as such) legislations on DLT. The “Blockchain Island” passed three laws in early July to regulate and supervise Blockchain projects including ICOs, crypto exchanges and DLT, specifically: The Innovative Technology Arrangements and Services Act regulation that aims at recognizing different technology arrangements such as DAOs, smart contracts and in future probably AI machines; The Virtual Financial Assets Act for ICOs and crypto exchanges; The Malta Digital Innovation Authority establishing a new supervisory authority.

          Some think the Maltese legislation lacks a comprehensive framework, one that for instance, gives legal personality to Innovative Technology Arrangements. For this reason some are therefore accusing the Maltese lawmakers of rushing into an uncompleted regulatory framework in order to attract business to the island while others seem to positively welcome the laws as a good start for a European wide regulation on DLT and crypto assets.

          In December 2018, Malta also initiated a declaration that was then signed by other six Members States, calling for collaboration for the promotion and implementation of DLT on a European level.

          France was one of the signatories of such declaration, and it’s worth mentioning since the French Minister for the Economy and Finance approved in September a framework for regulating ICOs and therefore protecting investors’ rights, basically giving the AMF (French Authority for Financial Market) the empowerment to give licenses to companies wanting to raise funds through Initial Coin Offerings.

          Last but not least comes Switzerland which although it is not a EU Member State, it has great degree of influence on European and national legislators when it comes to progressive regulations. At the end of December, the Swiss Federal Council released a report on DLT and the law, making a clear statement that the existing Swiss law is sufficient to regulate most matters related to DLT and Blockchain, although some adjustments have to be made. So no new laws but few amendments here and there, which will allow the integration of the specific DLT applications with existing laws in order to ensure legal certainty on certain uncovered matters. Relevant areas of Swiss law that will be amended include the transfer of rights utilizing digital registers, Anti Money Laundering rules specifically for decentralized trading platforms and bankruptcy when that proceeding involves crypto assets.

          Conclusions

          To summarize, from the approach taken during the past year, it is apparent that there is great interest in Europe to understand the potentials and to soon test implementations of distributed ledger technology. Lawmakers have also an understanding that the technology is in an infant state, it might involve risks, therefore making it complex to set specific rules or to give final answers on the alignment of certain technology applications with existing European or national laws.

          To achieve European wide results, however, acknowledgments, guidelines and reports are not enough. The setting of standards for lawmakers applicable to all Member States or even unification of laws in crucial sectors influencing directly or indirectly new technologies, will be the only solution for any innovative technology to be adopted at a European level.

          The author of this post is Alessandro Mazzi.

          “Influencer Marketing” is a very well known topic to the jurists and operators of the advertising sector dealing with commercial communication.

          There is a core principle in communication law: any form of commercial communication shall be clearly recognizable as such.

          Before the diffusion of digital communication and, along with it, the proliferation of the so-called «Influencer Marketing», the issue of recognizability of commercial communication was generally discussed when evaluating whether an advertising content was clearly distinguishable from a journalistic or an informative content (such is the longstanding issue regarding the advertorial).

          For a short period of time there was a debate regarding the so-called subliminal advertising, which eventually fell into oblivion.

          The necessity to point out to the consumer whether the appreciation for a product or a service shown by a well-known person – precisely an “Influencer” – (i.e. the endorsement) is genuine or not has become a much encountered and controversial topic.

          It shall not be considered as spontaneous when an individual receives remuneration for wearing a fashion item, for using a smartphone, or simply when he/she receives as a gift the products that he/she promotes or other valuable products.

          It is clear and proven that the spontaneous choice of an “idol” by the public has a bigger impact on these same people rather than any traditional way of advertising. Hence the abuse of surreptitious advertising on the less easily monitored channel: the web, precisely.

          What measures should be taken to ensure that the consumers can understand clearly whether a post is subject of a contract or not?

          The answer would be very simple.

          It would be enough to require the sponsored post to contain, in clearly visible characters, terms as “Advertisement”, “Sponsored by”, “Commercial agreement” or similar notices.

          In Italy, in absence of a law regulating specifically the matter, both the Istituto della Pubblicità (Italy’s Advertising Self-Regulatory Institute) and the Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (the Competition Authority) have expressed their opinion on this subject.

          In the Italian Advertising Self-Regulatory Institute’s digital chart it is written: “in order to make the promotional nature of content posted on social media and content sharing sites recognizable, celebrities/influencers/bloggers must at the top of their post state in a clearly distinguishable manner the words: “Pubblicità/Advertising”, or “Promosso da … brand/Promoted by…brand” or “Sponsorizzato da…brand/Sponsored by…brand” or “in collaborazione con …brand” or “in partnership with the …brand”; and/or within the first three hashtags (#) use one of the following terms: “#Pubblicità/#Advertising”, or “#Sponsorizzato da … brand/#Sponsored by the … brand “ or “#ad” along with “#brand”.

          In a press release of 2017 the Italian Competition Authority has required the addressees the use of the following warnings to be placed below the post together with the others hashtags (#), such as “#sponsored, #advertising, #paidad”, or, in the case of products given for free to the celebrity, “#productsuppliedby”; in particular, all these wordings should be followed by the name of the specific brand being advertised.

          However, browsing the Instagram’s pages of various Influencers, it is noticeable that only a few of them are actually using the indications provided by the authorities.

          And when it happens to came across Instagram’s profiles that use such indications, it is noticeable that the hashtag that is most commonly used is “#ad”, whose effectiveness (especially in Italy where terms such as “advertising”, “Adv” and, even more so, “ad” are not easily decipherable by the average consumer) raises many concerns.

          So far the Italian Competition Authority intervened sending moral suasion letters to some of the main influencers and companies producing the branded goods displayed in the posts, but still no self-regulatory, administrative or state measures have been taken.

          The same situation of uncertainty is likely to be found in other countries (here you can find a previous Legalmondo post on this topic in Germany: https://www.legalmondo.com/2017/11/germany-product-placement-influencer-marketing/), with the consequence that international companies are operating in an unclear context, in which it is difficult to identify what are the risks arising from behaviours considered as unlawful.

          I have therefore decided to write this article in order to assess the state of Influencer Marketing in Italy and in other countries and get a better understanding of the regulations in force, the measures/judgments issued by the competent Authorities, the international trends and the best practices that could be adopted by international companies.

          Since I am one of the founders of the Digital Adv Lab – an interdisciplinary observatory that studies the legal implications of marketing and digital communication initiatives – I am interested in getting in touch with all the readers involved in this topic: please feel free to enter a comment and/or contact me.

          The author of this post is Elena Carpani.

          Poland has recently become quite famous for its skilled and resourceful IT specialists. Each year thousands of new computer engineers (programmers, developers, testers, designers etc.) enter into the market, warmly welcomed by domestic and multinational companies. A big part of these young talents open their own firm or business as free lancers developing software for clients from European countries as well as from US, Canada, Japan, China, etc.

          However, companies who want to cooperate with these partners and assign software development to a Polish IT company or freelancer should be aware that the copyright law in Poland is very strict, as it mainly protects the creator and not the client. Therefore, to be on a safe side, it is better to follow these 7 basic rules:

          1. Never start cooperation with an IT specialist or an IT company without a formal agreement. And I mean a real agreement, in a written form, with signatures of persons who can validly contract on behalf of the companies. The form is very important because – under Polish law – copyrights transfer and exclusive license agreements not fulfilling form conditions are null and void. Moreover, if there is no agreement, Polish copyright rules will apply to all intellectual property matters.
          2. Please remember that software is a creation protected by copyright law. Therefore you should consider whether you want to acquire the entire intellectual property rights or you just need a license. If you need a full IP transfer, you need to put it expressly in the agreement; otherwise you will only get a non-exclusive licence. And these, in several cases, will not be useful from a business point of view. If a license is enough, it is advisable to agree if it will be exclusive or non-exclusive.
          3. When drafting an IP clause, be detailed and clear. If you want to be able to decompile and disassembly the binary code, specify it in the IP clause. If you want to be able to introduce modifications to the source code, specify it in the IP clause. If you want to sublicense the software, specify it in the IP clause. The IP clause shall contain the description of any way you want to use the software, whether on mobile devices or on personal computers, any other electronic device or via internet (e.g. cloud computing). And believe me, when I write «specify it in the IP clause» it means that you really, really have to put it there. Otherwise it will be null and void and you may face a situation where your smart IT engineer, after getting paid, will sue you for the IP infringement.
          4. Remember that you should indicate the timeframe and the geographical scope of the license or IP transfer. If you do not specify it expressly in the agreement, you will only be entitled to a 5-year license, automatically expiring afterwards.
          5. Draft carefully a clause related to termination of the agreement. Under Polish law the licensor may terminate the license agreement granted for an indefinite period of time upon 1-year notice. If you do not want to find yourself in a situation where you lose the software IP rights in the middle of a big project, make sure that from the very beginning you are on a safe side.
          6. Make sure that your partner is obliged to transfer you upon request all software documentation and the source code.
          7. Make sure that you have a good indemnification clause with no limitation of liability. Often Polish IT companies subcontract some part of the development work to free lancers. You never know if they will conclude proper agreements with their subcontractors and if they will legally acquire the IP of the software that they will later sell you. There is always the risk that in the future some Polish IT engineer you never met will raise IP infringement claims against you, trying to prove that he/she actually developed the software. In such a situation an indemnification clause will help you recovering the costs from your partner.

          Con la reciente sentencia 16601/2017, la Corte Suprema – después de diferentes pronunciamientos contrarios – ha abierto la posibilidad de reconocer en Italia las sentencias extranjeras que contengan daños punitivos.

          En este breve artículo veremos en qué consisten los daños punitivos, cuáles son las condiciones por las cuales podrían reconocerse y aplicarse en Italia y, sobretodo, qué medidas conviene tomar para afrontar este nuevo riesgo.

          Los daños punitivos, en inglés punitive damages, son un instituto jurídico originario de los ordenamientos anglosajones que prevén la posibilidad de reconocer a la parte perjudicada una indemnización adicional respecto a la compensación del daño sufrido, en los casos en los que el causante del daño haya actuado con dolo o culpa grave (“malice” y “gross negligence”, respectivamente).

          Con los daños punitivos, además de la función compensatoria, la indemnización del daño también asume una finalidad sancionadora, típica del derecho penal, actuando como elemento de disuasión ante otros potenciales infractores.

          En los ordenamientos en los que se prevén los daños punitivos, el reconocimiento y la cuantificación de la indemnización se someten a la discrecionalidad del juez.

          En los Estados Unidos de América los daños punitivos se prevén en los principios de common law, pero se disciplinan de modo diverso en cada uno de los Estados. Sin embargo, en general, se aplican siempre que la conducta del causante del daño haya sido dirigida a causar el daño intencionadamente o, se haya llevado a cabo sin tener en cuenta las normas de seguridad preestablecidas. Por lo general, no pueden reconocerse por el incumplimiento de un contrato, salvo que no se determine como un ilícito (tort) autónomo.

          En algunos Estados se prevén límites máximos a los daños punitivos, a veces incorporados en los daños compensatorios, otras veces como cuantía máxima. Además, la Corte Suprema de los EEUU ha intervenido en diferentes casos para limitar el importe de condena.

          En los ordenamientos de civil law, entre ellos Italia, el instituto de daños punitivos tradicionalmente no se reconoce, ya que la sanción al causante del daño se considera que queda al margen de los principios del derecho civil, basándose en la concepción de que la indemnización por daños tiene como objetivo restaurar la esfera patrimonial del perjudicado.

          En consecuencia, el reconocimiento de los daños punitivos en una sentencia, se obstaculizaban por el límite de orden público y tales sentencias no tenían acceso en el espacio jurídico italiano.

          La sentencia de las Secciones Unidas núm. 16601/2017, de 5 de julio de 2017 de la Corte Suprema de Casación ha girado las cartas sobre la mesa.

          En el presente caso se solicitó a la Corte de Apelación de Venecia el reconocimiento (ex. Art. 64 de la Ley 218/1995) de tres sentencias de la District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida que, admitió una denuncia de garantía interpuesta por un revendedor americano de cascos contra la sociedad productora italiana, por la cual se había condenado a ésta última al pago de 1.436.136,87 USD (además de gastos e intereses) en base al resarcimiento de los daños causas por un defecto del casco utilizado en un accidente de tráfico.

          La Corte de Apelación de Venecia reconoció la eficacia de la sentencia del juez extranjero, considerando que el importe era meramente indemnizatorio y no punitivo. La decisión fue recurrida en Casación por la parte condenada, que sostenía la contrariedad al orden publico de la sentencia estadunidense, en base a la orientación jurisprudencial hasta ese momento.

          La Casación ha confirmado la decisión de la Corte de Apelación, considerando que el importe no es punitivo y ha declarado el reconocimiento de la sentencia estadunidense en Italia.

          Las Secciones Unidas, por su parte, han aprovechado la ocasión para afrontar la cuestión inherente a la admisibilidad de los daños punitivos en Italia, cambiando la orientación histórica de la Corte Suprema (véase Cass. 1781/2012).

          Según la Corte, la noción de responsabilidad civil entendida como mera reparación de los daños sufridos, se debe considerar como obsoleta dada la evolución del instituto a través de intervenciones legislativas y jurisprudenciales nacionales y europeas, que han introducido medidas indemnizatorias con finalidad sancionadora y disuasiva. De hecho, en el ordenamiento italiano es posible encontrar diversos casos de indemnización por daños con finalidad sancionadora: en materia de difamación en medios de comunicación (art. 12 L. 47/48), derechos de autor (art. 158 L 633/41), propiedad industrial (art. 125 D. Lgs 30/2005), abuso del proceso (art. 96.3 c.p.c. y art. 26.2 c.p.a.), derecho laboral (art. 18.14 c.p.c.), derecho de familia (art. 709-ter c.p.c.), etc.

          De este modo, la Corte de Casación ha introducido el siguiente principio de derecho: “En el vigente ordenamiento italiano, a la responsabilidad civil no solo se le asigna el deber de restaurar la esfera patrimonial del sujeto que ha sufrido la lesión, porque se consideran incluidas en el sistema la función de disuasión y la función sancionadora de la responsabilidad civil. Por tanto, no es ontológicamente incompatible con el ordenamiento italiano el instituto de origen estadunidense de la indemnización punitiva”.

          La consecuencia, a tener en muy cuenta, es que el pronunciamiento abre la puerta a posibles deliberaciones de sentencias extranjeras, que condenen a una de las partes al pago de un importe superior respecto al importe calculado para compensar el prejuicio creado a causa de un daño.

          Sin embargo, a tal fin, la Corte Suprema ha dispuesto algunas condiciones para que la sentencia extranjera pueda reconocerse. La decisión ha debido ser tomada en el ordenamiento extranjero en base a:

          1. Garantizar la tipicidad de la condena.
          2. La previsibilidad de la misma.
          3. Los límites cuantificativos.

          Los posibles efectos de la Sentencia en el ordenamiento italiano

          En primer lugar, hay que tener claro que la Sentencia no ha modificado el sistema indemnizatorio interno del ordenamiento italiano. En otras palabras, la Sentencia no permitirá a los jueces italianos condenar por daños punitivos al interno de los procedimientos italianos.

          En cambio, por lo que respecta a las sentencias extranjeras, ahora será posible obtener la indemnización por daños punitivos a través del reconocimiento y la ejecución en el sistema italiano de una decisión extranjera que prevea la condena de dicha tipología de daño, con la condición de que se respeten los mencionados presupuestos.

          Por todo lo expuesto, las empresas que hayan invertido o que realicen negocios en países en los que se prevén los daños punitivos, tendrán que tener en consideración dicho riesgo.

          Los instrumentos para tutelarse

          El empresario quien opere en mercados extranjeros en los que se prevén los daños punitivos debe considerar con atención este riesgo.

          La óptica debe ser necesariamente de prevención y los instrumentos a disposición son diversos: en primer lugar, la adopción de cláusulas contractuales que prevean la renuncia del perjudicado a este tipo de daño o, que acuerden un límite a la indemnización de los daños contractuales, por ejemplo limitándolos al valor de los productos o a los servicios ofrecidos.

          Es además fundamental, que se conozca la legislación y la jurisprudencia de los mercados en los cuales se opera, incluso indirectamente (por ejemplo, con la distribución comercial de los productos) con el fin de escoger de modo consciente la ley aplicable al contrato y la modalidad de resolución de controversias (por ejemplo, con previsión de la exclusiva jurisdiccional del foro del país que no prevea daños punitivos).

          Finalmente, este tipo de responsabilidad y riesgo puede ser objeto de valoración con pólizas aseguradoras que ofrecen una cobertura específica respecto a eventuales condenas de indemnización de daños punitivos.

          En base a nuestra experiencia en años asesorando y representando compañías en la distribución comercial (en la jurisdicción española pero con fabricantes o distribuidores extranjeros), los siguientes son los seis elementos esenciales para que fabricantes (proveedores) y minoristas (distribuidores) puedan establecer buenas bases en una relación de distribución.

          Estas ideas son relevantes cuando las empresas tienen la intención de iniciar su relación comercial, pero no deben descuidarse y verificarse incluso cuando ya existan esas relaciones.

          La firma del contrato

          Aunque podría parecer obvio, la firma de un acuerdo de distribución es menos común de lo que parece. A menudo ocurre que a lo largo de la relación extendida, las estructuras corporativas cambian y lo que una vez se firmó con una sociedad, no se ha renovado, adaptado, modificado o reemplazado cuando la situación se ha transformado. Es muy conveniente haber documentado bien la relación en cada momento de su existencia y estar seguro de que lo que se ha previsto legalmente también se pueda cumplir en la relación comercial cotidiana. Es aconsejable que este trabajo previo sea llevado a cabo por especialistas legales coordinados estrechamente con el departamento comercial de la compañía. Las cláusulas perfectamente redactadas desde un punto de vista legal serán inútiles si son superadas o no cumplidas en el día a día. Y, por supuesto, ningún contrato se firma como una «mera formalidad» para luego modificarlo mediante acuerdos o prácticas verbales que lo dejen sin contenido.

          La elección correcta del contrato

          Si la firma del contrato de distribución es importante, la elección del tipo correcto es esencial. Muchos de los conflictos que ocurren, especialmente en las relaciones a largo plazo, comienzan con la interpretación del tipo de relación que se ha firmado. Incluso con un texto escrito (y con un título expreso), la intención de las partes sigue sin estar clara (y por lo tanto, el acuerdo). ¿Es el «distribuidor» realmente así? ¿Compra y revende o solo existen relaciones de suministro esporádicas? ¿Existe solo una actividad representativa (es decir, el distribuidor es en realidad un «agente»)? ¿Hay una relación mixta (a veces representa, a veces compra y revende)? La lista podría continuar indefinidamente. Incluso en muchas de las relaciones que existen actualmente, estoy seguro de que la interpretación dada por el Proveedor y el Distribuidor podría ser diferente.

          Supervisar las relaciones legales y comerciales

          Si es bastante frecuente no tener un contrato escrito claro, sucede en casi todas las relaciones de distribución que una vez que se ha firmado el acuerdo, la actividad comercial diaria modifica lo que se ha acordado. ¿Por qué las relaciones comerciales parecen descuidar lo que se ha escrito en un acuerdo? Son bastante frecuentes los contratos en los que se incluyen ciertas obligaciones para los distribuidores (informar sobre el mercado, clientes, compras mínimas), pero que en la práctica no se respetan (parece complicado, existe una buena relación entre las partes, nadie recuerda lo que se había firmado por personas que ya no trabajan en la empresa…). Sin embargo, también es bastante frecuente intentar utilizar esas obligaciones más adelante cuando comienzan los problemas en la relación. En ese momento, las partes intentan esconderse detrás de esos incumplimientos para resolver los contratos, aunque estas prácticas hubieran sido, en cierto modo, aceptadas. Por supuesto, ningún acuerdo puede durar para siempre y, por esa razón, es altamente recomendable una supervisión global y periódico entre el asesor legal (preferentemente uno independiente con el apoyo de los directivos internos) y el departamento comercial para tener en cuenta las nuevas prácticas y tener su reflejo en los documentos contractuales.

          Evidencias sobre los clientes

          En los contratos de distribución, las evidencias sobre los clientes serán esenciales en caso de resolución. Las partes (principalmente el proveedor) están bastante interesadas en probar quién (proveedor o distribuidor) adquirió los clientes. ¿Son resultado de la actividad del distribuidor o se obtienen como consecuencia de la reputación de la marca? Reunir las pruebas sobre los clientes podría simplificar o incluso evitar futuros conflictos. La importancia de la clientela y su posible actividad futura será un elemento clave para definir la compensación que pueda pretender el distribuidor.

          Evidencias sobre compras y ventas

          Otro elemento esencial y, a menudo, olvidado es la justificación de las compras al proveedor y las ventas posteriores de los distribuidores a los clientes. En cualquier acuerdo de distribución, los distribuidores adquieren los productos y los revenden a los clientes finales. Una compensación futura al distribuidor considerará la diferencia entre los precios de compra y los precios de reventa (el margen). Por lo tanto, es aconsejable poder establecer la prueba correspondiente sobre dicha información a fin de preparar mejor una posible reclamación.

          Daños en caso de resolución de los contratos

          Del mismo modo, sería conveniente justificar qué daños se han sufrido como resultado de la resolución de un contrato: ¿ha realizado el distribuidor inversiones por indicación del proveedor que aún no se han amortizado? ¿El distribuidor ha contratado nuevos empleados para una línea de negocio que debe ser descartada debido a la resolución del contrato? ¿El distribuidor ha alquilado nuevas instalaciones firmando contratos a largo plazo debido a las expectativas del acuerdo? Tenga en cuenta que el Distribuidor es un comerciante independiente y, como tal, asume los riesgos de su actividad. Pero en la medida en que actúe en una red de distribución, estará sujeto a las instrucciones, sugerencias y expectativas creadas por el proveedor. Estas pueden ser relevantes para determinar posteriormente los daños causados ​​por la resolución del contrato.

          Influencer marketing is the trend in today’s world of advertising. Even though it is obvious that influencer marketing must observe the framework of applicable statutory provisions, the market has long been uncertain about how influencer posts are to be drafted in order to be legally compliant. The current decision of Celle Higher Regional Court (June 08, 2017 – Case 13 U 53/17) offers at least some clarity.

          The judgment was issued in relation to an action for injunction by the German Association for Social Competition (Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb) against a German drugstore chain. A 20-year-old Instagram star with 1.3 million followers had advertised the drugstore chain in one of her posts. The post was only marked as advertisement at the bottom with the hashtag “#ad,” which additionally only came second in a list of six hashtags.

          Celle Higher Regional Court adjudged that this type of marking was insufficient. The court requested that the commercial purpose of an Instagram post would have to be apparent at first sight. It did not consider use of the hashtag “#ad” in a “hashtag cloud” to be sufficient to mark the post as advertising.

          The court left expressly open, however, whether the use of the hashtag “#ad” is generally suitable to mark advertising posts.

          The state media authorities (Landesmedienanstalten) already reacted to the judgment, however, and revised their joint guide on advertising issues in social media. It now reads: “When marking a post as PROMOTION (Werbung) or ADVERTISING (Anzeige), you will be on the safe side – that much is certain. […] At the current time, we cannot recommend marking posts as #ad, #sponsored by, or #powered by.” In the future, Instagram itself intends to provide for more transparency on the platform by comprehensibly identifying advertising posts. It is currently testing the introduction of a branded content tool in Germany to make it easier for users to recognize posts as paid advertising.

          Practical tip

          Advertising posts in social media should always be marked as “promotion” or “advertising” at the beginning of the posts unless their commercial purpose arises directly from the circumstances. Advertisers are also advised to obligate influencers contractually to such legally compliant marking of posts, since the influencers’ behavior may be attributed to the company, as is clearly shown by the recent judgment of Celle Higher Regional Court against the drugstore chain.

          The author of this post is Ilja Czernik.

          In this clip I briefly introduce the main options to consider when doing business in Iran.
          You can read more on this topic in my articles An introduction to Iran Corporations  and Obtaining a Foreign Investment License and browse Legalmondo’s blog for some other  posts on doing business in the region.

          Null contract of international sale of goods. Which Jurisdiction?

          11 de julio de 2016

          • Italia
          • Derecho internacional
          • Contratos
          • Comercio internacional

          In 2020, an important revision of the Swiss statute of limitations enters into force. The new law provides for longer limitation periods in cases of personal injury and extends the relative limitation periods in tort and unjust enrichment law from one to three years.

          Background of the revision

          In June 2018, the Swiss parliament adopted an amendment to the Swiss Code of Obligations (“CO”) pertaining to a revision of the statute of limitations. In November 2018, the Swiss government decided that the revised statute of limitations shall enter into force on 1 January 2020.

          The revision was significantly influenced by asbestos cases. Under the current law, damage claims of asbestos victims were time-barred in some cases even before asbestos-related diseases could be diagnosed. In March 2014, the European Court of Human Rights held in Howald Moor and others v. Switzerland that the Swiss statute of limitations amounts in such cases to a violation of article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right of access to a court).

          Having said that, the revision does not only concern cases of personal injury, but also includes numerous other important changes as described in the following.

          Key changes regarding limitation periods

          A. Tort law

          In tort law, the new relative limitation period amounts to three years from the date on which the injured party became aware of the damage and of the identity of the person liable (revised Art. 60 para. 1 CO). Under the current law, the relative limitation period amounts to one year only.

          With the exception of cases of personal injury, the absolute limitation period remains ten years as from the date when the conduct that caused the damages occurred or ended (revised Art. 60 para. 1 CO).

          In cases of personal injury, the new relative limitation period amounts to three years from the date on which the injured party became aware of the damage and of the identity of the person liable. Currently the relative limitation period amounts to one year only.

          The new absolute limitation period in cases of personal injury amounts to twenty years after the date when the conduct which caused the damages occurred or ended (new Art. 60 para. 1bis CO). Under the current law, there was no special absolute limitation period for cases of personal injury, so that the ordinary 10-year period applied (Art. 60 para. 1 CO).

          If conduct, which gives rise to liability under tort law, is also punishable under criminal law, the (longer) limitation period under criminal law remains applicable (cf. Art. 97 of the Swiss Criminal Code). However, where a first-instance criminal judgment is rendered before the conduct is time-barred under criminal law, the limitation periods ends not earlier than three years as from that criminal judgment (revised Art. 60 para. 2 CO). The current law does not provide for such an additional three-year limitation period.

          B. Unjust enrichment law

          In unjust enrichment law, the new relative limitation period amounts to three years as from the date on which the injured party knows about the claim (revised Art. 67 para. 1 CO). Under the current law, the relative limitation period amounts to one year only.

          The absolute limitation period is not affected by the revision and remains ten years after the date on which the claim arises (revised Art. 67 para. 1 CO).

          C. Contract law

          With regard to contractual claims, the ordinary limitation period remains ten years from the due date (Art. 127 CO). Furthermore, the shorter limitation period of five years from the due date applicable to (amongst others) claims for rent, interest on capital and other periodic payments, (most) claims out of employment relationships etc. remains unchanged too (Art. 128 CO).

          However, in cases of personal injury, the revised statute of limitations introduces a new relative limitation period of three years from the date on which the injured party became aware of the damage, as well as a new absolute limitation period of twenty years after the date when the conduct which caused the damages occurred or ended (new Art. 128a CO). The current law does not provide for distinct relative and absolute limitation periods for contractual claims in cases of personal injury. Instead, the ordinary ten-year limitation period (Art. 127 CO) usually applied to such cases.

          D. Summary

          In summary, the most important elements of the revised statute of limitations are the longer (trebled) relative limitation periods in tort and unjust enrichment law (i.e., three years instead of one year) and the new special rules for cases of personal injury, which now benefit from a 20-year absolute limitation period.

          Transitional provisions / application of the revised statute of limitations to pre-existing claims

          The longer limitation periods under the revised CO apply to any claims that are not yet time-barred when the revision enters into force (i.e., on 1 January 2020; revised Art. 49 para. 1, Final Title of the Swiss Civil Code). In other words, the limitation periods of any claims that do not become time-barred until 31 December 2019 at the latest will be prolonged. This is of particular relevance with regard to claims based on tort and unjust enrichment; the short one-year relative limitation periods under the current law will be extended by another two years.

          In contrast, the current law remains applicable in case the revised statute of limitations provides for shorter limitation periods (revised Art. 49 para. 2, Final Title of the Swiss Civil Code). This concerns, in particular, contractual claims in cases of personal injury. The new three-year relative limitation period under the revised law might not apply to such claims, as the current statute of limitations does not provide for a relative limitation period at all.

          Further changes brought by the revision

          In addition to the changes of the limitation periods set out above, the revision of the statute of limitations contains numerous further modifications. Some of them are listed in the following:

          1. Limitation periods do not commence or are suspended in the event that a claim cannot be asserted for objective reasons before any court worldwide (revised Art. 134 para. 1 no. 6 CO). The current law provides for such non-commencement or suspension only if the claim cannot be brought before a Swiss court.
          2. Parties to a dispute may agree in writing that limitation periods shall be suspended during settlement discussions, mediation proceedings or other out-of-court settlement proceedings (revised Art. 134 para. 1 no. 8 CO).
          3. Once a limitation period has commenced to run, waivers of statute of limitation defenses are admissible, but must not exceed ten years (revised Art. 141 para. 1 CO). Any such waivers must be in writing (new Art. 141 para. 1bis CO).
          4. In general terms and conditions (“GTC”), statute of limitation defenses may be waived by the party who makes use of the GTCs only. In contrast, a waiver by the party on whom the GTCs are imposed (e.g., consumers) is ineffective (new Art. 141 para. 1bis CO).
          5. The limitation period for an actio pauliana under the Swiss Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Act (“DEBA”) is extended to from currently two years to three years after service of a loss certificate, the opening of bankruptcy proceedings or the confirmation of a composition agreement with an assignment of assets (whichever is applicable; revised Art. 292 DEBA).

          If 2017 was the year of Initial Coin Offerings, 2018 was the year of Blockchain awareness and testing all over the world. From ICO focused guidelines and regulations respectively aimed to alarm and protect investors, we have seen the shift, especially in Europe, to distributed ledger technology (“DLT”) focused guidelines and regulations aimed at protecting citizens on one hand and promote DLT implementations on the other.

          Indeed, European Union Member States and the European Parliament started looking deeper into the technology by, for instance, calling for consultations with professionals in order to understand DLT’s potentials for real-world implementations and possible risks.

          In this article I am aiming to give a brief snapshot of firstly what are the most notable European initiatives and moves towards promoting Blockchain implementation and secondly current challenges faced by European law makers when dealing with the regulation of distributed ledger technologies.

          Europe

          Let’s start from the European Blockchain Partnership (“EBP”), a statement made by 25 EU Member States acknowledging the importance of distributed ledger technology for society, in particular when it comes to interoperability, cyber security and efficiency of digital public services. The Partnership is not only an acknowledgement, it is also a commitment from all signatory states to collaborate to build what they envision will be a distributed ledger infrastructure for the delivering of cross-border public services.

          Witness of the trust given to the technology is My Health My Data, a EU-backed project that uses DLT to enable patients to efficiently control their digitally recorded health data while securing it from the threat of data breaches. Benefits the EU saw in DLT on this specific project are safety, efficiency but most notably the opportunity that DLT offers data subject to have finally control over their own data, without the need for intermediaries.

          Another important initiative proving European interests in testing DLT technologies is the Horizon Prize on “Blockchains for Social Good”, a 5 million Euros worth challenge open to innovators and tech companies to develop scalable, efficient and high-impact decentralized solutions to social innovation challenges.

          Moving forward, in December last year, I had the honor to be part of the “ Workshop on Blockchains & Smart Contracts Legal and Regulatory Framework” in Paris, an initiative supported by the EU Blockchain Observatory and Forum (“EUBOF”), a pilot project initiated by the European Parliament. Earlier last year other three workshops were held, the aim of each was to collect knowledge on specific topics from an audience of leading DLT legal and technical professionals. With the knowledge collected, the EUBOF followed up with reports of what was discussed during the workshop and suggest a way forward.

          Although not binding, these reports give a reasonably clear guideline to the industry on how existing laws at a European level apply to the technology, or at least should be interpreted, and highlight areas where new regulation is definitely needed. As an example let’s look at the Report on Blockchain & GDPR. If you missed it, the GDPR is the Regulation that protects Europeans personal data and it’s applicable to all companies globally, which are processing data from European citizens. The “right to erasure” embedded in the GDPR, doesn’t allow personal data to be stored on an immutable database, the data subject has to be able to erase data anytime when shared with a service provider and stored somewhere on a database. In the case of Blockchain, the consensus on personal data having to be stored off-chain is therefore unanimous. Storing personal data off-chain and leaving an hash to that data on-chain, is a viable solution if certain precautions are taken in order to avoid the risks of reversibility or linkability of such hash to the personal data stored off-chain, therefore making the hash on-chain personally identifiable information.

          However, not all European laws apply to Member States, therefore making it hard to give a EU-wide answer to most DLT compliance challenges in Europe. Member States freedom to legislate is indeed only limited/influenced by two main instruments, Regulations, which are automatically enforceable in each Member State and Directives binding Member States to legislate on specific topics according to a set of specific rules.

          Diverging national laws have a great effect on multiple aspects of innovative technologies. Let’s look for instance at the validity of “smart contracts”. When discussing the legal power of automatically enforceable digital contracts, the lack of a European wide legislation on contracts makes it impossible to find an answer applicable to all Member States. For instance, is “offer and acceptance” enough to constitute a contract? What is considered a valid “acceptance”? What is an “obligation”? “Can a digital asset be the object of a legally binding agreement”?

          If we try to give a EU-wide answer to the questions such as smart contract validity and enforceability it is apparently not possible since we will need to consider 28 different answers. I, therefore, believe that the future of innovation in Europe will highly depend on the unification of laws.

          An example of a unified law that has great benefits on innovation (including DLT) is the Electronic Identification and Trust Services (eIDAS) Regulation, which governs electronic identification including electronic signatures.

          The race to regulating DLT in Europe

          Let’s now look briefly at a couple of Member States legislations, specifically on Blockchain and cryptocurrencies last year.

          EU Member States have been quite creative I would say in regulating the new technology. Let’s start from Malta, which saw a surprising increase of important projects and companies, such as Binance, landing on the beautiful Mediterranean Island thanks to its favorable (or at least felt as such) legislations on DLT. The “Blockchain Island” passed three laws in early July to regulate and supervise Blockchain projects including ICOs, crypto exchanges and DLT, specifically: The Innovative Technology Arrangements and Services Act regulation that aims at recognizing different technology arrangements such as DAOs, smart contracts and in future probably AI machines; The Virtual Financial Assets Act for ICOs and crypto exchanges; The Malta Digital Innovation Authority establishing a new supervisory authority.

          Some think the Maltese legislation lacks a comprehensive framework, one that for instance, gives legal personality to Innovative Technology Arrangements. For this reason some are therefore accusing the Maltese lawmakers of rushing into an uncompleted regulatory framework in order to attract business to the island while others seem to positively welcome the laws as a good start for a European wide regulation on DLT and crypto assets.

          In December 2018, Malta also initiated a declaration that was then signed by other six Members States, calling for collaboration for the promotion and implementation of DLT on a European level.

          France was one of the signatories of such declaration, and it’s worth mentioning since the French Minister for the Economy and Finance approved in September a framework for regulating ICOs and therefore protecting investors’ rights, basically giving the AMF (French Authority for Financial Market) the empowerment to give licenses to companies wanting to raise funds through Initial Coin Offerings.

          Last but not least comes Switzerland which although it is not a EU Member State, it has great degree of influence on European and national legislators when it comes to progressive regulations. At the end of December, the Swiss Federal Council released a report on DLT and the law, making a clear statement that the existing Swiss law is sufficient to regulate most matters related to DLT and Blockchain, although some adjustments have to be made. So no new laws but few amendments here and there, which will allow the integration of the specific DLT applications with existing laws in order to ensure legal certainty on certain uncovered matters. Relevant areas of Swiss law that will be amended include the transfer of rights utilizing digital registers, Anti Money Laundering rules specifically for decentralized trading platforms and bankruptcy when that proceeding involves crypto assets.

          Conclusions

          To summarize, from the approach taken during the past year, it is apparent that there is great interest in Europe to understand the potentials and to soon test implementations of distributed ledger technology. Lawmakers have also an understanding that the technology is in an infant state, it might involve risks, therefore making it complex to set specific rules or to give final answers on the alignment of certain technology applications with existing European or national laws.

          To achieve European wide results, however, acknowledgments, guidelines and reports are not enough. The setting of standards for lawmakers applicable to all Member States or even unification of laws in crucial sectors influencing directly or indirectly new technologies, will be the only solution for any innovative technology to be adopted at a European level.

          The author of this post is Alessandro Mazzi.

          “Influencer Marketing” is a very well known topic to the jurists and operators of the advertising sector dealing with commercial communication.

          There is a core principle in communication law: any form of commercial communication shall be clearly recognizable as such.

          Before the diffusion of digital communication and, along with it, the proliferation of the so-called «Influencer Marketing», the issue of recognizability of commercial communication was generally discussed when evaluating whether an advertising content was clearly distinguishable from a journalistic or an informative content (such is the longstanding issue regarding the advertorial).

          For a short period of time there was a debate regarding the so-called subliminal advertising, which eventually fell into oblivion.

          The necessity to point out to the consumer whether the appreciation for a product or a service shown by a well-known person – precisely an “Influencer” – (i.e. the endorsement) is genuine or not has become a much encountered and controversial topic.

          It shall not be considered as spontaneous when an individual receives remuneration for wearing a fashion item, for using a smartphone, or simply when he/she receives as a gift the products that he/she promotes or other valuable products.

          It is clear and proven that the spontaneous choice of an “idol” by the public has a bigger impact on these same people rather than any traditional way of advertising. Hence the abuse of surreptitious advertising on the less easily monitored channel: the web, precisely.

          What measures should be taken to ensure that the consumers can understand clearly whether a post is subject of a contract or not?

          The answer would be very simple.

          It would be enough to require the sponsored post to contain, in clearly visible characters, terms as “Advertisement”, “Sponsored by”, “Commercial agreement” or similar notices.

          In Italy, in absence of a law regulating specifically the matter, both the Istituto della Pubblicità (Italy’s Advertising Self-Regulatory Institute) and the Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (the Competition Authority) have expressed their opinion on this subject.

          In the Italian Advertising Self-Regulatory Institute’s digital chart it is written: “in order to make the promotional nature of content posted on social media and content sharing sites recognizable, celebrities/influencers/bloggers must at the top of their post state in a clearly distinguishable manner the words: “Pubblicità/Advertising”, or “Promosso da … brand/Promoted by…brand” or “Sponsorizzato da…brand/Sponsored by…brand” or “in collaborazione con …brand” or “in partnership with the …brand”; and/or within the first three hashtags (#) use one of the following terms: “#Pubblicità/#Advertising”, or “#Sponsorizzato da … brand/#Sponsored by the … brand “ or “#ad” along with “#brand”.

          In a press release of 2017 the Italian Competition Authority has required the addressees the use of the following warnings to be placed below the post together with the others hashtags (#), such as “#sponsored, #advertising, #paidad”, or, in the case of products given for free to the celebrity, “#productsuppliedby”; in particular, all these wordings should be followed by the name of the specific brand being advertised.

          However, browsing the Instagram’s pages of various Influencers, it is noticeable that only a few of them are actually using the indications provided by the authorities.

          And when it happens to came across Instagram’s profiles that use such indications, it is noticeable that the hashtag that is most commonly used is “#ad”, whose effectiveness (especially in Italy where terms such as “advertising”, “Adv” and, even more so, “ad” are not easily decipherable by the average consumer) raises many concerns.

          So far the Italian Competition Authority intervened sending moral suasion letters to some of the main influencers and companies producing the branded goods displayed in the posts, but still no self-regulatory, administrative or state measures have been taken.

          The same situation of uncertainty is likely to be found in other countries (here you can find a previous Legalmondo post on this topic in Germany: https://www.legalmondo.com/2017/11/germany-product-placement-influencer-marketing/), with the consequence that international companies are operating in an unclear context, in which it is difficult to identify what are the risks arising from behaviours considered as unlawful.

          I have therefore decided to write this article in order to assess the state of Influencer Marketing in Italy and in other countries and get a better understanding of the regulations in force, the measures/judgments issued by the competent Authorities, the international trends and the best practices that could be adopted by international companies.

          Since I am one of the founders of the Digital Adv Lab – an interdisciplinary observatory that studies the legal implications of marketing and digital communication initiatives – I am interested in getting in touch with all the readers involved in this topic: please feel free to enter a comment and/or contact me.

          The author of this post is Elena Carpani.

          Poland has recently become quite famous for its skilled and resourceful IT specialists. Each year thousands of new computer engineers (programmers, developers, testers, designers etc.) enter into the market, warmly welcomed by domestic and multinational companies. A big part of these young talents open their own firm or business as free lancers developing software for clients from European countries as well as from US, Canada, Japan, China, etc.

          However, companies who want to cooperate with these partners and assign software development to a Polish IT company or freelancer should be aware that the copyright law in Poland is very strict, as it mainly protects the creator and not the client. Therefore, to be on a safe side, it is better to follow these 7 basic rules:

          1. Never start cooperation with an IT specialist or an IT company without a formal agreement. And I mean a real agreement, in a written form, with signatures of persons who can validly contract on behalf of the companies. The form is very important because – under Polish law – copyrights transfer and exclusive license agreements not fulfilling form conditions are null and void. Moreover, if there is no agreement, Polish copyright rules will apply to all intellectual property matters.
          2. Please remember that software is a creation protected by copyright law. Therefore you should consider whether you want to acquire the entire intellectual property rights or you just need a license. If you need a full IP transfer, you need to put it expressly in the agreement; otherwise you will only get a non-exclusive licence. And these, in several cases, will not be useful from a business point of view. If a license is enough, it is advisable to agree if it will be exclusive or non-exclusive.
          3. When drafting an IP clause, be detailed and clear. If you want to be able to decompile and disassembly the binary code, specify it in the IP clause. If you want to be able to introduce modifications to the source code, specify it in the IP clause. If you want to sublicense the software, specify it in the IP clause. The IP clause shall contain the description of any way you want to use the software, whether on mobile devices or on personal computers, any other electronic device or via internet (e.g. cloud computing). And believe me, when I write «specify it in the IP clause» it means that you really, really have to put it there. Otherwise it will be null and void and you may face a situation where your smart IT engineer, after getting paid, will sue you for the IP infringement.
          4. Remember that you should indicate the timeframe and the geographical scope of the license or IP transfer. If you do not specify it expressly in the agreement, you will only be entitled to a 5-year license, automatically expiring afterwards.
          5. Draft carefully a clause related to termination of the agreement. Under Polish law the licensor may terminate the license agreement granted for an indefinite period of time upon 1-year notice. If you do not want to find yourself in a situation where you lose the software IP rights in the middle of a big project, make sure that from the very beginning you are on a safe side.
          6. Make sure that your partner is obliged to transfer you upon request all software documentation and the source code.
          7. Make sure that you have a good indemnification clause with no limitation of liability. Often Polish IT companies subcontract some part of the development work to free lancers. You never know if they will conclude proper agreements with their subcontractors and if they will legally acquire the IP of the software that they will later sell you. There is always the risk that in the future some Polish IT engineer you never met will raise IP infringement claims against you, trying to prove that he/she actually developed the software. In such a situation an indemnification clause will help you recovering the costs from your partner.

          Con la reciente sentencia 16601/2017, la Corte Suprema – después de diferentes pronunciamientos contrarios – ha abierto la posibilidad de reconocer en Italia las sentencias extranjeras que contengan daños punitivos.

          En este breve artículo veremos en qué consisten los daños punitivos, cuáles son las condiciones por las cuales podrían reconocerse y aplicarse en Italia y, sobretodo, qué medidas conviene tomar para afrontar este nuevo riesgo.

          Los daños punitivos, en inglés punitive damages, son un instituto jurídico originario de los ordenamientos anglosajones que prevén la posibilidad de reconocer a la parte perjudicada una indemnización adicional respecto a la compensación del daño sufrido, en los casos en los que el causante del daño haya actuado con dolo o culpa grave (“malice” y “gross negligence”, respectivamente).

          Con los daños punitivos, además de la función compensatoria, la indemnización del daño también asume una finalidad sancionadora, típica del derecho penal, actuando como elemento de disuasión ante otros potenciales infractores.

          En los ordenamientos en los que se prevén los daños punitivos, el reconocimiento y la cuantificación de la indemnización se someten a la discrecionalidad del juez.

          En los Estados Unidos de América los daños punitivos se prevén en los principios de common law, pero se disciplinan de modo diverso en cada uno de los Estados. Sin embargo, en general, se aplican siempre que la conducta del causante del daño haya sido dirigida a causar el daño intencionadamente o, se haya llevado a cabo sin tener en cuenta las normas de seguridad preestablecidas. Por lo general, no pueden reconocerse por el incumplimiento de un contrato, salvo que no se determine como un ilícito (tort) autónomo.

          En algunos Estados se prevén límites máximos a los daños punitivos, a veces incorporados en los daños compensatorios, otras veces como cuantía máxima. Además, la Corte Suprema de los EEUU ha intervenido en diferentes casos para limitar el importe de condena.

          En los ordenamientos de civil law, entre ellos Italia, el instituto de daños punitivos tradicionalmente no se reconoce, ya que la sanción al causante del daño se considera que queda al margen de los principios del derecho civil, basándose en la concepción de que la indemnización por daños tiene como objetivo restaurar la esfera patrimonial del perjudicado.

          En consecuencia, el reconocimiento de los daños punitivos en una sentencia, se obstaculizaban por el límite de orden público y tales sentencias no tenían acceso en el espacio jurídico italiano.

          La sentencia de las Secciones Unidas núm. 16601/2017, de 5 de julio de 2017 de la Corte Suprema de Casación ha girado las cartas sobre la mesa.

          En el presente caso se solicitó a la Corte de Apelación de Venecia el reconocimiento (ex. Art. 64 de la Ley 218/1995) de tres sentencias de la District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida que, admitió una denuncia de garantía interpuesta por un revendedor americano de cascos contra la sociedad productora italiana, por la cual se había condenado a ésta última al pago de 1.436.136,87 USD (además de gastos e intereses) en base al resarcimiento de los daños causas por un defecto del casco utilizado en un accidente de tráfico.

          La Corte de Apelación de Venecia reconoció la eficacia de la sentencia del juez extranjero, considerando que el importe era meramente indemnizatorio y no punitivo. La decisión fue recurrida en Casación por la parte condenada, que sostenía la contrariedad al orden publico de la sentencia estadunidense, en base a la orientación jurisprudencial hasta ese momento.

          La Casación ha confirmado la decisión de la Corte de Apelación, considerando que el importe no es punitivo y ha declarado el reconocimiento de la sentencia estadunidense en Italia.

          Las Secciones Unidas, por su parte, han aprovechado la ocasión para afrontar la cuestión inherente a la admisibilidad de los daños punitivos en Italia, cambiando la orientación histórica de la Corte Suprema (véase Cass. 1781/2012).

          Según la Corte, la noción de responsabilidad civil entendida como mera reparación de los daños sufridos, se debe considerar como obsoleta dada la evolución del instituto a través de intervenciones legislativas y jurisprudenciales nacionales y europeas, que han introducido medidas indemnizatorias con finalidad sancionadora y disuasiva. De hecho, en el ordenamiento italiano es posible encontrar diversos casos de indemnización por daños con finalidad sancionadora: en materia de difamación en medios de comunicación (art. 12 L. 47/48), derechos de autor (art. 158 L 633/41), propiedad industrial (art. 125 D. Lgs 30/2005), abuso del proceso (art. 96.3 c.p.c. y art. 26.2 c.p.a.), derecho laboral (art. 18.14 c.p.c.), derecho de familia (art. 709-ter c.p.c.), etc.

          De este modo, la Corte de Casación ha introducido el siguiente principio de derecho: “En el vigente ordenamiento italiano, a la responsabilidad civil no solo se le asigna el deber de restaurar la esfera patrimonial del sujeto que ha sufrido la lesión, porque se consideran incluidas en el sistema la función de disuasión y la función sancionadora de la responsabilidad civil. Por tanto, no es ontológicamente incompatible con el ordenamiento italiano el instituto de origen estadunidense de la indemnización punitiva”.

          La consecuencia, a tener en muy cuenta, es que el pronunciamiento abre la puerta a posibles deliberaciones de sentencias extranjeras, que condenen a una de las partes al pago de un importe superior respecto al importe calculado para compensar el prejuicio creado a causa de un daño.

          Sin embargo, a tal fin, la Corte Suprema ha dispuesto algunas condiciones para que la sentencia extranjera pueda reconocerse. La decisión ha debido ser tomada en el ordenamiento extranjero en base a:

          1. Garantizar la tipicidad de la condena.
          2. La previsibilidad de la misma.
          3. Los límites cuantificativos.

          Los posibles efectos de la Sentencia en el ordenamiento italiano

          En primer lugar, hay que tener claro que la Sentencia no ha modificado el sistema indemnizatorio interno del ordenamiento italiano. En otras palabras, la Sentencia no permitirá a los jueces italianos condenar por daños punitivos al interno de los procedimientos italianos.

          En cambio, por lo que respecta a las sentencias extranjeras, ahora será posible obtener la indemnización por daños punitivos a través del reconocimiento y la ejecución en el sistema italiano de una decisión extranjera que prevea la condena de dicha tipología de daño, con la condición de que se respeten los mencionados presupuestos.

          Por todo lo expuesto, las empresas que hayan invertido o que realicen negocios en países en los que se prevén los daños punitivos, tendrán que tener en consideración dicho riesgo.

          Los instrumentos para tutelarse

          El empresario quien opere en mercados extranjeros en los que se prevén los daños punitivos debe considerar con atención este riesgo.

          La óptica debe ser necesariamente de prevención y los instrumentos a disposición son diversos: en primer lugar, la adopción de cláusulas contractuales que prevean la renuncia del perjudicado a este tipo de daño o, que acuerden un límite a la indemnización de los daños contractuales, por ejemplo limitándolos al valor de los productos o a los servicios ofrecidos.

          Es además fundamental, que se conozca la legislación y la jurisprudencia de los mercados en los cuales se opera, incluso indirectamente (por ejemplo, con la distribución comercial de los productos) con el fin de escoger de modo consciente la ley aplicable al contrato y la modalidad de resolución de controversias (por ejemplo, con previsión de la exclusiva jurisdiccional del foro del país que no prevea daños punitivos).

          Finalmente, este tipo de responsabilidad y riesgo puede ser objeto de valoración con pólizas aseguradoras que ofrecen una cobertura específica respecto a eventuales condenas de indemnización de daños punitivos.

          En base a nuestra experiencia en años asesorando y representando compañías en la distribución comercial (en la jurisdicción española pero con fabricantes o distribuidores extranjeros), los siguientes son los seis elementos esenciales para que fabricantes (proveedores) y minoristas (distribuidores) puedan establecer buenas bases en una relación de distribución.

          Estas ideas son relevantes cuando las empresas tienen la intención de iniciar su relación comercial, pero no deben descuidarse y verificarse incluso cuando ya existan esas relaciones.

          La firma del contrato

          Aunque podría parecer obvio, la firma de un acuerdo de distribución es menos común de lo que parece. A menudo ocurre que a lo largo de la relación extendida, las estructuras corporativas cambian y lo que una vez se firmó con una sociedad, no se ha renovado, adaptado, modificado o reemplazado cuando la situación se ha transformado. Es muy conveniente haber documentado bien la relación en cada momento de su existencia y estar seguro de que lo que se ha previsto legalmente también se pueda cumplir en la relación comercial cotidiana. Es aconsejable que este trabajo previo sea llevado a cabo por especialistas legales coordinados estrechamente con el departamento comercial de la compañía. Las cláusulas perfectamente redactadas desde un punto de vista legal serán inútiles si son superadas o no cumplidas en el día a día. Y, por supuesto, ningún contrato se firma como una «mera formalidad» para luego modificarlo mediante acuerdos o prácticas verbales que lo dejen sin contenido.

          La elección correcta del contrato

          Si la firma del contrato de distribución es importante, la elección del tipo correcto es esencial. Muchos de los conflictos que ocurren, especialmente en las relaciones a largo plazo, comienzan con la interpretación del tipo de relación que se ha firmado. Incluso con un texto escrito (y con un título expreso), la intención de las partes sigue sin estar clara (y por lo tanto, el acuerdo). ¿Es el «distribuidor» realmente así? ¿Compra y revende o solo existen relaciones de suministro esporádicas? ¿Existe solo una actividad representativa (es decir, el distribuidor es en realidad un «agente»)? ¿Hay una relación mixta (a veces representa, a veces compra y revende)? La lista podría continuar indefinidamente. Incluso en muchas de las relaciones que existen actualmente, estoy seguro de que la interpretación dada por el Proveedor y el Distribuidor podría ser diferente.

          Supervisar las relaciones legales y comerciales

          Si es bastante frecuente no tener un contrato escrito claro, sucede en casi todas las relaciones de distribución que una vez que se ha firmado el acuerdo, la actividad comercial diaria modifica lo que se ha acordado. ¿Por qué las relaciones comerciales parecen descuidar lo que se ha escrito en un acuerdo? Son bastante frecuentes los contratos en los que se incluyen ciertas obligaciones para los distribuidores (informar sobre el mercado, clientes, compras mínimas), pero que en la práctica no se respetan (parece complicado, existe una buena relación entre las partes, nadie recuerda lo que se había firmado por personas que ya no trabajan en la empresa…). Sin embargo, también es bastante frecuente intentar utilizar esas obligaciones más adelante cuando comienzan los problemas en la relación. En ese momento, las partes intentan esconderse detrás de esos incumplimientos para resolver los contratos, aunque estas prácticas hubieran sido, en cierto modo, aceptadas. Por supuesto, ningún acuerdo puede durar para siempre y, por esa razón, es altamente recomendable una supervisión global y periódico entre el asesor legal (preferentemente uno independiente con el apoyo de los directivos internos) y el departamento comercial para tener en cuenta las nuevas prácticas y tener su reflejo en los documentos contractuales.

          Evidencias sobre los clientes

          En los contratos de distribución, las evidencias sobre los clientes serán esenciales en caso de resolución. Las partes (principalmente el proveedor) están bastante interesadas en probar quién (proveedor o distribuidor) adquirió los clientes. ¿Son resultado de la actividad del distribuidor o se obtienen como consecuencia de la reputación de la marca? Reunir las pruebas sobre los clientes podría simplificar o incluso evitar futuros conflictos. La importancia de la clientela y su posible actividad futura será un elemento clave para definir la compensación que pueda pretender el distribuidor.

          Evidencias sobre compras y ventas

          Otro elemento esencial y, a menudo, olvidado es la justificación de las compras al proveedor y las ventas posteriores de los distribuidores a los clientes. En cualquier acuerdo de distribución, los distribuidores adquieren los productos y los revenden a los clientes finales. Una compensación futura al distribuidor considerará la diferencia entre los precios de compra y los precios de reventa (el margen). Por lo tanto, es aconsejable poder establecer la prueba correspondiente sobre dicha información a fin de preparar mejor una posible reclamación.

          Daños en caso de resolución de los contratos

          Del mismo modo, sería conveniente justificar qué daños se han sufrido como resultado de la resolución de un contrato: ¿ha realizado el distribuidor inversiones por indicación del proveedor que aún no se han amortizado? ¿El distribuidor ha contratado nuevos empleados para una línea de negocio que debe ser descartada debido a la resolución del contrato? ¿El distribuidor ha alquilado nuevas instalaciones firmando contratos a largo plazo debido a las expectativas del acuerdo? Tenga en cuenta que el Distribuidor es un comerciante independiente y, como tal, asume los riesgos de su actividad. Pero en la medida en que actúe en una red de distribución, estará sujeto a las instrucciones, sugerencias y expectativas creadas por el proveedor. Estas pueden ser relevantes para determinar posteriormente los daños causados ​​por la resolución del contrato.

          Influencer marketing is the trend in today’s world of advertising. Even though it is obvious that influencer marketing must observe the framework of applicable statutory provisions, the market has long been uncertain about how influencer posts are to be drafted in order to be legally compliant. The current decision of Celle Higher Regional Court (June 08, 2017 – Case 13 U 53/17) offers at least some clarity.

          The judgment was issued in relation to an action for injunction by the German Association for Social Competition (Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb) against a German drugstore chain. A 20-year-old Instagram star with 1.3 million followers had advertised the drugstore chain in one of her posts. The post was only marked as advertisement at the bottom with the hashtag “#ad,” which additionally only came second in a list of six hashtags.

          Celle Higher Regional Court adjudged that this type of marking was insufficient. The court requested that the commercial purpose of an Instagram post would have to be apparent at first sight. It did not consider use of the hashtag “#ad” in a “hashtag cloud” to be sufficient to mark the post as advertising.

          The court left expressly open, however, whether the use of the hashtag “#ad” is generally suitable to mark advertising posts.

          The state media authorities (Landesmedienanstalten) already reacted to the judgment, however, and revised their joint guide on advertising issues in social media. It now reads: “When marking a post as PROMOTION (Werbung) or ADVERTISING (Anzeige), you will be on the safe side – that much is certain. […] At the current time, we cannot recommend marking posts as #ad, #sponsored by, or #powered by.” In the future, Instagram itself intends to provide for more transparency on the platform by comprehensibly identifying advertising posts. It is currently testing the introduction of a branded content tool in Germany to make it easier for users to recognize posts as paid advertising.

          Practical tip

          Advertising posts in social media should always be marked as “promotion” or “advertising” at the beginning of the posts unless their commercial purpose arises directly from the circumstances. Advertisers are also advised to obligate influencers contractually to such legally compliant marking of posts, since the influencers’ behavior may be attributed to the company, as is clearly shown by the recent judgment of Celle Higher Regional Court against the drugstore chain.

          The author of this post is Ilja Czernik.

          In this clip I briefly introduce the main options to consider when doing business in Iran.
          You can read more on this topic in my articles An introduction to Iran Corporations  and Obtaining a Foreign Investment License and browse Legalmondo’s blog for some other  posts on doing business in the region.