• PRO
  • Events
  • Awards
    • Client Choice New
    • Influencers
    Introducing Instruct Counsel
    The next generation search tool for finding the right lawyer for you.
  • About
  • Blog Popular
  • Login
  • Register
  • PRO
  • Resources
    • Latest updates
    • Commentary
    • Q&A
    • Analysis
    • Practical resources
    • In-depth
    • FromCounsel
  • Research tools
    • Global research hub
    • Lexy
    • Primary sources
    • Scanner
    • Research reports
    • Instruct Counsel
  • Resources
  • Research tools
  • Who's Who Legal
    • Find an expert
    • Reports
    • Thought Leaders
    • Performance Index
    • Research methodology
    • Submissions
  • Who's Who Legal
  • Learn
    • All
    • Masterclasses
    • Videos
  • Learn
  • Awards
  • My newsfeed
  • Events
  • About
  • Blog
  • Popular
  • Compare
  • Topics
  • Interviews
  • Guides

Analytics

Review your content's performance and reach.

  • Analytics dashboard
  • Top articles
  • Top authors
  • Who's reading?

Content Development

Become your target audience’s go-to resource for today’s hottest topics.

  • Trending Topics
  • Discover Content
  • Horizons
  • Ideation

Client Intelligence

Understand your clients’ strategies and the most pressing issues they are facing.

  • Track Sectors
  • Track Clients
  • Mandates
  • Discover Companies
  • Reports Centre

Competitor Intelligence

Keep a step ahead of your key competitors and benchmark against them.

  • Benchmarking
  • Competitor Mandates
Lexology

Back Forward
  • Save & file
  • View original
  • Forward
  • Share
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Linked In
  • Follow
    Please login to follow content.
  • Like
  • Instruct

add to folder:

  • My saved (default)
  • Read later
Folders shared with you

Register now for your free, tailored, daily legal newsfeed service.

Find out more about Lexology or get in touch by visiting our About page.

Register

Dispute resolution insider - eleventh edition

Wolf Theiss

To view this article you need a PDF viewer such as Adobe Reader. Download Adobe Acrobat Reader

If you can't read this PDF, you can view its text here. Go back to the PDF .

Austria, Croatia, European Union, France, Poland, Romania July 24 2018

 

•• ••• 

l)1s 

:efl RES0IlUTION 

'Q\'b 

INSIDER 

 

TO OUR READERS 

Welcome to the 11th edition of the DR!nsider, the quarterly Newsletter of the Wolf Theiss

Disputes team, in which we provide an overview of recent developments in CEE/SEE. 

July 20· 8 

AUTHORS 

We present a selection of Austrian Supreme Court case law focusing on effects of a

private joinder on limitation penods. the balance between an individual's personality

right and medical research interests and also the question whether the public prosecutor

may order the preservation of outsourced data in the course of a house search. 

ANDREEA ANTON

.Assoclate. WOLF THEISS Bucharest 

CLAUDIA BREW!

.Assoclate. WOLF THEISS Vienna 

Since the adoption of the controversial Polish Act on Claims for Redress of Injury Caused

by Violation of Competition Law, legal practitioners are discussing if this new legal

remedy will be abused by parties in order to obtain confidential information. 

DAMIAN MAJDA 

.Assoclate. WOLF THEISS War'!iJ.W 

PATRICK MITILB6c:K 

With regard to EU law, the ECJ has issued an interesting judgment in which it is

interpreting the ob.ective of the EU Directive relating to self-employed commercial agents

saying that an agent has a right to indemnity or compensation even if the contract has

been terminated during the trial period. 

.Assoclate. WOLF THEISS Vienna 

LUCIA MOC'IBOB 

.Assoclate. WOLF THEISS Z.Ogreb 

EWA PARCZEWSK.A 

.Assoclate. WOLF THEISS War'!JJ.W 

We wish you a really nice and relaxing summer. 

FLORIAN PECHHACKER 

Best regards, 

Assoclate. WOLF THEISS Vienna 

VALERIE HOHENBERG 

FLORIAN PECHHACKER 

MARIO VROOLJAK. 

Partner 

.Assoclate. WOLF THEISS ZOgreb 

Associate 

PA1RICK WINTER 

Legal Trainee. WOLF THEJSS Vienna 

ANDREEA 'N AC 

CARTEL

LITIGATION 

and of the Council of 26 November 2014.

This new rule is particularly unusual in

Polish civil procedure and has prompted

discussion among legal practitioners and

scholars because the structure of the new

procedure is close to the concepis of 

Seruor Associate. WOLF THEJSS Bucharest 

DISCLOSURE OF UNFAVOURABLE

EVIDENCE - NEW RULES

GOVERNING ACTIONS FOR

DAMAGES FOR COMPETITION

LAW INFRINGEMENT 

discovery or disclosure in common law 

junsdictions. 

What is so controversial? 

The Act on Claims for Redress of Injury

Caused by Violation of Competition Law

that entered into force in Poland in 2017: 

Under the Polish Code on Civil Procedure a

party can request the court to disclose

evidence which is in the other's party

possession. In order to do so the claiming

party needs to prove that the evidence that 

The new Act was imposed by Direcl!ve

20 I 4/ 104/EU of the European Parliament 

ALBANIA AUSTRIA BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA BULGARIA CROATIA CZECH REPUBLIC HUNGARY POLAND ROMANIA SERBIA SLOVAK REPUBLIC SLOVENIA UKRAINE 

 

1 

 

 

is being requested to be disclosed has

signilicant value for the court proceeding

Additionally, the clmming party has to

precisely name the evidence that 1S

requested to be disclosed. However, in

antitrust cases, protection of a party's rights

to clalm damages was expanded by the

possibility of applying for d!Sclosure of

evidence. This may also happen in a

situation in which the plalnllff presumes that

certain evidence exists. This means that the

opposing party may be forced to submit

evidence that is counteractive to its own

statements. 

LITIGATION 

CHANGES TO PROVISIONS ON

PUBLIC PROCUREMENT DISPUTES 

On 4 June 2018, the Romanian Official 

Gazette published Government Emergency 

Ordinance no. 45/2018 ("GEO 45/2018") 

bringing a series of changes with regard to

the current public procurement regulation. 

Pros and cons? 

Among the major amendments brought to

the public procurement legislation there are

certain siqnincon t changes made to the

provisions regarding the conduct of disputes

in this area. 

The explanatory memorandum issued by

the Romanian Government states that such

changes were implemented in order to

reduce the number of complaints initiated

by the participants to public procurement

procedures, which may hinder 

the 

execution of the contract. 

The restructuring of challenge proceedings 

Before the new law entered into force, it was

extremely difficult for a plaintiJf to prove its

claims The solution introduced by the new

Act alms to create a mechanism which

enables a plaintiff to obtain relevant

evidence. However, there is a risk that the

new procedure may be abused by parties

in order to obtain confidential information,

such as trade secrets, hsts of clients, or other

information that could provide a basis for

additional litigation. 

The Romanian Government simplified the

challenge procedure by removing the mitial

preliminary notification that was sent to the

contracting authority. Hence, the National

Council for Solving Complaints ("NCSC") and

the national courts will be able to issue 

Everything in the "Court's hands" 

decisions settling complaints against deeds

issued in public procurement procedures

more quickly. 

Furthermore. GEO 45/2018 brings changes 

with regard to the expenence of members of 

the NCSC. namely that at least one of those

solvmg a complaint shall have at least rune

(9) years' experience in the legal field. 

New conditions for submitting complaints 

The court may decide to limit the scope of

information that is able to be disclosed, to

deny the d!Sclosure of a specilic piece of

evidence or to impose a court fee on a party

filing a motion in bad faith. When deciding

whether a certain motion should be

accepted, the courts apply the rule of

proportionality. Tms means that the court

establishes whether the information that is

going to be obtained is valuable enough to

be disclosed. Additionally, on the bcsis of

the same rule, the court decides whether the

disclosure of evidence is not too expensive

or time-consuming. 

In order to reduce the number of complaints

inibated by participants 

to public 

It will be necessary to observe the future 

procurement procedures, GEO 45/2018

established several obligations 

for 

decisions of Polish courts as they will have

significant impact on the future scope of 

clalmants, namely 

disclosure of evidence. 

 

i. to pay a guarantee for any complaint

(which can reach up to EUR 195.000).

includmg those submitted directly to

the competent court; and 

EWA PARCZEWSKA 

Associate. WOLF THEISS Office 

ewa parczewska@wolfthe1SS com 

 

an increase in the stamp fees. 

ti 

DAMIAN MAJDA 

Associate. WOLF THEISS Office 

With regard to the amount of the guarantee.

the new regulation states that it must be 2%

of the estimated value of the contract to be 

dorrucn mcjccwwottthess com 

 

 

   

ALBAN[A AUSTRIA BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA BULGARIA CROATIA CZECH REPUBLIC HUNGARY POLAND ROMANIA SERBIA SLOVAK REPUBLIC SLOVENIA UKRAINE 

 

2 

 

awarded (for ongoing proceedmgs) or of the

awarded contract's value. 

The 2% of the estimated value of the

framework agreement will be established 

based upon the value of the highest

subsequent value. 

An add!tlonal stamp fee shali be paid for

disputes involving a damage claim or

disputes resulting from the performance,

annulment or 

RBS Responsible Business Solutions GmbH 

Hegegasse 13, 1010Wen

T +43 (0) 8CXJ 00 20 46 

termination of public 

E [email protected]

W www.secureveal.com 

HIGHLIGHTS FROM

THE AUSTRIAN

SUPREME COURT 

procurement contracts, including public

works contracts based on F!DlC Conditions

of Contract. 

An 'illegally" bad golf handicap 

CRIMINAL LAW 

The stamp fees were increased sigrnficantly,

to 2% of the estimated value of the contract

that surpasses RON 100,000,000 or 1% if the 

A goU player hits a hiker with his tee

shot resulting in claims against the

goUer as well as the owner of the goU 

contract's value is under such ornount. 

Time limits for claims submitted. to the court 

The previous public procurement regulation 

PRESERVATION ORDER FOR

OUTSOURCED DATA - MAY THE

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ORDER THE

PRESERVATION OF OUTSOURCED

DATA IN THE COURSE OF A HOUSE

SEARCH? 

course 

Right before the fatal swmg the goUer

asked h1s victim-to-be 1f there me any

more lukers on the trail. When the 

was not in accordance with administrative 

law; which provided for a six (6) months

period 

for claims 

regarding public 

procurement contracts. 

Due to the complexity of white collar crime

nowadays, the public prosecutor requires a

lot of information in order to understand and 

To prevent misinterpretations the GEO

45/2018 provides: 

prosecute the case. In many cases the

prosecutor orders the investigative measure 

of a house secrrch to enable the preservahon 

 

1. a 1-year hmitation period for claims for

damages caused by public awarding

proceedmgs; and 

of necessary information. 

hiker negated the question. the golfer

returned to the tee cmd assumed that

the luker had gone in the mecmtime.

Unfortunately the following swmg

was a total disaster and directed the

l::x:Ill nght into necrrby bushes, behind

whJ.ch the luker was still present. The

injured luker consequently rcnsed

dcnnage claims against the golfer

cmd the owner of the golf club. 

 

According to Article 119 para 1 Austrian

Criminal Procedure Code (" ACPC") the order

of a house semch is inter alia admissible il, 

ti. a 3-yem limitation period for claims

resulted 

from the performance, 

due to certain facts, it can be assumed that 

annulment or termination of public

procurement contracts, 

which will run in accordance with 

objects that have to be secured or

evaluated are located at the premises.

Apart from the prosecutor issuing the order

for a house semch - which has to be 

article 7 (6) of Law no. 554/2004 on

administrative law 

The court of first instance dismissed

the claun In favour of the club

operator, the court decided that the

warning signs placed cround the golf

course were more them enough to

fulfil the obhgation regarding safety

precautions. Regarding the player,

the court found that he took all 

gran led by the court - the prosecutor has to

issue an order to preserve the objects he or

she aims to secure. 

The changes are applicable to public

procurement proceedings and challenges

that started after the entry into force of GEO

45/2018, respectively after 4 June 2018. 

In general a preservation order according to 

precautions for a safe swmg. The

failed attempt was to be seen as an

"inevitable event'. 

Article 109 para 1 a ACPC covers the

preliminary control over an object for 

ANDREEA zv s«: 

reasons of evidence, preservation of private 

Senior Associate 

claims or pecuniary measures (Article 11 O 

andreea.zvac@wolfthe1SS com 

The court of second instance then

flipped the script; finding that the golf

player should have checked and not

merely speculate about 

ANDREEA ANTON 

Associate 

andreea anton@wolfthe1SS com 

para 1 ACPC). As documents are mostly

stored electromcally Con laptops, mobile

phones, USB sticks etc.). Article 111 para 2

ACPC states that following a preservation

order any person is obliged to provide 

the 

whereabouts of the hiker This 

therefore is to be seen as cmeless

behaviour. Regmding the golf club

itself, 

the wmning signs were 

access to informahon that is stored on a 

dismissed as an appropriate way of

preventing hmm 

data storage medium. The preservation

order generaliy allows the prosecutor to

secure the storage medium itself as the 

Contlnued on next page .. 

object - including of course the information 

 

 

   

ALBANIA AUSTRIA BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA BULGARIA CROATIA CZECH REPUBLIC HUNGARY POLAND ROMANIA SERBIA SLOVAK REPUBLIC SLOVENIA UKRAINE 

 

3 

 

stored on it. The question is whether the

preservation order covers access 

to 

three yems of the knowledge of the

damage and the damaging pmty

(limitation period). 

 

informabon that is stored on a server or

cloud storage network by usmg encryptmg

softwme or the login data accessible on the

preserved storage urnt. 

According to the Austrian Cnminal

Procedure Code. the private joinder has

to be in written form. 

 

The legislative materials to Article 111 ACPC

explicitly state that information stored on a

server or a cloud network can be subject to 

There has to be a connection between

the criminal chmge and the damages

claim. The claim must be based on the 

a preservation order. 

same facts and circumstcnces. however, 

 

However. it has to be noted that the

preservation according to Article 109 et

seqq ACPC is not a secret mvestlgative

measure Therefore the preservation of

outsourced data is only admissible if the

person authorized to access the data is

informed and is given the chance to hand

over a copy of the relevant information

upfront (Article 

it does not need to be based on the

smne 

legal grounds. The 

legal 

classification and sentence of the

criminal court is thus not of importance

for subsequent civil proceedings. 

continued 

The Austrian Supreme Court agreed

with the decision of the second 

The subsequent civil claim - in case the

private 

joinder has not been decided 

111 pma 2 ACPC). 

instance regcnding the golf player.

He violated his duty of care.

Regcrrding the golf course operator,

the Supreme Court was of a different

opinion. "The general rules regarding 

upon - has to be filed at the civil court

within a reasonable time after the

judgment of the crimmal court has been 

Furthermore the access for the prosecutor is

only permissible once; considering that 

rendered 

preservation is not a constant surveillance 

safety obligations mustn't be 

investigative measure. 

 

PATRICK MITTLBOCK 

Moreover. the private joinder and the

civil cknm must both address the smne

financial disadvantage. 

Associate 

overextended", the judge stated. The

endangerment of hikers caused by

the nature and pace of golf balls is in

accordance with the general

expenence of llfe 

Latest Supreme Court decision (OGH IO 

rx:rlnck.m1ttlboeck@wolftheiss com 

Ob 45/l 7s, 14 November 2017) 

To prevent such an incident an

operator would need to erect barners

around the courses. In the judge's

view this would surpass the hm.it of 

In its latest decision on private party

joinders. the Supreme Court had to decide 

THE PRIVATE PARTY'S JOINDER IN on the validity of a joinder. and thus its 

recson. (1 Ob 4/18x) 

CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AND ITS interruption effect for the civil proceeding, in 

EFFECTS ON LIMITATION PERIODS a case with 7.880 Claimants of which only 

Patrick Winter 

UNDER CIVIL LAW 

one name has been explicitly mentioned in

the written submission. With regmd to the

rest. only reference was made to their 

A private party's joinder in Austrian

criminal proceedings can affect the lawful 

names and claimed cmounts on an 

interruption of the period of limitation in 

civil proceedings. However, the private

party's 

joinder must 

fulfill certain 

additionally enclosed CD. The Claimant in

the respective Supreme Court case was one

of those with only his/her name on the CD. 

requirements. 

The main question that mose was, whether 

In general, the joinder of a private pmty in

criminal proceedings can cause an

interruption of the period of limitation to the

effect that no claim has to be filed at the

civil court yet. This gwes the injured pmty

the possibility to lower his/her cost risk as

well as simplifying the decision to file a

claim based on the criminal proceedings

and the Judgment of the criminal court. 

a mere reference to an enclosed CD 

replaces the required written subrrusston of 

the private jomder and if this serves as 

sufficient 

individualizabon 

and 

concretization The court's response was as 

follows. 

The private joinder was not rejected in the

crimmal proceedings 

In addition. the 

However. certain criteria have to be fulfilled: 

names and claimed amounts of damages

have been put on paper by the Prosecution

and 

have 

subsequently 

 

been 

The damages clmm in the joinder has to

be sufficiently individualized (liable

person) and concretised 

(claimed 

registered/taken into the official criminal

file. Hence. the requirement of written form

has been fulfilled by this act. As a result. the 

amount) by the private party within 

 

 

   

ALBAN[A AUSTRIA BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA BULGARIA CROATIA CZECH REPUBLIC HUNGARY POLAND ROMANIA SERBIA SLOVAK REPUBLIC SLOVENIA UKRAINE 

 

4 

 

private 

joinder did cause an effective 

interruption of the limitation period. 

deemed to last tor an indefinite period. Each

party had the right to terminate during the 

course of the trial period, subject to giving

15 days' notice during the first month and

one month's notice thereafter. 

Summarized. it should already be sufficient

in future cases to argue a sufficient

individualization. 

concretization and 

substantiation of the private jomder in an

exhibit to a subrrussion as long as this is

written on paper and becomes part of the

official criminal tile. 

French courts ruled on the bosis of French

case law that there IS, by way of exception.

no right 

to compensation where a 

CLAUDIA BREW! 

Associate 

claud10 brewisswoutnees com 

commercial agency contract is terminated

during the trial period, especially because

the agency contract has not yet been

definitively concluded durmg the trial

period. 

COMMERCIAL LAW 

Since, inter alia, the Directive does not refer

to any trial penod the French Court of

Cassation asked whether Article 17 of the

Directive also applies where termination of

the commercial agency contract occurs

during a trial period. 

THE AGENT'S INDEMNITY /

COMPENSATION CLAIM VS. "THE

PRINCIPAL'S TRIAL PERIOD" 

The ECJ came in particular to the following 

conclusions: 

 

Article 17 of Council Directive 86/653/EEC

of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of

the laws of the Member Slates relating to

self-employed commercial agents 

The Directive makes no reference to the

concept of a 

'trial period'; therefore, it 

•• ••• 

(as 

must be considered that such a provision

is not as such prohibited by the

Directive. 

 

amended from time to time, '1he Directive")

stipulating the indemnity or compensation

of a commercial agent after the termination

of an agency contract is a good example 

The termination during the specific tnal 

how harmonization is achieved between 

the Member Slates of the European Union. 

period constitutes a termination within

the meaning of Article I 7 (I) and ( 3) of

the Drrective; the interpretation that the

agency contract has not yet been

defmitively concluded during the trial

period has no basis in the Drrective 

In its evaluation report dated 16 July 2015,

the European Commission concluded that

the "Directive seems to have been effective 

in achieving its objective to facilitate cross­

border operations 

 

in commercial 

representation" and "it ts recommended that

the Duective is maintained in its current

form" 

The indemnity and compensation

regimes laid down by the Directive are

not intended to penalize termination but

to indemnify /compensate the Agent for

his/her services in the past The Agent's

claims cannot be denied 

if the 

Article 17 of the Directive is the Directive's

best known provision and rts interpretation

(respectively the interpretation of 

conditions set out in Article 17(2) and (3)

are satisfied. 

its 

transposition into national law) is subject to 

 

numerous disputes before national courts 

and the ECJ. 

Furthermore. the Directive shall protect

the Agent In the light of the arm of the

Directive any mterpretation of Article 17

which may prove to be detrimental to 

 

Recently, the ECJ (C-645/16) dealt with a

request for a preliminary ruling under

Article 267 TFEU from the Cour de cassation

(Court of Cassation, France). 

the cornrnercicl agent is not perrrnssible. 

The interpretation of the French courts

that there is no right to compensation in

case the contract is terminated during

the tnal period is therefore contrary to

the objective of the Directive. 

The respective agency contract behind the

dispute stipulated that the contract was

entered into for a trial period of 12 months,

at the end of which the contract would be 

As a result, the ECJ ruled that the Agent

may also be entitled to indemnity or 

 

 

   

ALBAN[A AUSTRIA BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA BULGARIA CROATIA CZECH REPUBLIC HUNGARY POLAND ROMANIA SERBIA SLOVAK REPUBLIC SLOVENIA UKRAINE 

 

5 

 

compensation according to Article 

1 7 

flonan [email protected] com 

The Constitutional Court also accepted the

Government's view that Lex Agrokor was

needed to prevent an escalation of

Agrokor's problems. Namely, it accepted the

Government's position that the existing legal

framework containing pre-bankruptcy and

bankruptcy proceedmgs was, by virtue of its

legal nature, dynamics and duration,

inadequate and ineffective and thus

inapplicable in this case. Consequently, the

Constitutional Court considered that in such

circumstances the adoption of Lex Agrokor

was necessary to attain the legitimate goal. 

paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Directive in the

event, that the contract is terminated during

a trial period. 

FLORIAN PECHHACKER 

Associate 

CONSTITUTIONAL

LAW 

With this ruling the Constitutional Court

cleared the legal avenue for completion of

the state-administered debt restructuring of

the food proces.sing and production gjant

Agrokor. The only question that now 

CROATIAN CONSTITUTIONAL

COURT RULES ON LEX AGROKOR 

remains unanswered is whether all the 

stakeholders will accept the settlement that

has been offered to them. 

On 2 May 2018 the Croatian Constitutional

Court ("Constitutional Court") upheld the

Law on Extraordinary Administration

Procedure for Companies of Systematic

Importance for Croatia, better known as 

LUCIA MOCIBOB 

"Lex Agrokor". 

Associate 

nxao.mccrtobewonthees com 

MARIO VRDOWAK 

Associate 

With this decision, the court rejected twelve

proposals requesting a review of Lex

Agrokor and its conformity with the

Constitution. The Constitutional Court's 

mono vrdolJ(lk@wol!thelSS com 

decision was not unanimous Three out of 

the full panel of thirteen judges dissen led:

expressing their opinion that a signilicant 

number of Lex Agrokor provisions were not 

in line with the Croatian Constitution. 

FOCUS: LIFE

SCIENCES & 

In its decision. the Constitutional Court

stated that the provisions of Lex Agrokor did

not constitute a violation of ownership rights 

or entrepreneurial and market freedoms. In 

HEALTHCARE 

DISPUTE OVER THE OWNERSHIP OF

OUR MOST IMPORTANT ORGAN

THE HUMAN BRAIN 

its explanation, the Constitutional Court

stated that entrepreneurial and market

freedoms are not absolute, but rather that

they can be limited by law provided that

there is a legitimate goal and that the

limitahon is proportional to the goal to be 

The Austrian Supreme Court had to deal

with a rather rare dispute recentiy over the

balance between an 

achieved. As to the legitimate goal, the 

Constitutional 

Court 

accepted 

the 

individual's 

personality right and medical research

interests (OGH 8 Ob 56/17v, 23 March

2018), 

The dispute arose when a husband

demanded the handover of his dead wife's

brain from an Austrian university. Due to

suspected Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease ("CJD").

an autopsy had taken place confirming the

infection. The forensic doctors at the 

Government's view that the adoption of Lex

Agrokor was aimed at, among others,

preserving the stability and viability of

Croatia's economy, protecting and

preventing the bankruptcy of various

involved market parhcipants and

preventing the loss of jobs. Ultimately, the

Constitutional Court determined that the

limitahons envisaged by Lex Agrokor are

proportional to the legitimate goal. 

respective university then extracted her 

 

 

   

ALBAN[A AUSTRIA BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA BULGARIA CROATIA CZECH REPUBLIC HUNGARY POLAND ROMANIA SERBIA SLOVAK REPUBLIC SLOVENIA UKRAINE 

 

6 

 

brain for scientific and preventative reasons 

according to the following rules 

junsprudence on the extent to which a

university's right to follow a research

assignment exists. 

In Austria CJD is legally classified as a

notifiable. communicable disease under

Section I para 1 no 1 of the Austrian Law on

Epiderrucs. Moreover. under the authority of

the Austrian Ministry of Health a reference

center 

The "final" judgment of the Supreme Court 

for prion dlseases has been 

established since 1990/91 ill which brains of

persons who died as a result of CJD are

preserved for 30 years and scien tifically

studied. 

In its revision presented to the Supreme

Court the Defendant, the university, claimed

for the first time that the legal proceedings

in iron t of the national courts were

inadmissible as the autopsy as well as the

government order on the preservation of the

brain are state odmirnstrotion issues. Thus.

the administrative courts are competent 

LEGAL NOTICE 

In this case, as the husband was the sole

heir, he based his surrender claim on the

exercise of his wife's lasting personality

rights. The university, however. argued that

it had the right to preserve the human

organ to serve public interest and in

accordance with the Ausinan Law on

Epidemics as well as on the Ministry's order. 

The Supreme Court came to the conclusion

that the university in fact did act as a 

WOLF THEISS Rechtsanw6lte GmbH & Co KG

Attorneys at Law, Schubertnng 6, 1010 Wien 

contractual agent for the reference centre 

T + 43 151510, F + 43 1 515 10 25 

v,nen@wollthe1SS com; www.wolnhetss com

Commercial Registration Number. FN 403377 b,

Commercial Registratlon Court Commercial

Court Vienna, 

for prion diseases in the heal th care sector,

and hence, for the state adirifnistrahon.

However, the court also found that the

Claimant may file a request for burial by

which he would have a legal remedy for

claiming the termination of the autopsy and

preservation in administrative proceedings. 

The woman herself had never decided what

should happen to her body after her death.

With respect to organs. an opt-out system

applies to organ donation ill Austria.

However. this case could not be classified as

a donation 

legal advice and services provided by lawyers 

In line with the above, the Supreme Court

found the former proceedings in front of the

national courts to be null and finally

dismissed the original claim. 

legal knowledge and services provided 

by Wolf TheJSS 

The findings of the instances 

CLAUDIA BREW! 

The court of first mstonce decided in favour

of the Clarmant due to his wife's missing 

Associate 

claud.J.a brewieswolrtneiss com 

consent and his present right to exercise her 

lasting personality rights. 

Followinq and affirming the first court's 

decision. the second court nevertheless

agreed to a revision by the Austrian

Supreme Court due to the 

lack of 

 

 

   

ALBANIA AUSTRIA BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA BULGARIA CROATJA CZECH REPUBLIC HUNGARY POLAND ROMANIA SERBIA SLOVAK REPUBLIC SLOVENIA UKRAINE 

 

7 

 

HEAD OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION PRACTICE GROUP 

CLEMENS TRAUTIENBERG 

Partner 

clemens trouttenberg -wclttheiss coin 

ALBANIA 

POLAND

E [email protected] 

E. tuana@wolftheiss com 

T +355 4 2274 521 

T +48 22 378 8900 

AUSTRIA 

ROMANIA

E [email protected] 

E. [email protected] 

T+43151510 

T. +40 21 308 810 

BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA 

SERBIA 

E. [email protected] 

E [email protected]

T. +381 11 330 2900 

T + 387 33 953 444 

SLOVAK REPUBLIC 

BULGARIA

E. sofia@wolfthelss com 

E btatislava@wollthelss com

T. +4212591 012 40 

T +359 2 8613 700 

CROATIA 

SLOVENIA

E Jjub!Jana@wolltheL �� com 

E. zagreb@wolfthei �s com 

T +385 l 4925 400 

T. +386 1 438 00 00 

CZECH REPUBLIC 

UKRAINE 

E. [email protected] 

E. [email protected] 

T. +420 234 765 111 

T. +38 044 377 75 00 

HUNGARY 

E. [email protected] 

T +36 l 4848 800 

IF YOU HA VE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT SPECIFIC TOPICS, OUR EXPERTS ARE AVAILABLE TO ASSIST 

YOU: [email protected] 

ALBANIA AUSTRIA BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA BULGARIA CROATJA CZECH REPUBLIC HUNGARY POLAND ROMANIA SERBIA SLOVAK REPUBLIC SLOVENIA UKRAINE 

 

 

Wolf Theiss - Andreea Anton, Claudia Brewi, Damian Majda , Patrick Mittlboeck, Lucia Močibob, Florian Pechhacker, Patrick Winter and Andreea Zvac

Back Forward
  • Save & file
  • View original
  • Forward
  • Share
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Linked In
  • Follow
    Please login to follow content.
  • Like
  • Instruct

add to folder:

  • My saved (default)
  • Read later
Folders shared with you

Filed under

  • Austria
  • Croatia
  • European Union
  • France
  • Poland
  • Romania
  • Arbitration & ADR
  • Litigation
  • Wolf Theiss

Organisations

  • European Commission

Courts

  • Court of Justice of the European Union

Popular articles from this firm

  1. Austrian GDPR-Tracker: Data Protection Authority on erasure by way of anonymization *
  2. The public procurement bidding process in Austria *
  3. An Interview with Wolf Theiss giving an overview of Cartels in Austria *
  4. Spotlight: asset seizure and evidence in Austria *
  5. Austria: does a Home Office constitute a permanent establishment? *

If you would like to learn how Lexology can drive your content marketing strategy forward, please email [email protected].

Powered by Lexology

Related practical resources PRO

  • How-to guide How-to guide: Streamlined sales tax (USA)
  • Checklist Checklist: Charitable and political donations and gifts, travel, entertainment compliance (USA)
  • Checklist Checklist: What to consider to ensure a contract is valid (USA)
View all

Related research hubs

  • European Commission
  • Court of Justice of the European Union
  • Austria
  • France
  • Arbitration & ADR
  • Litigation
Back to Top
Resources
  • Daily newsfeed
  • Commentary
  • Q&A
  • Research hubs
  • Learn
  • In-depth
  • Lexy: AI search
  • Scanner
Who's Who Legal
  • Find an expert
  • Reports
  • Thought Leaders
  • Performance Index
  • Research methodology
  • Submissions
  • Instruct Counsel
More
  • About us
  • Legal Influencers
  • Firms
  • Blog
  • Events
  • Popular
Legal
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy policy
Contact
  • Contact
  • RSS feeds
  • Submissions
 
  • Login
  • Register
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Follow on LinkedIn

© Copyright 2006 - 2023 Law Business Research

Law Business Research