Marie Romero obtained a Master’s Degree in Private Law from the University of Nancy II, France. She was admitted to the Luxembourg Bar in 2002. Prior to joining Luther, she worked as dispute resolution lawyer for an independent business law firm in Luxembourg. She also worked as an external consultant for CNPD (Commission national pour la protection des données).
French, Spanish, English
Areas of practice
Marie Romero is a Senior Associate of the Dispute Resolution practice at Luther’s Luxembourg office.
Marie focuses on advising local and international clients on civil, commercial, and administrative litigation cases. She has also gained experience in arbitration, tax disputes, and real estate and construction law.
In Luxembourg, several time limits apply with regard to prescription periods. Notably, the inclusion of specific prescription periods in the Law of 10 August 1915 on Commercial Companies does not preclude the application of prescription periods as provided for in the Civil Code. The Luxembourg District Court recently reiterated this position in a judgment regarding prescription periods for invalidating shareholder decisions.
The Luxembourg District Court recently ruled on the equivalence of suretyships and autonomous guarantees. Although the court interpreted agreements using the traditional rules, this decision illustrates its pragmatic approach of analysing commitments to qualify guarantees.
In a 2018 decision, the Luxembourg District Court found a liquidator liable for damages which the plaintiffs had suffered as a result of the early closure of the liquidation while legal proceedings were still ongoing. The court held that since the liquidator had personally received the document instituting the proceedings, he should not have ignored any claims that might have arisen from the ongoing dispute. Notably, the court went even further by also holding the liquidation auditor liable.
Under the General Tax Law, directors are held personally liable for the fulfilment of their company's tax obligations. Prior to a case law reversal, the Administrative Court took a strict approach towards directors and systematically held that they had breached their duties by failing to withhold, declare or pay company taxes. However, in 2017 the Administrative Court of Appeal held that the wrongful character of alleged tax breaches must be demonstrated by law and factually proved by the Tax Administration.