The Spanish authorities have issued a number of measures to remedy the impact of COVID-19 on the Spanish aviation industry. This article focuses on a specific topic especially relevant in the current circumstances – namely, the provisions and regulations that the Spanish authorities have recently approved in relation to flight cancellations and ticket refunds.
On 8 January 2019 Commercial Court No 3 of Gijón resolved a collective cessation action brought by the Association of Financial Users, a non-profit entity, against the Spanish airline Volotea relating to some of its transport terms and conditions. Although the court was asked to give its opinion on a number of Volotea's terms and conditions, this article focuses on the most significant issues discussed in this judgment.
The rapid spread of COVID-19 throughout the world has forced many governments to issue emergency legislation, generally in a hurry and as a reaction to a continuously changing scenario. Spain is among the countries which have been hit particularly hard. This article provides a summary of the main pieces of Spanish legislation that affect the aviation industry.
The Spanish government recently decided that it was time to update its internal regulations regarding the issuance, maintenance, suspension and cancellation of air operators' licences in order to bring them into line with current trends. In doing so, the government issued a new order which contains novelties that merit highlighting.
The Supreme Court (Civil Chamber) recently issued its judgment following cassation proceedings against a 2015 Madrid Provincial Audience judgment. The proceedings stemmed from a 2011 collective action against Iberia, which the Spanish Consumers and Users Organisation had filed with the Madrid Commercial Court in order to obtain the annulment of several clauses of Iberia's standard terms and conditions.
In order to illustrate the current status of the COVID-19 extraordinary measures following the lifting of the state of emergency on 21 June 2020, this article summarises the key employment-related measures adopted since the state of emergency was declared and the updated regulation of each measure following the numerous amendments introduced subsequent to Royal Decree-Law 8/2020.
The government has adopted several extraordinary employment-related measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, since a state of emergency was declared, Spain's employment authorities have published countless guidelines and instructions relating to the practical application of such measures. This article summarises the key employment-related measures adopted since the state of emergency declaration.
The government recently published a royal decree-law on urgent and extraordinary measures to address the economic and social impact of COVID-19. The measures include clarification of the grounds and simplification of the procedures to suspend employment contracts or reduce working hours due to force majeure, as well as economic, technical, organisational or production grounds.
The Madrid High Court of Justice recently ruled that riders for Glovo (a competitor of Deliveroo with a similar business model) are employees and are thus not self-employed. As other courts have ruled in similar cases that riders who operate in the gig economy do not have an employment relationship with their company, this judgment will likely be appealed before the Supreme Court in an attempt to unify the case law on the nature of such relationships.
There has been a wave of criticism that the mandatory recording of employees' working hours has hindered the flexibility measures which companies were beginning to introduce. As such, it is somewhat surprising that a recent amendment to the Workers' Statute appears to have flown under the radar, especially given that it aims to boost flexibility in order to uphold employees' rights to a work-life balance.
During the national state of alarm caused by the COVID-19 outbreak and its related health crisis management, measures were adopted affecting IP matters, including the suspension and official interruption of certain deadlines and judicial and administrative actions. Having overcome the exceptional state of alarm, the Spanish courts and administrative bodies have now resumed full activity and the courts have been reinforced to ease the situation.
In February 2020 the Supreme Court dismissed a cassation appeal against a judgment from the High Court of the Valencian Community confirming the first-instance judgment issued in 2019 by the Provincial Court of Valencia condemning the defendants for an 18-month prison sentence and for the payment of a fine, the transport and destruction costs, as well as the legal costs (including the private prosecutor's costs) for the import of counterfeit shoes for commercial purposes that infringed adidas's brands and designs.
The Barcelona Court of Appeal recently recognised the well-known nature of the DINOSAURUS trademark owned by Galletas Artiach and its infringement by La Flor Burgalesa for using the GALLESAUROS sign applied to biscuits. This article provides a summary of the legal basis of the Barcelona Court of Appeal's judgment.
The Barcelona Court of Appeal recently issued a judgment confirming the invalidity of Gilead's supplementary protection certificate (SPC) for the combination of tenofovir disoproxil + emtricitabine, thus upholding a first-instance decision favourable to generic competitors Teva and Mylan. The matter has been followed in Europe, where the UK Patents Court referred a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union, which issued a judgment on the interpretation of the requirement under the EU SPC Regulation.
In light of the European Court of Justice's (ECJ's) decision in Cofemel, copyright protection for fashion designs is now more feasible in Spain. However, it remains to be seen how the Spanish courts (in particular, the Supreme Court) will apply the main teachings and caveats of this ECJ judgment in practice in the field of fashion.
The Supreme Court recently ruled in a case concerning two elements of international law: state immunity from enforcement and declarations of enforceability. This ruling is significant because it states that the only precedent on the topic of enforcement immunity is a 2005 decision and because it applies the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, which is not yet in force. The ruling is also significant with regard to its interpretation of an 'enforceability declaration'.
The Supreme Court recently confirmed that mortgage liability for interest claimed from third parties is limited to five years in accordance with the Mortgage Act. According to the court, this maximum mortgage coverage applies to all legal effects – regardless of whether these are favourable or adverse – and to agreements between mortgagees and mortgagors and between mortgagors and third-party acquirers.
The Law on Urgent Measures Relating to Housing and Rental Matters recently entered into force, providing greater protection to tenants. The law has primarily amended the Civil Procedure Act, specifying that matters relating to leases where the claim can be quantified will be excluded from the scope of ordinary proceedings, and that summary proceedings can be initiated for certain amounts in accordance with the corresponding procedural rules.