International Network of Law Firms

With great pride, we are honored to announce that our Greek partner, Spyros Antonelos, has been recently appointed as World Bank Group Mediation Officer for ECA (Europe and Central Asia) region.

Spyros has joined the WBG regional hub in Sofia (Bulgaria) in June 2019. He is the first full-time Mediation Services staff member located permanently in the country office. He is currently exclusively employed by the WBG, mediating mu

lticultural disputes, training its personnel in dispute prevention and resolution, facilitating group dialogue and promoting mediation in 23 countries.

With a prestigious international lawyer profile, Spyros largely invested himself in the mediation field. His professional career includes an accreditation from the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (UK 2008), completed in 2013 by the Weinstein JAMS Fellowship and an advanced training at Pepperdine University in the United States. In 2014, he created along with Greek mediators Eleni K. Plessa and Irini Matsouka, “RESOLVE Mediators and ADR Experts”, a leading Greek ADR firm (www.resolve.gr) that he co-managed until 2019. In 2016, he created Athens SMEs Chamber Mediation Centre (www.diam-acsmi.gr) that he directed until 2019. Spyros also taught Mediation and Negotiations at MEF University in Istanbul, Turkey.

In parallel with the above-mentioned activities, Spyros was an advisor to the Greek Ministry of Justice (2012-2018) and is the co-author of two mediation reference books in Greek along with Greek mediator and trainer Eleni K. Plessa and French mediator and trainer Beatrice Brenneur.

With this new appointment, Spyros is no longer able to continue his law practice in Greece, nor his involvement in Proteus network, leaving the place for a new member,  Ms Anastasia Papanikolaou.

Anastasia is a knowledgeable and dependable Greek Lawyer, holding a PhD in Criminal Law and running a pluridisciplinary law office in Athens, providing legal consultancy and legal representation before Greek courts and public authorities in English, French, German and Greek. We thank Spyros for all the years he dedicated to our network, for his hard work and involvement and we wish him a bright and fruitful career with WBG. Concomitantly, we wish Ms Papanikolaou a warm welcome to Proteus, looking forward to a prosperous and long-lasting relationship.

 

I. Definition

The Artists’ Resale Right (“ARR”) consists in the entitlement of visual artists to receive a royalty (i.e. a share
of the proceeds) on the re-sale of their original works, provided that an art-market professional is involved in
that sale and the sale price is above a specified minimum threshold.
The ARR is intended primarily to make sure that visual artists share in the value of the works they created, to
redress the unfairness between visual artists and creators who benefit from the sale of copies of their works
and to promote artistic creation. ARR forms an integral part of copyright and is an essential prerogative for
visual artists. The major criticism moved against the ARR is that it benefits only a handful of artists who are
already successful by themselves; however, ARR is not meant to be a welfare scheme to help artists in need.

II. ARR in the EU

The ARR has been harmonized in the European Union with the adoption of the Directive 2001/84/EC of 27
September 2001, which entered into force in its entirety on 1st January 2012. The ARR under the Resale Right
Directive is due when:
- an original work of art, meaning a work “of graphic or plastic art such as pictures, collages, paintings,
drawings, engravings, prints, lithographs, sculptures, tapestries, ceramics, glassware and photographs made
by the artist himself” or a copy considered as an original work of art because it has “been made in limited
numbers by the artist himself or under his authority”; such copies will normally have been numbered, signed
or otherwise duly authorised by the artist (art. 2 of the Resale Right Directive);
- by an artist who is a national of a Member State (or is a national of a third country and has a habitual
residence in a Member State, if the national legislation of said Member State so foresees) or of another
country under the condition of reciprocity (art. 7 of the Resale Right Directive);
- is resold through, as sellers, buyers or intermediaries, art market professionals, such as salesrooms, art
galleries and, in general, any dealers in works of art (art. 1 of the Resale Right Directive);
- for a minimum sale price Member States are allowed to set, which may not under any circumstances exceed
EUR 3’000 (art. 1 of the Resale Right Directive). This threshold amounts to EUR 400 in Germany (§26 of the
UrhG), to EUR 3’000 in Italy (art. 150 Legge sulla protezione del diritto d’autore), to EUR 750 in France (art.
R122-5 Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle) and to the equivalent in GBP of EUR 1’000 in UK (par. 12.3 (b) of
the Artist’s Resale Right Regulations 2006);
- during the term of protection, which runs for the life of the author and for 70 years after his death (art. 8
of the Resale Right Directive in relation with art. 1 of the Council Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993
harmonizing the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights).
The ARR is pa
buyer or the intermediary are liable alone or shall share liability with the seller for the payment of the royalty
(art. 1.4 of the Resale Right Directive).
The Resale Right Directive foresees a sliding-rates grid set forth in its art. 4: (a) 4 % for the portion of the sale
price up to EUR 50’000; (b) 3 % from EUR 50’000,01 to EUR 200’000; (c) 1 % from EUR 200’000,01 to EUR
350’000; (d) 0,5 % from EUR 350’000,01 to EUR 500’000; (e) 0,25 % for the portion of the sale price exceeding
EUR 500’000. The maximum resale royalty is capped at EUR 12’500, which would be due on a re-sale price of
EUR 2’000’000.
The ARR does not apply to private sales, i.e. sales made between persons acting in their private capacity
without the participation of an art market professional.

III. ARR in Switzerland?

Switzerland does not provide for an ARR in its legal system, even though there have been at least four
attempts by Swiss members of the parliament, to introduce the ARR in Switzerland in the last 20 years.
As a consequence, artists who are Swiss nationals, as a general rule, do not benefit from the EU resale right
provisions. There being no ARR in Switzerland, Swiss artists cannot invoke the application of the principle of
reciprocity laid down in art. 7 of the Resale Right Directive. There are, however, a few exceptions for Swiss
artists residing in the EU. In France, under art. r122-4 of the Code de la propriété intellectuelle, artists from
third countries, like Switzerland, may be entitled to a royalty payment if they have been resident in France for
at least 5 years and, during their artistic career, have participated in French artistic life..
Italian law (art. 146 c.
2 of the Legge sulla protezione del diritto d’autore) provides for the equal treatment of Italian artists and
artists who are nationals of third countries residing in Italy. Artists who are permanent residents of the
Netherlands qualifies, as well. UK and Germany, on the contrary, do not have similarly favorable provisions.

IV. ARR and the Art Market Professionals

Generally speaking, the art trade, especially in UK, expressed serious concerns when the ARR was harmonized
in the EU. The arguments voiced by art market professionals against the ARR encompass:
i. the danger of sales diversion due to unfair competition from galleries, art dealers and auction
houses based in jurisdictions where no such royalty exists, such as, to cite only the major art markets,
the USA, Switzerland, China and Hong Kong;
ii. the increased transaction costs; deriving from the royalty and/or the absorption of the royalties’
cost by the art market professionals, would negatively impact on the volume of deals concluded or
on the margins of the art trade;
iii. the purchase of artworks from young artists by dealers would dry up, favouring consignment
agreements with sale or return clauses instead;
iv. the unfairness of the fact that the resale right is payable irrespective of any profit made by the art
market professional, i.e. ARR is payable even though a work of art is sold at a loss;
v. the so-called cascade effect, or double-payment effect, affecting works bought and sold in quick
successive related transactions, before being sold to a final collector;
vi. the administrative burden and therefore the costs associated with the paperwork necessary to
comply with the ARR. These administrative tasks involve, on the one hand, the communication of
the sale’s details and the payment of the royalty to the collecting society in charge, dealt with by the
art market professional and, on the other hand, the processing of the notification, the finding of the
artists or their heirs and the payment of the royalty, which are the responsibility of the collecting
societies.
The ARR affects the primary and the secondary art market in different manners: the primary art market is
almost spared, provided that the “first” sales are structured in the appropriate way, i.e. a direct sale from the
artist to the collector, while the art market professional involved acts as a broker. The secondary market on
the other hand, especially for well-known international artists, may experience troubles.

V. ARR and the Risk of Sales Diversion

The Resale Right Directive apparently does not foresee the application of the royalty to sale contracts for art
works concluded outside the EU, even if persons residing in the EU are involved. According to Matthias
Weller, if all the relevant elements of the sale are agreed upon outside the EU, e.g. at an Art Fair in
Switzerland (the work of art, the price and any other subjectively essential element of the deal) and the
transfer of title occurs in Switzerland, no resale right royalty in the EU is due.
However, the ARR represents one – and not the highest – of the many transaction costs imposed on all market
participants and pales in comparison to others costs, such as the hammer’s fees charged by auction houses
or the indirect taxation (VAT). The cap at EUR 12’500 foreseen by the Resale Right Directive represents a good
compromise to fend off any tendency to divert sales in countries where the ARR does not apply.
Lugano, 10th April 2019
This is an excerpt of a more comprehensive analysis, for more details contact: Claudio Simonetti,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., www.csnlaw.com

Based on European Union legislation an employee (worker) is entitled to paid annual leave. Nevertheless, the directive based on which the worker is entitled to such paid leave does not give a detailed explanation on the amount of remuneration that should be paid for those vacation days. There is case-law from the European Court of Justice, which clarifies the amount of remuneration that should be paid for the vacation days. Basically the European Court of Justice has ruled that annual leave remuneration must be maintained at the level the worker would have received if he would have been working.

Occasional of ancillary costs need not be taken into account in the calculation of payment of annual leave. All other remuneration which has an intrinsic link to the performance of work by the employee should be part of the remuneration during annual leave.

This means that compensation such as the allowances for irregular working times, structural commission payments, holiday allowance etc. should be taken into consideration when determining the financial value of vacation days. The same will apply to average bonus payments if there is an intrinsic link between this bonus payment and the performance of the task by the employee.

These rulings by the European Court of Justice have more recently received the interest of trade unions and individual employees in The Netherlands. This also led to several lower court rulings in which the value of a vacation day is clarified. Many employers in The Netherlands have apparently not adjusted the way of calculating the financial value of outstanding holidays, which is of course generally an issue when it comes to termination of the employment contract.

It is up to the national courts of the European member states to determine whether there is an intrinsic connection between certain part of the remuneration and the work performed.  In general, however it is important for the entrepreneurs to reconsider if they comply with those European Court of Justice rulings.

In case you have any further questions with regard to this topic, feel free to contact our attorneys at law at the different member states of our Proteus network.

Since the election of President Macron in May 2017, numerous reforms have taken place in France

  • reform of labour law with more flexible dismissal of employees. Compensation in case of unwarranted dismissal is now limited
  • reform of the social system for professionals
  • fiscal reform
    • with the suppression of patrimony tax on shares and bonds
    • creation of a flat tax of 30 % on the income of shares and bonds
    • decrease of corporate tax from 33 % to 25 % until 2022
  • reform of the railway status and railway employees status

More reforms in the following fields are planed

  • reform of vocational training
  • reform of apprenticeship
  • reform of unemployment insurance
  • a major reform of pensions is to come into force in 2019

I remain at your disposal for any questions arising from these reforms that you may have.


Jean-Frédéric MAURO
Avocat à la Cour
26 Avenue de la Grande Armée
75017 PARIS
Tel. 00 33 1 45 63 28 20 – Fax 00 33 1 45 63 28 12
mauro.avocats(@)wanadoo.fr

In the preparation of the up-coming Bucharest Marathon, a press conference was held on 3 October, in which Dan Mihai - JMN Partner and Coordinator of the Sports & Anti-Doping Law practice, explained from a legal perspective the importance of governance in sport.

Sports competitions and sport in general mean organization and rigor. Transposing them into rules provides a degree of comfort to all those who are part of this phenomenon: organizers, sponsors, participants, spectators. In any competition organized under the aegis of an International Federation, all aspects are detailed and carefully checked to meet the standards required for these events. The requirements imposed by IAAF to obtain the "Bronze Label" are no exception. We have tried to adapt the Marathon Regulation to transpose both the IAAF requirements for organizing a "Bronze Label" certified event, as well as to trace certain aspects pointed-out by the participants in previous editions. 

The fact that the organizers of the Bucharest Marathon understood that governance in sport, an area that is still poor in Romania, is just as important as the corporate governance we are used to denotes that this event is a leader in professionalizing and imposing a model of organizing a sports competition addressed to elite athletes as well as to amateur and sports fans in general. 

This is one of the reasons why such an event should be supported, in the conditions in which Bucharest, due to infrastructure problems, lost in the last year the organization of two major sports events: the ATP tennis tournament in favour of Budapest and the European Gymnastics Championship in favour of Cluj.

Jinaru, Mihai & Noțingher

Law offices and Tax advisors

Bucharest, Romania