Background The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has issued the Digital Lending Directions under the recommendations of the “Working Group on Digital Lending”. Digital lending refers to the process of disbursing loans digitally, replacing the traditional system of...

The convening of a general meeting in a capital company is one of the most important moments in the corporate life of a company. This act not only activates the direct participation of the partners in the key decisions of the company, but also represents the legal...

Enforcing foreign maritime judgments in Turkey requires navigating a structured legal process to ensure compliance with Turkish law. Bicak Law Firm provides expert guidance to international clients seeking recognition and enforcement of foreign maritime decisions in Turkish courts. The process involves confirming reciprocity between Turkey and the issuing country, filing an exequatur lawsuit, and demonstrating compliance with Turkish public policy and due process principles. Our team assists clients with preparing necessary documentation, representing them in court proceedings, and addressing potential objections. Given Turkey’s strategic position as a key maritime hub, timely enforcement of judgments is crucial for protecting commercial interests. Bicak Law Firm’s extensive experience in maritime law ensures efficient handling of complex enforcement cases. We work closely with shipping companies, insurers, and legal professionals to safeguard our clients’ rights. Contact us for tailored legal solutions in enforcing foreign maritime judgments in Turkey.

Being part of a company group may be beneficial for companies as they can have a stronger financial background and coordinated business decisions. Must this also be taken into account if a company belonging to a group of companies is fined for violating the GDPR? In what way can it be relevant, in connection with GDPR fines, that a company is part of an undertaking? In our article, we analysed the recent decision of the CJEU which provides an answer to this question.

Smartlegal Schmidt&Partners reports from Hungary:

What constitutes a “close connection” between claims against parent company and subsidiary under the Brussels Ibis, allowing both to be sued in the court of one of the companies’ domiciles? Can the “close connection” be a rebuttable competition law presumption?

ILF’s Hungarian member, Smartlegal Schmidt&Partners summarizes this issue in the article.

In a landmark judgment delivered in Societa Italiana Lastre v Agora, the CJEU opened the door wide for asymmetric jurisdiction clauses in the European Union and in the European Free Trade Area. Have the CJEU given green light to every asymmetric jurisdiction agreements? Has it become clear what conditions an asymmetric clause shall fulfil to be valid under the Brussels Ia Regulation and the Lugano Convention? We address these issues in this article.

Smartlegal Schmidt&Partners reports from Hungary:

Automated decision-making involves using technology tools to make decisions that affect the data subjects by applying complex algorithms, for example through the automatic rejection of an online loan application. In such cases, the exercise of data subjects’ rights is of particular importance. However, you can only exercise this right effectively if you are provided with clear information on the complex logic underlying the automated decision-making. In a recent decision, the CJEU examined the criteria that a controller must meet when providing information to a data subject exercising his or her right of access.