Álvaro Mateo speaks about venture capital and its evolution in Spain in 2021 – El Confidencial

The Unified Patent Court has jurisdiction, in certain cases and within the limits set by the Brussels Ia Regulation and the Lugano Convention, to hear actions relating to classic European patents validated in States that are not party to the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court. Such decisions may be recognised and enforced in those other countries, but there are cases in which such recognition and enforcement will not be appropriate.

The Unified Patent Court has jurisdiction, in certain cases and within the limits laid down in the Brussels Ia Regulation and the Lugano Convention, to hear actions relating to classic European patents validated in States that are not contracting parties to the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court. However, this does not mean that, when hearing such actions, the Court may apply the same rules as if the actions related to a unitary patent.

This document sets out and criticises the doctrine established by the CJEU in its Judgment of 25 February 2025, C-339/22, BSH/Electrolux, ECLI:EU:C:2025:108. Although the dispute underlying the judgment was not brought before the UPC, the interpretation of the CJEU in the BSH/Electrolux judgment is equally applicable, since said court is equivalent to the national courts of the contracting states party to the UPC Agreement.

Ever since coming into operation, there has been a tendency on the part of the Unified Patent Court to extend its jurisdiction to include patents that produce effects in States that are not party to the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (the ‘UPC Agreement’ or ‘Agreement’), as is the case of the Kingdom of Spain. This phenomenon is known in specialised circles as the court's ‘long arm’. However, although in certain cases the Unified Patent Court (the ‘UPC’ or ‘Court’) does indeed have such jurisdiction, this is only possible within strict limits, limits that do not seem to be taken into consideration in a consistent manner.

The will of a Spanish company’s shareholders in general meeting may not be supplanted by a judge or court clerk, even if the latter is part of another State’s judicature and is acting within the framework of foreign proceedings and in accordance with applicable procedural law.

Notes on Articles 618, 619 and 620 of the Insolvency (Recast) Act 2022,

For the Grand Chamber of the CJEU, a tax exemption based on objective and non-discriminatory criteria and integrated into the logic of the legal system which it accompanies is inherent in the ‘normal’ tax regime and does not, in principle, confer a selective advantage. In such cases, the conditions for granting the exemption are neutral from the point of view of competition, as the fact that some undertakings satisfy those conditions, while others do not, is not relevant in the light of the rules on State aid.

The Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 29 April 2025 addresses the modification of public contracts originally awarded to an in-house entity which, during performance of the contracts, has lost such status. The reference for a preliminary ruling was made in the context of a dispute concerning the extension of concession contracts relating to service facilities ancillary to motorways to include the construction, maintenance and operation of fast-charging infrastructure.

Royal Decree 214/2025 does not create a new register, as its title suggests, but rather keeps and expands the one in place since 2014. What is truly new is the obligation imposed on specific companies and public bodies to calculate their carbon footprint and to draw up greenhouse gas emission reduction plans, as well as to publish the same.