IRC rate level matters, but so do stable laws | Jornal de Negócios

For the first time in the Supreme Court: purchase rights in insolvency proceedings.

The risks of applying the doctrine according to which a contract is deemed withdrawn from if neither party to the same appears to want it. Not only is this solution likely to be inconsistent with the parties' claims, but it also wrongly rules out other civil law options the parties could pursue upon dismissal of the action for declaration of termination.

The Court of Justice ruling of 4 September 2025 (C-225/22) has declared that national courts may set aside decisions of higher courts that do not comply with the requirements of independence and impartiality derived from Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

In Judgment no. 142/2025 of 11 April, the Madrid Provincial Court (Twenty-Eighth Chamber) addressed two issues relating to the bringing of actions for declaration of invalidity of two sale and purchase agreements concluded by a company director in breach of his duty of loyalty. On the one hand, and in view of the specific circumstances, it ruled on whether the company could formally assume the role of claimant in the dispute. On the other hand, it ruled on the importance of the fact that the disputed transactions were beneficial to the company concerned and on the possibility of a ‘tacit’ dispensation.

The Agreement on the interpretation and application of the Energy Charter Treaty gives the force and effect of law to the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, according to which Article 26 of the Energy Charter Treaty does not and could not apply as a legal basis for intra-EU arbitration proceedings as a mechanism for the settlement of disputes between a contracting State and an investor of another contracting State.

The newsletter covers the main developments in Pharma & Healthcare legislation and case law.

The Decision of the Hamburg Local Division of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court dated 14 August 2025 grants interim relief because it claims jurisdiction to hear the substance of the matter (both the infringement of the unitary patent in the States party to the UPC Agreement and the Spanish validation of the European patent on which the unitary patent is based). To this end, the court offers a series of observations on its international jurisdiction, not all of which are accurate.

In a decision dated 18 July 2025, the Mannheim Division of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court took jurisdiction to hear a claim filed against three companies domiciled in Germany for infringement of a classic European patent with effect in Germany and the United Kingdom. The court's jurisdiction to hear the infringement of the UK national part of European patents is not affected by the fact that the validity of the patent is disputed by the defendants. However, this conclusion does not apply to Spanish national parts of European patents.

This article analyses situations which, although they do not involve the transfer of property ownership, are legally treated as equivalent to a sale and are subject to Transfer Tax in Portugal.