Talking about the takeover bid | El Mundo

This paper examines the recent judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 April 2026, Pelham (C-590/23, ECLI:EU:C:2026:290), which interprets the exception for pastiche contained in Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society.

Summary of legislative and jurisprudential developments relating to the automotive sector.

The Supreme Court has established ‘cassational’ doctrine regarding the treatment under value-added tax of intra-group transfers of shares by mixed holding companies. It is confirmed that the intra-group transfer of shares constitutes a financial activity that cannot generally be classified as a management support activity. Likewise, it is acknowledged that an intra-group transfer of shares may not be subject to said tax when it involves the indirect transfer of an independent economic unit, subjecting such exclusion to the circumstances surrounding the transaction.

The Supreme Court judgment of 10 April 2026 characterises the concept of public service under Article 24(1) of Act 39/2015 as an exception to the ‘double silence’ rule, distinguishing it from the concept of service of general economic interest, which applies in liberalized sectors such as that of electricity supply. The Supreme Court thus concludes that in seeking an authorisation to close a combined-cycle power plant, the ‘double silence’ rule applies to the effect of a presumption of approval.

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

The State Secretariat for Telecommunications and Digital Infrastructures has published, on 14 April 2016, two decisions: one allocating public numbering resources to customer service and laying down the general terms of use thereof, and the other allocating public numbering resources to telemarketing and laying down the general terms of use thereof.

We analyse the problems that arise when a claim is filed with the UPC for infringement of a unitary patent and, at the same time, for infringement of the validation of the basic European patent in States that are not party to the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, and the claimant solely limits the unitary patent (because the defendant only files a counterclaim for revocation of the unitary patent with said court, but does not initiate any parallel revocation proceedings with the competent national court against the validations of the basic European patent in States that are not party to said agreement).

The basis for this paper is a slightly modified real-life case, broadened to include all possible forms of plurality of debtors.

Article 56a of the European Union’s new Medicines Directive introduces a mechanism that allows Member States to require marketing authorisation holders to supply authorised medicines within their territory to meet the needs of their patients. In the event of non-compliance three years after the request, the holder may lose market protection in that Member State, thereby allowing the entry of generic and biosimilar medicines. However, exceptions are provided for in cases of exceptional and unforeseeable circumstances beyond the holder’s control, as well as safeguards to prevent the loss of protection in one Member State from being used to circumvent the system in other protected markets.