The judge gives the green light to the bondholders to take over Telepizza | Expansión

For the purposes of Article 6 of Rome I, the provisions of a contract defining the terms on which a professional receives or executes a CFD-related order are not covered by the exception provided for in Article 6(4)(d).

Judicial review may extend to the substantive invalidity of the arbitration agreement because it conflicts with mandatory domestic rules — as well as those of the European Union — on consumer protection and, consequently, the concept of public policy encompasses both procedural and substantive public policy.

Article 7 of Act 1/2025 contains two references to time limits which appear to set out two different rules regarding limitation periods. However, Article 7(3) is not a rule on limitation periods.

The Supreme Court clarifies the rules governing direct actions in international cases and the limits of the law governing insurance contracts

Administrative modernisation, major infraestructure projects, defence and energy transition in the new cycle of Portuguese public law.

Recognition of UK restructuring plans remains a contentious issue in the European Union. This decision by the Frankfurt am Main Regional Court is controversial, but it raises questions about the consequences of the application of the rule in Gibbs by the courts of England and Wales in this context.

The CJEU clarifies two important issues regarding the application of the Rome II Regulation: the scope of the exception relating to corporate matters and the determination of the place of damage in the case of games of chance offered via the internet from one Member State in another Member State without the licence required in the latter Member State.

The Supreme Court holds that mere knowledge that the limitation period has been interrupted in relation to another eventual joint and several co-debtor is equivalent to interruption. This doctrine will not be justified in most cases.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (Fourth Chamber), in its judgment of 1 August 2025, case C-665/23, IL v. Veracash SAS, concludes that a payer is deprived of the right to reimbursement of the amount of an unauthorised transaction if he or she delayed in notifying his or her payment service provider of the unauthorised payment transaction, even though he or she did so within 13 months from the debit date. This interpretation of the Payment Services Directive is applicable in Spain (Art. 43 RDL 19/2018) and appears to be retained in the future Regulation on payment services.