Search results for: īī rhx667.top ݼٻƮ ۹ٵ GREAT ϸ° οٵ ° 㾾Ƽ | In Principle

Even before a state of epidemic threat was announced, some businesses anticipating the probable impact of the approaching pandemic decided to take out business interruption insurance. But can this type of coverage make up for at least some of the losses due to the pandemic?

In the video game sector it is often necessary to draw on specialised knowledge from various fields (e.g. for graphic design projects). In such cases, it is increasingly common to cooperate with external experts by outsourcing certain processes. This form of cooperation carries many advantages, but if the conditions are not carefully framed it can create serious risks for the game development company.

In the fifth part of our series, we focus on the provision allowing interested parties to verify whether actions they have planned or undertaken infringe the exclusive rights of others. A claim seeking a declaration of non-infringement is an example of a preventive measure heading off filing of an infringement action by the holder of IP rights. This measure allows litigants to obtain judicial confirmation of the legality of their own actions in terms of respect for the intellectual property rights of competitors.

On 19 June 2020, the Parliament adopted “Shield 4.0,” new law of great importance for M&A practice. Shield 4.0 amends the Act on Control of Certain Investments of 24 July 2015 and enters into force on 24 July 2020.

The game development industry knows no boundaries, and often attracts workers from all over the world. But employment and immigration regulations pose a barrier to drawing on the resources of the global labour market, particularly when a game development studio considers employing persons in Poland who are citizens of countries outside the EU, the EEA, or Switzerland. However, new non-standard forms of work help overcome the difficulties in hiring foreigners, and are worth considering for roles such as programmers, graphic designers, sound engineers, script writers, and game testers.

Many changes affecting taxpayers’ relations with tax authorities and the administrative courts have been introduced as part of the rollout of successive versions of the Anti-Crisis Shield. Under Shield 3.0, which entered into force on 16 May 2020, taxpayers, tax authorities and the administrative courts are emerging from hibernation.

This time we address solutions from the front lines: devices for remote diagnostics which can improve effective detection of the coronavirus and also unburden the health service in other areas. These solutions can also serve as a proving ground for the regulatory approach to oversight of algorithms.

It is a common concern among commentators on international relations that the COVID-19 pandemic will lead to deglobalisation. Indeed, the havoc wrought by the pandemic in the global economy raises some unsettling questions about the fragility of global supply chains, especially in critical industries, and about the interdependency of national economies. It is nudging sentiment towards reshoring, promoting domestic production and protectionism.

On 5 May 2020 the German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht or BVerfG) issued a much-noted ruling in a case involving the Public Sector Asset Purchase Programme of the European Central Bank. The judgment has caused a great stir, as the BVerfG expressly refused to comply with a ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union. It was the first such instance in history, but its significance is the opposite of what is attributed to it by opponents of European integration.

The state’s enforcement of epidemiological restrictions (commands and prohibitions), despite many doubts as to their constitutionality, currently constitutes lawful exercise of public authority. Nonetheless, even actions by the state with the blessing of the law may entail a risk of COVID-19 infection for doctors, nurses, police and others. Serious detriment to their health—or even death—as a result of infection may give rise to liability on the part of the State Treasury under the principle of equity.