Our Insights

On 10 January 2015 the EU published a Notice in the Official Journal to the effect that the Council intends to renew the restrictive measures against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia.

The persons concerned may submit a request to the Council to obtain the information that relates to them before 15 January 2015.

Notice for the attention of the persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/72/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia, OJ C 6/2, 10.1.2015

The new China International Economic Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) Rules came into effect on 1 January 2015, and apply to arbitrations commenced on or after that date.

Notable amendments include a revised procedure for the appointment of emergency arbitrators, a mechanism for a claimant to commence a single arbitration where the dispute arises from multiple contracts, and special provisions for arbitrations administered by the CIETAC Arbitration Centre in Hong Kong.

China Arbitration Update: New CIETAC Rules Effective January 1, 2015 (China International Economic & Trade Arbitration Commission)

The Council has announced that it has extended EU economic sanctions introduced in response to Russia’s alleged destabilising role in Eastern Ukraine until 31 January 2016.

This follows an agreement at the European Council in March 2015, when EU leaders linked the duration of these sanctions to the complete implementation of the Minsk agreements, which is foreseen by 31 December 2015.

The restrictive measures were imposed in July 2014 and reinforced in September 2014. They target certain exchanges with Russia in the financial, energy and defence sectors and dual-use goods.

The Decision extending the economic sanctions against Russia for a further six months has been published in the Official Journal.

Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/971 of 22 June 2015 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine

To view the news article, please click here.

To read the news article, please click here.

The first case for the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) of 2015 is between a number of major European energy companies and Spain.

The claim by, among others, the German company RWE concerns an investment in Andasol, a solar plant located in southern Spain, in the light of a reduction in subsidies for renewable energy by the Spanish government. The arbitration is taking place under the Energy Charter Treaty.

Stadtwerke München GmbH, RWE Innogy GmbH, and others v Kingdom of Spain (ICSID Case No. ARB/15/1)

The High Court has ordered the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) to hand over a number of documents relating to its communications with the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) over alleged manipulation of LIBOR rates.

RBS had admitted misconduct in relation to other LIBOR currencies, but not in relation to pounds sterling. The claimant property developer argued that the bank had made misrepresentations to persuade it to enter into certain interest swaps. RBS argued that the FCA had found no misconduct on its part in connection with GBP LIBOR and refused to disclose documents produced by a special committee on grounds of legal advice privilege. RBS also argued that certain communications with the FCA were protected by without prejudice privilege.

Birss J held as follows:
Property Alliance Group v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc [2015] EWHC 1557 (Ch)

• The special committee had not been set up exclusively for the provision of legal advice, as demonstrated by RBS’ skeleton argument: the committee was characterised as “formed … to oversee the investigations and potential litigation concerning LIBOR”. So not all documents produced by the committee were privileged. RBS had not explained the basis on which its claim to legal advice privilege was made. The said documents should therefore be handed over to the court for inspection.
• A firm which was the subject of an FCA investigation had the right to withhold inspection of communications which were part of genuine settlement discussions with the FCA. That right applied in civil litigation with a third party. The fact that a Final Notice was issued did not mean that the right was lost. The right arose by analogy with the without prejudice rule. It could not be maintained in civil proceedings if the basis on which a Final Notice had been decided was itself in issue in the proceedings. In such a case the content of the settlement discussions would be admissible evidence. Here, the Final Notice did not make a finding of misconduct relating to GBP LIBOR; this however did not exonerate RBS. The Final Notice was the product of a settlement agreement. It was not the product of a full statutory process of investigation and decision making. The communications on which the agreement was based might have been incomplete, mistaken or misleading. RBS could not rely on what was absent from the Final Notice yet at the same time withhold inspection of those communications. The documents would therefore be inspected by the court.
• RBS could maintain the claim to privilege of documents which were only shown to regulators on a limited basis and despite the existence of legal rights or duties on the part of the regulators to use, act on or publish the documents pursuant to their regulatory powers. However, RBS could not rely on absences from those regulators’ findings as indicating the limits of its misconduct and still seek to maintain as privileged the information put to them. Consequently, those documents would also be inspected by the court.

On 13 January 2015 a debate is scheduled to take place in the House of Commons on the changes to judicial review proposed by the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill.

The House of Lords’ proposed amendments to the Bill that will be debated relate to judicial discretion over what financial information applicants should disclose and whether to grant judicial review where this is in the public interest.

Judicial review: House of Lords propose further amendments to Part 4 of Criminal Justice and Courts Bill 2013-14 to 2014-15

BBC News, Politics – Week ahead

To view the news article, please click here. (English version)

To view the news article, please click here. (Russian version)

To view the news article, please click here. (The article is in Russian)