Tag Archive for: aiyonabogados

UNIPORTBILBAO highlights in its Newsletter the article by AIYON on the Sanctioning Power of the DGMM

/in , , , , /by

We would like to thank UNIPORTBILBAO – Port Community for including in its April Newsletter our article on the sanctioning power of the Directorate General of the Merchant Navy (DGMM), content that we published last February on our website.

AIYON Abogados, as a member of UNIPORTBILBAO, has been collaborating for several years with this multimodal logistics cluster founded in 1994, which was born from a group of public and private companies in the Basque Country whose objective is to promote, through cooperation, the competitive improvement and promotion of the PORT OF BILBAO and the companies and services related or linked to the port and its daily operations.

Read the article…

“GREEN SHIPPPING”, 2050

/in , , , /by

Like so many other industries, the maritime industry is heading or at least intends to head towards a gradual decarbonisation in this century. While it is true that, as published in the report of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) on the analysis of maritime transport in 2023 (1), greenhouse gas emissions from the maritime sector have increased by 20% in the last decade, and that the sector operates a largely older fleet powered almost exclusively by fossil fuels, it is no less true that at the recent United Nations Climate Conference (COP28) in December 2023, numerous milestones were set in the interests of the longed-for decarbonisation.

In principle, the year 2050 has been set as the target date for the total decarbonisation of the sector according to the new strategy published by the IMO, which will undoubtedly require massive capital investment that could lead to a rise in the costs of maritime transport, and the consequent concern for all those island developing countries that are highly dependent on maritime trade.

The UNCTAD report stressed how environmental objectives will need to be balanced against economic needs, but in any case, the cost of inaction far outweighs the investment required. Similarly, it outlined how factors such as cleaner and more efficient fuels, and digital solutions such as AI or blockchain, are sure to play a key role in improving the sustainability and efficiency of maritime transport.

However, the question of who should be responsible for the transition to full decarbonisation is a complex one.

Well, it appears that the major flag states such as Liberia, Panama and the Marshall Islands will be responsible for meeting and enforcing the new green shipping standards, but in turn, the burden of making investments in alternative fuels, facilities to supply such fuels and more efficient and greener ships, falls on maritime operators in general, ports and the energy industry.

Some of the COP 28 milestones that may have the most potential to help achieve full decarbonisation in maritime transport are:

IN RELATION TO GREEN MARITIME CORRIDORS:
The US announced its partnership with the UK, Canada and Korea to form green shipping corridors for major shipping lanes.  In parallel, the US and Korea also announced that they are undertaking feasibility studies on the use of green ethanol or ammonia to power ships on selected routes.

The UK, for its part, also announced that agreements have been reached on green maritime corridors, including the creation of an International Green Corridors Fund hand in hand with the Netherlands, Norway and Denmark.

The pre-feasibility study of the Chilean Green Corridor has been completed and feasibility studies are underway.

ON ALTERNATIVE FUELS AND THE PROGRESS OF SHIPS:
The Pacific Blue Shipping Partnership (Fiji, Marshall Islands, Kiribati, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu) – committed to the retrofitting/replacement of more than 11,000 vessels among the 7 member countries.

France announced a USD 800 million investment in green shipping innovations, as well as the creation of a USD 1.2 billion public-private investment fund as part of its national maritime decarbonisation plan, including already USD 500 million in public investment and USD 200 million from CMA CGM for investments in port infrastructure, sustainable marine fuel production, retrofitting and replacement of existing vessels and decarbonisation of the government fleet.

The US Department of Energy invested $7 billion in hydrogen hubs across the country, working in conjunction with several of its ports.

In light of this, together with the other milestones achieved at COP28, it is clear that the outlook for the maritime sector has changed significantly. Maritime transport maintains the lowest level of CO2 emissions per tonne/mile compared to all other types of transport, and the sector is certainly keen to maintain this position as other transport sectors decarbonise as well, having demonstrated at COP28 that shipping is making efforts to invest in and take advantage of the opportunities offered by the energy transition.

(1) Review of Maritime Transport 2023 | UNCTAD

Read article…

Brief comments on the reform on digital and procedural efficiency (Royal Decree-Law 6/2023 of 19 December for the Administration of Justice)

/in /by

Following in the wake of the now repealed Law 18/2011, of 5 July, regulating the use of information and communication technologies in the Administration of Justice, and driven by the COVID-19 pandemic crisis suffered in 2020, which made even more evident the urgent need to achieve technological adaptation of the Administration of Justice, the Royal Decree-Law 6/2023, of 19 December, approving urgent measures for the implementation of the Recovery, Transformation and Resilience Plan in the field of public service in the public administration of justice, has recently been legislated, Royal Decree-Law 6/2023 of 19 December, approving urgent measures for the implementation of the Recovery, Transformation and Resilience Plan for the public service of justice, civil service, local government and patronage, published on 20 December 2023 in the BOE.

This RDL introduces several changes to different legal provisions, seeking to modernise and digitalise the administration of justice, as well as to implement procedural efficiency measures that contribute to reducing the number of lawsuits and increasing the dynamism of procedures in all the different jurisdictional orders.

The aim is thus to make the digital relationship with the Administration of Justice the most common and ordinary one, providing a new, faster, and more efficient channel under this cover of norms and rules, if possible, to better satisfy the rights of citizens when they come into contact with the Administration of Justice. In any case, effective judicial protection, regulated in art. 24 of the Spanish Constitution, is an absolute priority.

It seems that the “Electronic Court File” will be called upon to be the centrepiece of the future of digital justice, which will be developed in conjunction with the application of the general principle of data orientation, with the aim of opening the door to new technological solutions and the use of artificial intelligence in the administration of justice.

So, within the enormous list of modifications contained in this Royal Decree-Law 6/2023, of 19 December, this article will focus below on the new features of digital efficiency and telematic hearings introduced, as well as on the changes for civil proceedings.

It must be assumed that its provisions will be applicable exclusively to legal proceedings initiated after its entry into force, and therefore its retroactive application is not envisaged. This entry into force will take place twenty days after its publication in the Official State Gazette (on 9 January 2024), except for the new provisions on procedural efficiency, which will enter into force three months after their publication in the Official State Gazette (on 20 March 2024).

a) The telematic hearing as a general rule:
With this new RDL, and the required modification of the LEC, the holding of telematic hearings will be the new general rule in civil jurisdiction, conditional, of course, on the judicial offices having the necessary technical means (art. 129 bis 1 LEC).

As an exception to the above, only those hearings in which the appearance, declaration or testimony of the parties, witnesses or experts is required will be held in person; however, even in these cases, the telematic modality may be chosen if certain circumstances are met (for example, if the person who must intervene lives in a different location from that of the court).

b) The first summons shall be served electronically:
Given that telematic means of notification are preferable, it is not surprising that the new content of art. 155 LEC indicates that the first summons will be made electronically, except in the case of natural persons who are not represented by a solicitor, who may choose whether they are communicated on paper or by electronic means. If three days have passed without the addressee accessing its content, it will be published by means of the Single Judicial Notice Board.

The Constitutional Court’s interpretation that, according to the previous regulations, the first summons had to be made in paper format to entities obliged to relate to the Administration of Justice by electronic means, such as companies, will thus go down in the history of law (STC 47/2019, of 8 April).

This brings with it a new and clear “de facto” obligation for this type of entity, which must now categorically manage and control each and every one of the electronic platforms to which judicial notifications may reach them, namely:

  • The Justice Folder.
  • The Electronic Judicial Headquarters.
  • The Single Enabled Electronic Address (DEHú).
  • The Single Bulletin Board.

Hence the importance of subscribing to the so-called “alert systems” contained in these electronic platforms, in order to receive an email notification that a new notification has been made and to access it, otherwise you will have to check these platforms on a daily basis if you want to be diligent, in case one has been made.

c) Modifications to the procedure of the Verbal Judgment:
As a result of the new wording of art. 249 LEC modified by this RDL, the amount of the ordinary trial procedure is raised from 6,000 to 15,000 euros. Consequently, the matters that must now be heard by means of a Verbal Trial will be those that are determined by the amount of 15,000 euros or less.

Its scope of application is also extended by reason of the subject matter, covering for the first-time lawsuits in which individual actions are brought in relation to general contracting conditions (art. 250.1.15º LEC).

d) Amendments concerning appeals and review of final judgments:
As a result of the new wording of articles 458 and 461.1 LEC, introduced by this RDL, the Appeal will no longer be devolutive and will be lodged directly before the Provincial Court, instead of before the Court of First Instance that heard the case, as has been the case until now.

The regulation of the Appeal in Cassation has also been modified in two main aspects, namely (i) withdrawal of the Appeal in Cassation will not be permitted once the date for deliberation, voting and ruling has been set (art. 450.1 LEC) and (ii) with regard to the costs of the Appeal in Cassation, there will be the possibility that the appellant who has seen his appeal rejected will not be ordered to pay the costs in those cases in which our highest court appreciates circumstances that justify it.

To conclude, we would like to point out that the first phase, which began more than a decade ago, aimed at the transition from paper to digital in the Administration of Justice, is now behind us, and that we are now in a new, much more advanced phase, in which the aim is to achieve substantial and concrete improvements in the already existing digital environment. This is why the wording and content of this RDL should not surprise us, as even greater changes are expected in the future in this line of digitalisation, promoting greater effectiveness and efficiency in the Administration of Justice, which we will always consider more than welcome.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 2024

/in /by

Notes to the Judgments of the CJEU and the High Court KBD of England on the Prestige Case

/in , , , /by

The English Court does not apply the doctrine of the CJEU which confirmed the possibility of recognising the Spanish conviction in the Prestige case in England.

The environmental tragedy of the M/T Prestige initiated a long-running legal dispute between the insurer of the M/T Prestige (The London Steam-Ship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association Limited, hereinafter “the Club”) and Spain, through two different proceedings in two Member States at the time, the United Kingdom and Spain.

This article is based on Spain’s application to the UK courts in 2019 under Article 33 of “Regulation 44/2001 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters” to recognise and enforce the Spanish court’s judgment. This decision was the Enforcement Order of 1 March 2019 of the Provincial Court of A Coruña enforcing its previous judgment, confirmed in cassation by the SC on 19 December 2018. It condemned the Master, the owners of the Prestige and the Club against the Spanish State and more than 200 other parties. As far as the Club was concerned, up to the contractual limit of USD 1 billion on the basis of the insurance policy.

The High Court of Justice Business and Property Courts of England and Wales Commercial Court (hereinafter High Court KBD) granted that application in May 2019, which was ultimately appealed by the Club on the basis of two main arguments under art. 34 of Regulation No 44/2001: (i) argument of incompatibility with the English judgment (ii) recognition of the Spanish judgment would be contrary to English public policy principles for violation of the res judicata rule.

At this procedural stage, the High Court KBD referred a question to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling, in relation to the interpretation of Regulation 44/2001, as to whether the recognition and enforcement in the UK of the sentence imposed in Spain could be refused, due to the existence in the UK of an award and a subsequent judgment upholding it, the effects of which were irreconcilable with the Spanish judgment.

The CJEU ruled on 20 June 2022 that a judgment given by a court of one Member State (UK) on the terms of an arbitral award cannot prevent the recognition, in that Member State, of a decision given by a court of another Member State (Spain), where provisions or objectives of Regulation 44/2001 have been contravened.

Therefore, the English courts had indeed to recognise and enforce the said Order of Enforcement of the AP de A Coruña, since the arbitration award on the terms of which the English judgment was rendered would have infringed certain provisions of Regulation No 44/2001, namely (i) the effect of the arbitration clause inserted in an insurance contract since, according to the CJEU’s own case law, an agreement conferring jurisdiction concluded between an insurer and a policyholder cannot bind the person injured by the insured damage and (ii) the rules of lis pendens since, when the arbitration award was entered into, the insured person cannot be bound by the arbitration award, an agreement conferring jurisdiction concluded between an insurer and a policyholder cannot bind the person injured by the insured damage and (ii) the rules of lis pendens since when the arbitration proceedings were brought in the UK (16 January 2012), proceedings between the Spanish State and the Club were already pending before the Spanish courts. Therefore, in accordance with Article 27 of Regulation 44/2001, the English courts should have suspended the proceedings ex officio until the Spanish courts had declared themselves to have jurisdiction and, if they did so, as was the case, they should have declined jurisdiction in favour of the Spanish courts.

Following the preliminary ruling, the High Court KBD decided on 06 October 2023 on the appeal lodged by the Club:

i). That they were irreconcilable judgments, given that the English judgment declared that under the “pay to be paid” clause, as the shipowners had not paid any amount, the Club was not liable to Spain and the Spanish judgment maintains that the Club is liable to Spain. These positions cannot coexist and therefore, both judgments are irreconcilable and thus, in accordance with art. 34 of Regulation 44/2001, the Spanish judgment can neither be recognised nor enforced in England.

ii). The English judgment in line with the arbitral award is res judicata and as Regulation 44/2001 excludes arbitration from its regulation, the existence of potentially inconsistent decisions and lack of coordination with future arbitral awards is assumed by the Regulation. Furthermore, it understood that since the Regulation does not apply to arbitration, the English court’s decision to ratify the arbitral award did not alter the provisions of the European Regulation.

It also considers that the CJEU, in its ruling on the question referred for a preliminary ruling, exceeded the scope of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling, and purported to apply the law to the facts, which is outside its competence (reserved to the Member States). Considering that the CJEU had exceeded its powers, the High Court KBD considered that it was not bound by its decision.

In conclusion, we must remember that the interpretation issued by the CJEU is binding on the court that asked the question for a preliminary ruling, which may not, under any circumstances, depart from it or ignore it, either on its own initiative or because it is instructed to do so by a hierarchically superior court, and that in the future, this interpretation of the CJEU will be the one that will be applied in the EU. However, the English judgment may be seen as opening a small door to legal uncertainty if it allows a Member State to unilaterally consider that the CJEU has exceeded its powers and that its decision is therefore not binding on it, without prejudice to any liability it may incur for breach of Community law.

Read article…

ASETRABI counts on its collaborator, AIYON Lawyers, to analyse safety and efficiency in road transport

/in , , , /by

On 30 October, the Bizkaia Transport Business Association, ASETRABI, held a conference on efficient driving and load stowage, with speakers including our partner in Bilbao, Zuberoa Elorriaga, as well as Andoni Gortazar, representing the Institute for Load Safety (ISEC), among other professionals from the land transport sector. This is an entity with which our firm also collaborates.

As part of the interesting training sessions that ASETRABI is holding this autumn in Bilbao, all of them of great interest due to the topics covered (loading and stowage, driving efficiency, decarbonisation, alternative fuels, etc.), on this occasion AIYON Abogados has been involved to explain to the participants of the event the complexity of the tasks and actions related to loading and stowage on lorries, all from a legal point of view.

For her part, Zuberoa tried to convey to the listeners the legal vision of stevedoring offered by the applicable international and national regulations, as well as the jurisprudential interpretation made by Spanish judges of the different regulations, always assessed on a case-by-case basis. This is because the extensive experience accumulated by our firm in more than eight years of activity always offers our lawyers a direct contact with the problems, as well as with each of our clients. This allows us to have a very close, as well as practical, view of the problems experienced in the road transport sector from all angles (shippers, receivers, carriers, insurance, etc.), which enables us to provide an appropriate and personalised solution in each of the consultancy services we offer.

Read article…

The Relationship of Law with Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) on a Practical Level

/in /by

Currently, there is no doubt that artificial intelligence or AI is attracting a lot of attention from all sorts of professional sectors, public entities, private entities, media, as well as individuals who are mostly looking for answers to two questions; namely, what practical applications AI can have in their respective fields/economic sectors, and whether or not their own field, business or raison d’être is endangered by AI.

Not surprisingly, AI may represent a revolution in our society equal to or greater than the internet era; some are even talking about the next industrial revolution.

In principle, artificial intelligence is not seen as an end in itself, but as a means to serve as a catalyst for other sectors. While it is true that it will apply to virtually all sectors of economic activity, its impact could be more decisive in some than in others.

This short article is not intended to delve too deeply into issues of such calibre but rather to highlight the practicality of the AI available to us today in relation to the field of law and to see what its practical applications are today.

We have to be aware that behind the AI showcase, we are currently witnessing the latest, if not the first of many battles between the big technology companies with which we are, to a greater or lesser extent, in contact every day. Recall the battle for dominance of the personal computer market in the 1980s and early 1990s between Apple and Microsoft, or the battles for dominance of internet browsers (Google Chrome-Internet Explorer) or for “free” email (Hotmail-Gmail) in more recent times between Google and Microsoft.

Well, from a practical approach, it seems that the products leading the race would be: the search engine Bing with built-in AI as a chatbox from Microsoft (derived from its synergies with Open AI, creator of the famous ChatGPT) and Google Bard; although it is true that other companies such as Apple and Meta have already announced that they have been investing time and resources to offer their products with built-in AI, to compete in this sector.

It can already be said that AI chatboxes can be used as if they were a “co-pilot”, which receives our orders and can help a lawyer in their day-to-day work, with an assistance role generating content ranging, for example, from a draft of letters of complaint of all kinds, to a draft email accepting a complex assignment, to designing drafts of budgets, or comparing documents, among others. And all of this, of course, in any language there is.

No more searching for content with keywords and segmenting what we need using a traditional search engine – none of that. You simply give a command to your co-driver, such as, “write, compare, summarise, calculate, create, suggest, quote examples, design, etc.”, and wait for his or her response. And then, as a good driver, we will have to review and examine everything our co-pilot instructs us to do before making any decisions.

Whether we like it or not, the legal profession and all judicial activity in general (think of sending and receiving notifications, for example) will be affected by AI. Moreover, everything seems to indicate that highly automatable tasks may be replaced by AI and will be affected to a greater extent than those that are not; we are referring to those that are a tailor-made suit for the customer or the citizen.

Be that as it may, it is indisputable that the irruption of AI is already presenting a whole set of global challenges for any economic sector, public and private entities; from the impact on employment, to ethical and security concerns that would require a separate analysis.

We therefore believe, and dare to recommend, that all professional sectors, including the legal and transport sectors, should be prepared to face these challenges proactively.

AIYON Abogados Moves to New Office in Algeciras

/in , , , /by

AIYON Abogados recently gathered in Algeciras part of its team of eight professionals from its offices in Madrid, Bilbao, Cadiz and Algeciras to inaugurate its new location in Algeciras and to share with its customers in the Algeciras enclave the good news that always comes with the opening of new facilities and the incorporation of a new professional to the team, as is the case of Rocío López.

Along with local lawyers Jose Antonio Domínguez and Rocío López, the event was attended by partners Mikel Garteiz-goxeaskoa and Zuberoa Elorriaga, from the Bilbao office; Madrid partner Verónica Meana; and partner and head of Cádiz, Enrique Ortiz, with his colleague Pablo Sánchez.

José Antonio Domínguez, director of the Algeciras office, frames these new developments in the firm’s commitment to improve the service provided to its clients in the area of influence of the Port of Algeciras, among which are shipowners, insurance companies, inland hauliers, forwarding agents, shipping agents, logistics operators, stevedores, shippers and, in general, all types of companies dedicated to international trade and the transport of goods.

“The strategic importance of Algeciras, where our clients have a very important presence, justifies the growth of our team and the improvement of our facilities,” says José Antonio Domínguez, partner in charge of the office.

Algeciras, a strategic location
As one of the most important ports in Spain and located on one of the strategic routes for international trade, the Port of Algeciras is key both for North-South traffic, with an abundant flow of goods to and from Morocco on the various ro-ro shipping lines operating in the Strait of Gibraltar, and for East-West traffic on the major containerised goods traffic routes, being an important hub port.

Algeciras is, on the other hand, a very important bunker or bunkering port in the Mediterranean, with shipyards and an anchorage where ships can make provisions or carry out repairs of all kinds.

Read article…

AIJA is held in Athens (Greece) with one of our lawyers as speaker

/in , , , , , /by

As planned, the AIJA (International Association of Young Lawyers) Transport Seminar took place in Athens on 14-16 September.

It was a joint event in which the Arbitration Commission and the Public Procedure Commission also participated, bringing together more than 150 young international lawyers. Among them were our colleagues from AIYON Algeciras and AIYON Bilbao, Rocío López and Irantzu Sedano respectively. The latter is an active member of AIJA.

Both lawyers enjoyed six conferences dealing with relevant and topical issues in the transport sector, with the contribution of more than twenty professionals and experts in the field. Among them, the talk on “Blockchain”, “Double Twins” and Autonomous Transport, in which our colleague Irantzu Sedano actively participated as a speaker along with other colleagues from the association, deserves special mention.

In addition to the conferences and the work carried out by the commissions, the participants were also able to enjoy a wide range of leisure and local culture in their free time.

We would like to thank AIJA, and the entire organising committee of the event, for their work and dedication in carrying out this type of international event, which undoubtedly contributes to enriching greatly the transport sector and the professionals that make it up.

Practical Application of the Law on Late Payment in Land Transport (Law 13/2021)

/in , , /by

The partial amendment of the Land Transport Law for the purpose of combating late payment in the field of road freight transport by application of the content of Law 13/2021, of 1 October, arose, among other reasons, from the need to solve the problem of late payment of commercial transactions in Spain, which amounts, let us remember, to an average of 90 days and is therefore in breach of the European regulations applicable to these transactions.

With effect from 3 October 2021 and on the general basis that any agreement on payment terms longer than 60 days can be considered null and void, even in companies belonging to the same group, this law creates a new type of offence providing for penalties for those cases in which the legal maximum payment limit is not respected and therefore does not comply with the provisions of Law 13/2021 (article 4) and the Land Transport Law (article 140).

Having said that, we can currently state that this regulation is already having tangible practical consequences, as in Aiyon we have had several consultations related to administrative sanctioning proceedings initiated by the General Directorate of Land Transport against road transport companies, in their capacity as subcontractors of land transport with other effective carriers.

Thus, following inspections carried out locally by the Administration in certain land transport companies, it has been observed that their contractors did not pay the invoices issued for their services within this 60-day period, which is why the inspection has initiated infringement proceedings against the debtors, warning them of this breach of the applicable regulations.

Administrative sanctioning proceedings which, although they can be defended, do not leave much room for refuting the position of the administrative inspector since, when this legal limit is exceeded within the different parameters for calculating the sixty days, little can be said in defence of the debtor’s position.

The fact that there is an agreement, express or implied, between the two carriers involved to relax this time limit upwards, or that there is a prior dispute between shipper and contract carrier that prevents the contract carrier from charging for the carriage, which could be considered a reason to condition the payment of its service to the actual carrier, we do not consider these to be valid excuses in law to justify the use of a longer payment period.

Once the accounts of a transport company have been randomly inspected, or after a complaint by the creditor, the Directorate General for Land Transport will notify those companies that have paid invoices outside the legal deadline of the initiation of the corresponding sanctioning procedure against them, proposing penalties which, in our experience, have ranged between € 2, 001.00 and € 3,000.00  (depending on different factors such as the excess over 60 days, the number of invoices pending payment, etc.), being classified as very serious offences under the Land Transport Law.

In view of the above, it is important to remind operators of the importance of respecting this regulation and of always regularising outstanding payments to road hauliers within the non-mandatory legal deadline (60 days), establishing internally adequate measures to avoid being sanctioned now or in the future.

Read article…