Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The DisputeResolution
Review
Law Business Research
Third Edition
Editor
Richard Clark
Th
e Dispu
te Reso
lutio
n R
eview
Th
ird
Editio
n
LawBusinessResearch
LawBusinessResearch
The Official Research Partner of the International Bar Association
Strategic research partners of the ABA International section
ISBN: 978-1-907606-05-2
The Dispute Resolution Review
Reproduced with permission from Law Business Research Ltd.
This article was first published in The Dispute Resolution Review, Third Edition(published in April 2011 – editor Richard Clark).
For further information please [email protected]
PUBLISHER Gideon Roberton
BUSINESS DEVELOPmENT maNaGER adam Sargent
maRkETING maNaGERS Nick Barette
Hannah Thwaites
EDITORIaL aSSISTaNTS Nina Nowak Lydia Gerges
PRODUCTION maNaGER adam myers
PRODUCTION EDITOR kathryn Smuland
SUBEDITOR Davet Hyland Sarah morgan
EDITOR-IN-CHIEf Callum Campbell
maNaGING DIRECTOR Richard Davey
Published in the United kingdom by Law Business Research Ltd, London
87 Lancaster Road, London, W11 1QQ, Uk© 2011 Law Business Research Ltd
www.TheLawReviews.co.uk© Copyrights in individual chapters vest with the publisher and with the contributors.
No photocopying: copyright licences do not apply.The information provided in this publication is general and may not apply in a specific
situation. Legal advice should always be sought before taking any legal action based on the information provided. The publishers accept no responsibility for any acts or
omissions contained herein. although the information provided is accurate as of march 2011, be advised that this is a developing area.
Enquiries concerning reproduction should be sent to Law Business Research, at the address above. Enquiries concerning editorial content should be directed
to the Publisher – [email protected]
ISBN: 978-1-907606-05-2
Printed in Great Britain by Encompass Print Solutions, Derbyshire
Tel: +44 844 2480 112
ix
Editor’s Preface ................................................................................................ xvRichard Clark
Chapter 1 aRGENTINa.......................................................................... 1Martín Campbell
Chapter 2 aUSTRaLIa ......................................................................... 27Sergio Freire, Amanda Lees, Chris Goddard and Wen-Ts’ai Lim
Chapter 3 aUSTRIa .............................................................................. 53Christian Dorda and Felix Hörlsberger
Chapter 4 BELaRUS .............................................................................. 68Olga Grechko and Kira Bondareva
Chapter 5 BELGIUm ............................................................................. 85Geert Bogaert, Etienne Kairis and Aude Mahy
Chapter 6 BERmUDa ......................................................................... 106Kiernan Bell
Chapter 7 BRazIL ............................................................................... 116Marcus Fontes, Max Fontes and Júlia Elmôr
Chapter 8 BRITISH VIRGIN ISLaNDS ............................................ 134Eliot Simpson
Chapter 9 CaNaDa ............................................................................ 147William McNamara and Randy Sutton
Chapter 10 CaymaN ISLaNDS .......................................................... 163Katie Brown
CONTENTS
Contents
x
Chapter 11 CHILE ................................................................................. 185Enrique Urrutia and Julio Pellegrini
Chapter 12 CHINa ................................................................................ 196Xiao Wei, Zou Weining and Stanley Xing Wan
Chapter 13 COLOmBIa ....................................................................... 208Hugo Palacios Mejía and Oscar Tutasaura Castellanos
Chapter 14 CyPRUS .............................................................................. 221Nicos G Papaefstathiou
Chapter 15 CzECH REPUBLIC ........................................................... 232Jan Tomaier and Matúš Hanuliak
Chapter 16 ECUaDOR ......................................................................... 248Alejandro Ponce Martínez
Chapter 17 ENGLaND & WaLES ....................................................... 263Richard Clark and Damian Taylor
Chapter 18 fINLaND ........................................................................... 284Petteri Uoti and Johanna Jacobsson
Chapter 19 fRaNCE ............................................................................. 294Tim Portwood
Chapter 20 GERmaNy ......................................................................... 308Henning Bälz and Carsten van de Sande
Chapter 21 GREECE ............................................................................. 324Prokopis Dimitriadis
Chapter 22 GUERNSEy ........................................................................ 333Christian Hay and James Tee
xi
Chapter 23 HONG kONG .................................................................... 349Mark Hughes
Chapter 24 HUNGaRy ......................................................................... 366Zoltán Balázs Kovács and Dávid Kerpel
Chapter 25 INDIa.................................................................................. 381Raian Karanjawala and Manik Karanjawala
Chapter 26 INDONESIa ....................................................................... 403Pheo M Hutabarat
Chapter 27 IRELaND ............................................................................ 426Andy Lenny, Claire McGrade, Gareth Murphy and Sara Carpendale
Chapter 28 ISLE Of maN..................................................................... 439Christopher Cope, Fletcher Craine and Claire Collister
Chapter 29 ITaLy................................................................................... 456Monica Iacoviello, Vittorio Allavena and Andrea Carlevaris
Chapter 30 jaPaN ................................................................................. 479Hiroyuki Tezuka and Yutaro Kawabata
Chapter 31 jERSEy ................................................................................ 493Fraser Robertson and Davida Blackmore
Chapter 32 kOREa ................................................................................ 509Young Seok Lee and Sae Youn Kim
Chapter 33 LaTVIa ............................................................................... 521Dace Kalnmeiere
Chapter 34 LITHUaNIa ....................................................................... 532Ramunas Audzevicius, Tomas Samulevicius and Mantas Juozaitis
Contents
Contents
xii
Chapter 35 LUxEmBOURG ................................................................. 547Léon Gloden
Chapter 36 maLaySIa .......................................................................... 559Sylvia Cotter
Chapter 37 maURITIUS ....................................................................... 573Gilbert Noel
Chapter 38 mExICO ............................................................................. 583Miguel Angel Hernández-Romo Valencia
Chapter 39 NETHERLaNDS ................................................................ 597Ruud Hermans and Margriet de Boer
Chapter 40 NIGERIa ............................................................................. 616Babajide Ogundipe and Lateef Omoyemi Akangbe
Chapter 41 NORWay ............................................................................ 630Jan B Jansen
Chapter 42 PakISTaN .......................................................................... 643Ashtar Ausaf Ali, Ahmed Uzair and Zoya Chaudary
Chapter 43 PERU ................................................................................... 656Claudio C Cajina and Marcello Croci G
Chapter 44 POLaND ............................................................................. 666Justyna Szpara and Agnieszka Kocon
Chapter 45 PORTUGaL ........................................................................ 680João Maria Pimentel
Chapter 46 ROmaNIa .......................................................................... 692Levana Zigmund
Contents
xiii
Chapter 47 RUSSIa ................................................................................ 705Dmitry Dyakin and Alexander Vaneev
Chapter 48 SaUDI aRaBIa .................................................................. 715Mohammed Al-Ghamdi, John Lonsberg, Jonathan Sutcliffe and Sam Eversman
Chapter 49 SINGaPORE ....................................................................... 733 Thio Shen Yi, Karen Teo and Peter John Ladd
Chapter 50 SOUTH afRICa ................................................................ 747Gerhard Rudolph and Estelle Bester
Chapter 51 SPaIN .................................................................................. 772Esteban Astarloa
Chapter 52 SWEDEN ............................................................................ 792Jakob Ragnwaldh and Niklas Åstenius
Chapter 53 SWITzERLaND ................................................................. 801Daniel Hochstrasser
Chapter 54 TURkEy ............................................................................. 811Ziya Akinci and Cemile Demir Gokyayla
Chapter 55 UkRaINE ........................................................................... 825Oleksiy Didkovskiy, Andriy Pozhidayev and Yaroslav Petrov
Chapter 56 UNITED aRaB EmIRaTES .............................................. 835Bashir Ahmed
Chapter 57 UNITED STaTES ............................................................... 846Nina M Dillon and Timothy G Cameron
Appendix 1 aBOUT THE aUTHORS .................................................. 863
Appendix 2 CONTRIBUTING LaW fIRmS’ CONTaCT DETaILS ... 899
53
Chapter 3
austriaChristian Dorda and Felix Hörlsberger*�
* ChristianDordaisaseniorpartnerandFelixHörlsbergerajuniorpartneratDordaBruggerJordisrechtsanwälteGmbH.
I INTRODUCTION TO DISPUTE RESOLUTION FRAMEWORK
TheFederalrepublicofaustriaisacivillawcountry.austrianlawisthuscodifiedinstatutesandacts.TheGeneralCivilCode,theCommercialCodeandtheaustrianCodeonCivilProcedureaswellastheCompetenceCodearefederallaws.
incivillawmattersaustriahasathree-tiercourtsystem,structuredasfollows:a Forspecificdisputes,e.g.,disputesrelatingtotenancylaw,andfordisputeswith
anamountinquestionnotexceeding€10,000,districtcourtsarethefirstinstance,regionalcourtsthesecondinstanceand,providedtheamountindisputeexceeds€4,000andtheissuetobedealtwithisalegalquestionofmajorimportance,thesupremeCourtcanbeinvokedasthethirdinstance.
b Forallotherdisputestheregionalcourtsarethefirstinstance;secondinstanceisoneofthefourhighercourtsandthirdinstancethesupremeCourt,providedthelegalquestionisofmajorimportance.
inaddition,thereexistcourtsspecialisedonlabourmattersandoncommercialdisputes(to be precise, the Vienna Commercial Court and specialised benches at the otherregionalcourts).
inprinciple,decisionsofthefirstinstancearerenderedbyasinglejudge.Partiesmaydemandthatthreejudgesdecideacase,iftheamountindisputeexceeds€100,000,ademandmadequiterarely.However,threejudgesaredecidingonemploymentlawandsocialsecuritylawproceedings.
Thecourtsoffirstandsecondinstancedealwiththefacts,whereasthesupremeCourtdealsonlywithlegalquestions.Partiesareobligedtostatetheircaseinthefirstoralhearing,the ‘preparatoryhearing’.inthathearingthejudgewilldiscusswiththe
Austria
54
parties the programme for the proceedings. in an appeal, the parties are, in general,limitedtothefactualassertionsmadebeforethecourtoffirstinstance.
II THE YEAR IN REVIEW
i Impactofthefinancialcrisis(ingeneral)
Disputeresolutionpracticeshaveseentheimpactofthefinancialcrisisinrecentyearsglobally–austria isnoexception.Manycompanies andwealthy individuals sufferedsignificantlossesandarenowseekingcompensation.Therearemorethan12,000casespending at the Vienna Commercial Court alone, most of them directly connectedwith unsuccessful investments or business dealings. although additional judges wereappointedtotheViennaCommercialCourt,ajudgestillhastodealwithmorethan350cases,whichhasleadtoextendedwaitsbetweenhearings.
ii Informationtobeprovidedtoinvestors
Before the recentfinancial crisis themarket at theViennastockExchangewasquitebullish. some market players tried to take advantage of the active state of the stockexchange.togiveanexample,arathersmallaustrianprivatebankdevelopedastructurewherebythreecompaniescarryingitswell-knownbrandnamewereestablishedintheformofoff-shorecompanies(inJersey),thesharesofwhichwerelistedontheViennastock Exchange in the form of austrian depositary certificates (‘aDCs’). The aDCs,however,wereadvertisedandmarketed to small investorsas ‘sharecertificates’,underthepretenceofhighreturnsalthoughtheoff-shorecompanieshadenteredintohigh-pricedmanagementagreementswithsubsidiariesoftheprivatebankandintomarketmakeragreementsand licenceagreementswiththeprivatebank itself.as iscommonbusiness knowledge, companies loaded with high costs do not work well in a crisis.Thematter became evenmoredramaticwhen criminal chargeswerebrought againstthemanagersandeven theownerof theprivatebank that, inter alia,over-optimisticreportswithoutareasonablebasishadbeenlaunchedinad hocnotifications,whereas,inreality,theriseinpricesresultedfromsecretlybuyingbackaDCswithoutpreviouslyinformingthemarket.Wheninvestorsfinallyfoundoutwhathadhappened,thesharepriceslumpedandtheFinancialMarketauthority(‘theFMa’),togetherwiththepublicprosecutor,startedinvestigations.Thepenalmatterispending.Beforethecivilcourts,investors,however,weresuccessfultosomeextent:thesupremeCourtrecentlydecidedinaleadingcase1andintwosubsequentdecisions2thatproperinformationonfinancialproductsshallbegiventoinvestorsnotonlyintheprospectusbutalsoinadvertisementsoftheissuer,failingwhichinvestorsmaychallengethepurchaseagreementsonthebasisofhavingbeenprovidedwithmisleadinginformation.
Thus, not only issuers but also other market participants are well advised tocarefully avoid incomplete or misleading information, in particular in any kind of
1 austriansupremeCourt,20January2009,docketNo.4Ob188/08p.2 austriansupremeCourt,31august2009,docketNo.4Ob65/10b;austriansupremeCourt,
22september2010,docketNo.8Ob25/10z.
Austria
55
advertisement, and to even include risk sections in folders, presentations and otherinformationprovidedtoinvestors.
iii Directors’andofficers’liability
austria’s fourth largestbank,BaWaG,suffereda lossofabout€640million in1998and of another €400 to €500 million in 2002. Management decided to concealthese losses, allegedly inorder toavoidacrisis.When thecasewasfinallydiscoveredin2006,themanagementhadtofacecriminalchargesofhavingconcealedthelossesfromshareholdersandthebankingsupervisorbyaseriesofmanipulativetransactions.recently,thesupremeCourtconvictedtheformerCEOandhissuccessorforinfidelityof trust and falsification of the balance sheet in this regard; the decision of the firstinstancecourtwithregardtoallotheraccusedwaslifted.3anewtrialistobescheduledinthisregard.
Furthermore,BaWaG’ssoleshareholder,aninvestmentvehicleoftheaustriantradeunion,suedthe(meanwhiledefunct)boardmembersandthe(former)presidentoftheaustriantradeunionfordamages.underaustrianlawthemanagement,however,isliableformismanagementtowardsthecompanybutnotthecompany’sshareholderswhoaredeemedtosufferonly‘reflexdamage’.Withthatargument,theclaimwasdismissedbythelowerinstances,whereasthesupremeCourtrecentlyheldthatthetheoryofreflexdamageshallnotpreventthemanagementfrombecomingliabletowardstheshareholdersifactinginacriminalwayorwillinglycontra bonos mores.Ontheotherhand,thesupremeCourt followedmanagement’sargument thatanybenefit the shareholdersmayderivefrommanagement’sfraudulentactionsshallreducetheamountofthedamage.4
iv Squeeze-outinaninternationalcontext
underaustriancompanylawasqueeze-outofminorityshareholders(i.e.,shareholderswithasharenotexceeding10percent)ispossibleforfair-valuecompensationincash.Themainshareholderofanaustrianleadingbankappliedthisproceduretotheeffectthatthebankbecameawhollyownedsubsidiaryofanitalianparentcontrollingagroupoffinancialinstitutions.Minorityshareholderscontestedthecashcompensationasbeinginadequateandinitiatedproceedingsbeforetheaustriancourtgeographicallycompetentatthebank’splaceofincorporation.Thebank,however,raisedjurisdictionalobjectionsarguingthattheplaceofincorporationofthereceivingshareholder,theitalianparentcompany,shallberelevant.ThematterwastakentothesupremeCourt,5whichheldthataustriancourtsdohavejurisdiction.Thisisthefirstdecisioninaustriadealingwiththequestionwhethercontestingthecashcompensationinthecontextwithasqueeze-outcomeswithinthegeneralambitofarticle2(1)inconjunctionwitharticle60oftheBrusselsiregulationasapecuniaryclaim(inwhichcaseitaliancourtswouldbecompetent)orthespecialruleofarticle22No.2oftheBrusselsiregulation)asaclaimchallenging a shareholders’ resolution (inwhich caseaustrian courts are competent).
3 Mediainformationavailableatwww.ogh.gv.at/aktuelles/index.php?nav=18.4 austriansupremeCourt,23December2010,docketNo.8Ob6/10f.5 austriansupremeCourt,17February2010,docketNo.6Ob221/09g.
Austria
56
ThesupremeCourtheldthattheseproceedingsarefunctionallysimilartochallengingashareholders’resolution.
III COURT PROCEDURE
i Overviewofcourtprocedure
Therules for the jurisdictionof courts are set forth in theCompetenceCode.as tocross-bordercases,theinternationaljurisdictionofaustriancourtsisdeterminedbyEuregulationsandinternationalconventionswhichsupersedenational law.inparticular,thesearetheBrusselsiregulation6forgeneralcivilandcommercialmatters,theinsolvencyProceedingsregulation7forinsolvencymatters,theBrusselsiregulation8forfamilylawmattersandtheLuganoConvention(asrevised in2007) forcasesconcerningpartiesinEFtamemberstates.9Therulesof(contentious)civilprocedurethemselvesaresetforthbytheaustrianCodeonCivilProcedure,whichalsoprovidesthelegalframeworkforarbitrationproceedings.recently,thetraditionalcourtholidaysinsummer(15Julyto25august) andwinter (24December to7 January)havebeen removed from theCodetoaccelerateproceedings.alsoworthmentioningistheCourtOrganisationact,whichgovernstheinternaloperationsofthecourts,andtheactonNon-ContentiousProcedure,whichprovidesproceduralrulesforproceedingsinnon-contentiousmatterslikeadoption,alimonyorinheritance.
TheaustrianEnforcementactappliestotheenforcementofbothdomesticandinternationaljudgementsandarbitrationawardsinaustria.TherecognitionofforeignjudgementsisgovernedbyseveralEulaws,liketheBrusselsiandiiregulations,theLuganoConventionandbyanumberofbilateralandmultilateralenforcementtreatiesaustriahassignedinthepast.
a major change in austrian civil procedure was the introduction of the newinsolvencyCode,whichcameintoforceon20May2010.itreplacedthetraditionalbipolarsystemofbankruptcyandforcedrestructuringandaimstoeasetherestructuringofinsolventcompanies,insteadofclosingthemdown.
at Eu level, the strong activities of the previous years slowed down, givingpractitionersandscholarsthechancetoworkwithandelaborateontheextensivesetofnewrulesthathavebeenintroducedinrecentyears.
ii Proceduresandtimeframes
Normally,civilactionsstartwithfilingacomplaint.Theclaimanthastodemonstratethecourt’sjurisdiction,thefactssupportingtheclaim,arequestforaspecificreliefandanindexoftheevidencesupportingtheclaim.incaseswhereexclusivelymonetaryreliefnotexceeding€75,000issoughtagainstadomesticdefendant,astandardisedprocedure
6 regulation44/2001of22December2000.7 regulation1346/2000of29May2000.8 regulation2201/2003of27November2003.9 revisedConventiononjurisdictionandtherecognitionandenforcementofjudgmentsincivil
andcommercialmattersof30October2007.
Austria
57
mustbeused.againstdefendantsresidinginanotherMemberstate,claimantscanuse,foranyamountclaimed,thestandardclaimformsprovidedbytheEuropeanPaymentProcedureregulation10 and, for claimsof up to€2,000, theEuropeansmallClaimsProcedure.11 it should be noted that austria has concentrated the jurisdiction for allEuropeansmallclaimsattheViennaDistrictCourtforCommercialMatters.
uponserviceofthecomplaintbythecourt,thedefendantmayfileananswertothecomplaintwithinfourweeks.intheanswer,thedefendantmayreplytothefactualandlegalallegationsinthecomplaint,include(affirmative)defences,providealistoftheevidencesupportingitscaseandarequestforrelief.achallengeofthecourt’sjurisdictionshallberaisedalreadyintheanswer.afterthecourthasreceivedthedefendant’sanswer,itsetsadateforanoralhearingandusuallyordersthepartiestoexchangeanotherroundofwrittenpleadingstopreparethefirsthearing.Thesepreparatorypleadingsmustreachthe court and theopponentoneweekbefore thehearing,unless the court grants anextension.
Thejudgewillthendiscussthesubstantiveandlegalallegationswiththepartiesinthefirstoralhearing,soundoutapotentialsettlementand,ifthatfails,establishaplanforthefurtherconductoftheproceedings.inordertosensiblyattemptapossiblesettlement,thepartyoraninformedrepresentativeofthepartymustattendthefirstoralhearing.
afterthetrialhasstarted,thepartiesmayorallyintroducenewfactualallegationsand evidence until the close of proceedings. However, the court may reject belatedsubmissionsex officiooruponaparty’srequestifitconcludesthattheywereintroducedtoolateduetogrossnegligenceoriftheiradmissionwouldgreatlydelaytheproceedings.
Whereaslegalargumentsareusuallyexchangedinwriting,evidenceistakenduringtheoralhearing.TheaustrianCodeonCivilProcedureprovidesadetailedframeworkforthetestimonyoflayandexpertwitnessesandtheparties,thesubmissionofdocumentaryevidence, expert reports, the inspection of objects and on-site inspection. While thepartiesmaynotbeforcedtotestifyincourt,witnessesoffactareobligedtogivetheirtestimonyandtotellthetruth.asuntruthfulunsworntestimonyofwitnessesalreadyqualifiesasperjury,asworntestimonyofwitnessesisrare.Writtenwitnessstatementsarenotadmissibleinregularcivilcourtproceedingsinaustria.
Expertwitnessesareemployedbythecourtandnotbytheparties;nevertheless,thelatterhavetobearthecosts.
assoonasallnecessaryevidencehasbeentaken,theproceedingsareclosed.ingeneral,unlikeincommonlawcountries,elaboratedoralopeningorclosingstatementsarenotcustomarybeforeaustriancivilcourts.
althoughtheaustrianCodeonCivilProcedureallowsfortheoralpromulgationof judgements, decisions, in practice, are rendered in writing. Despite the rule thatjudgmentsshallbeissuedwithinfourweeksupontheclosureoftheproceedings,itismorerealistictoexpectthemwithinthreetosixmonths,dependingonthecomplexityofthecase.Thejudicialsystemhasbeenreformedrepeatedlyinthepastyearstodecrease
10 regulation1896/2006of12December2006.11 regulation861/2007of11July2007.
Austria
58
the workload and to allow for faster decision-making; whether this can be achieved,however, remains tobe seen.according to a surveyundertaken in January2009,onaverage45percentof theproceedingsbroughtbefore theaustriancourtsended (byjudgment,settlementorotherwise)withinsixmonths;32percentlasteduptooneyear;17percentlastedbetweenoneandtwoyears;4percenttookbetweentwoandthreeyears;andonly2percentcontinuedforlongerthanthreeyears.
With regard todecision-making, judges arenotboundby any formal rulesofevidence. after carefully considering the outcome of the entire proceedings and thetakingofevidence,itliesatthediscretionofthejudgewhetheranallegedfactisheldtobetrueornot.Thecourthastoexercisethesamediscretionifpartieshaverefusedto answer questions. Circumstances and considerations that have affected the court’sopinioninacrucialwaymustbereflectedinthereasoningofthejudgment.
TheactonNon-ContentiousProceduregives the judgemore influence inthecollectionofevidenceanddiffers inmanyways fromgeneralcivilprocedure.Withinthat framework,acasedoesnot startwithacomplaint,butwithanapplication,andproceedingsarelessformal.
TheaustrianCodeonCivilProcedureprovidesasetofdifferenturgentorinterimapplications.Thepreservationof evidence (i.e., on-site inspection,witness testimony,experttestimony)mayberequestedpriortoandduringanystageoftheproceedings,ifotherwisetheevidencewillbelostoritstakinghamperedortherequestingpartyhasarighttohaveanobject’scurrentstatusdetermined.
interim measures may be granted upon a party’s request pursuant to theEnforcementact.Theirpurposeistosecure(1)monetaryclaims,(2)otherindividualclaims(e.g.,claimsforperformanceortoceaseanddesist)or(3)thepersonalsphereof the applicant (e.g., against imminent thread or violence among family members).interimmeasuresmayberequestedbeforeortogetherwiththefilingofacomplaintorwhiletheproceedingsarepending.
acourtmayissueaninterimmeasureinordertosecureamonetaryclaimifitislikelythatthedefendantwouldpreventorendangertheenforcementofalaterjudgmentthroughthedestruction,concealmentortransferofassets.suchameasuremayalsobegrantedintheeventthatalaterjudgmentwouldneedtobeenforcedincountriesthatneithersignedtheBrusselsnortheLuganoConvention.
tosecureotherindividualclaims,courtsmayissueaninterimmeasure,ifthelackofsuchinjunctionwouldendangertheobjectiveoftheenforcementorthepursuanceofthebasicclaim,whichincludesthenecessitytoenforcethelaterjudgementinstatesthatdidnotsigntheConventions.acourtmayalsoorderaninterimmeasuretoprotecttheapplicantfromimminentviolenceortheimminentdangerofirrecoverabledamage.Generally, for interimmeasures tobegranted, theunderlyingclaimhas tobeallegedandsufficientlyverified,andthemeasuremustnotcreateirrevocablesituations.interimmeasuresmay includecourtorders, the freezingofbankaccounts, attachmentof thedefendant’sassets,prohibitionsforthirdpartiestotransferfundstothedefendantortheseizureoradministrationofphysicalobjectsorbusinesses.
inaustria,thegenerallimitationperiodis30years.However,manyclaimsaretime-barredafterthreeyears,inparticularclaimsforrentandleaseholdpayments,foremployees’salariesandforaccountreceivables,forexample,resultingfromgoodsdeliveredorworksperformed.Damageclaimsbasedoncontractortortlawalsoexpireafterthree
Austria
59
years; theperiod,however,doesnot startbefore the injuredpartyhasdiscovered thedamage and the identity of the offender. if either the damage or the offender is notdiscoveredor identified,or if the injury is the resultof felony, thegeneral limitationperiodof30yearsapplies.afteracomplainthasbeenfiledwiththecourt,theperiodoflimitationisbeingsuspended.
iii Classactions
Therearenoformsofclassactionsavailableinaustriathatcouldbeconsideredequaltothoseincommon-lawcountries.Yettherearecomparableformsofcollectiveaction.acollectiveclaimant–typicallyanindependentorganisationlikeaconsumerorganisation–maycollectandaccumulate individualclaimsandbringa suit in theorganisation’sownname,butintheinterestofallparticipants.aftertheproceedingsareconcluded,the secured damages or assets are distributed among the participants. This form ofcollectiveactionisnotdirectlysetforthintheaustrianCodeonCivilProcedure,butwasestablishedbyarulingofthesupremeCourtin2005.12accordingtothejudgment,claimsmustbefoundedonmateriallysimilarlegalgroundsandthemainissueoftheproceedingsmustrelatetothesamefactualorlegalquestions.13
anotherformofcollectiveactionisexplicitlysetforthintheConsumerProtectionact. Certain interest groups like the Federal Chamber of Labour or the associationforConsumer informationmaybring anaction in theirownname for the commonbenefit.Theymayonlyrequestacease-and-desistorderagainstanentitythat(1)usesorrecommendsstandardtermsandconditionsinitsbusinesstransactionsthatviolatetheprinciplesofbonos mores, or (2)usesunfairpractices in advertising. if the actionis successful, thecompanymustnotusethe incriminatedprovisionsorengage intheunfairpracticeinthefutureandmustnotinvoketheincriminatedprovisionsinexistingcontractswithconsumers.Eventhoughsuchjudgmentsareonlyenforceableinterpartes,they have shown far-reaching effect as to business practices in business-to-consumermarketsliketelecommunicationsorbankservices.
iv Representationinproceedings
as togeneralandcontentiouscivilproceedings,partiesneed tobe representedbyanattorneybeforeallcourtsandinalltypesofproceedingsiftheamountindisputeexceeds€5,000.Thelawdoesnotdifferbetweennaturalpersonsandlegalentities.
For specificmatters fallingwithin thedistrictcourts’ exclusive jurisdiction, forexampleinterferencewithpossession,apartymayrepresentitselfincourtproceedingsevenwheretheamountindisputeisabovethisthreshold.
v Serviceoutofthejurisdiction
regardless of whether a natural person or a legal entity is served, service abroad isprincipallyperformed(1)inaccordancewithbilateralandmultilateraltreatiestowhichaustria isasignatory,(2)throughtheaustrianconsulatesandembassies, ifnecessary,
12 austriansupremeCourt,21august2003,docketNo.4Ob116/05w.13 austriansupremeCourt,14July2010,docketNo.7Ob127/10t.
Austria
60
pursuanttotheregulationsofthestateinwhichserviceistobeperformedor(3)onthebasisofinternationalusages.
incivilandcommercialmatters,serviceofjudicialandextrajudicialdocumentsis performedwithin allEuMemberstates in accordancewith theEuropeanserviceregulation.14 The service regulation derogates all bilateral treaties for the service ofdocumentsincivilandcommercialproceedingsconcludedbetweenaustriaandotherEuMemberstates,exceptforthebilateraltreatyof6June1959betweenaustriaandGermany,whichfurthereasestherequirementsforservice.
allaustriancourtsactas‘transmittingauthorities’tobedesignatedinaccordancewitharticle2oftheserviceregulation.The‘centralbody’tobedesignatedpursuanttoarticle3oftheserviceregulationistheaustrianMinistryofJustice.asopposedtoservicethroughembassiesandconsulates(article13oftheserviceregulation),whichisadmissibleinaustriaaswell,directservicebyjudicialofficers,officialsorothercompetentpersonsisnotpossible.Forothercountries,theHagueCivilProcedureConventionsof1954mayapply.austriaisnotasignatoryoftheHagueserviceConventionof1965.
vi Enforcementofforeignjudgments
toenforceaforeignjudgmentinaustria,ithastobedeclaredenforceablebyanaustriancourt. The court examines whether two preconditions are met: First, the judgmentmustbeenforceable inthecountrywhere itwasrenderedand,second,reciprocityofenforcementmustbeensuredbyatreaty.WithintheEu,theenforcementprocedureisgovernedbytheBrusselsiregulationandtheBrusselsiiregulation.inrelationtoEFtamemberstates,theLuganoConventionapplies.austriahasalsosignednumerousbilateralandmultilateralenforcementagreements.
vii Assistancetoforeigncourts
according to theaustrianCodeonCivilProcedure legal assistance to foreign courtsshallbe renderedupon their request,unless treatiesor regulationsprovideotherwise.LegalassistanceisrenderedpursuanttotheHagueConventiononCivilProcedureof1954.assistancewillonlybedeniediftheactionrequiredisprohibitedinaustriaoriftheactionrequestedbytheforeigncourtisnotajudicialmatterpursuanttoaustrianlaw.inthelattercase,however,thecourtmaytransfertherequestforlegalassistancetothe relevant administrative authority. The legal assistance requested shall be renderedpursuanttothelawapplicableatthesiteoftherequestedcourt.Therequestedcourtshallex officioconductallarrangementsnecessaryfortheperformanceofthelegalassistanceandmaythereforedivergefromnationallawonlyifsospecificallyrequested,andonlytotheextentas it is requiredtoapplytheforeign lawanddoesnotappeartoviolatenationallaw.
alsoworthmentioningistheEuropeanEvidenceregulation.15Forrenderinglegalassistanceunderthisregulation,theaustriandistrictcourtsarethecompetentcourts.The
14 regulation1393/2007of13November2007ontheserviceintheMemberstatesofjudicialandextrajudicialdocumentsincivilorcommercialmatters.
15 regulation1206/2001of28May2001.
Austria
61
‘centralbody’accordingtoarticle3oftheEvidenceregulationistheaustrianMinistryofJustice.representativesoftherequestingcourtmaybepresentduringthetakingofevidenceby the requestedcourt (article12of theEvidenceregulation); this right isalsograntedtorepresentativesofnon-EuMemberstates.TheforeignrequestingcourtitselfmayonlytakeevidenceinaustriawiththepermissionoftheMinistryofJustice(article17oftheEvidenceregulation).However,theMinistryofJustice’spermissionisnotnecessaryforanyfactfindingorexaminationbyforeignexperts.austriaisnotasignatorytotheHagueEvidenceConvention.16
viii Accesstocourtfiles
Thepartiestoongoingproceedingshaveaccesstoandmaycopytheentirecourtfilewiththeexceptionofdraftjudgmentsanddecisionsandprotocolsonthevotesofthejudges.Thecosts forcopyingcourtdocumentshavestrongly increasedinrecentyearsduetopublicbudgetnecessities;partieshave topaya feeof€1 foreachcopiedpage.Thirdpartiesmayaccesscourtfilesofongoingproceedingsandcopythedocumentsonlywithpermissionofthepartiestotheproceedings.intheabsenceoftheparties’permission,thisrightmaybegrantedtoathirdpartyonlyif,andtotheextentthat,thethirdpartyisabletoproveitslegalinterestinthefile.Ontheotherhand,oralcourthearingsareopentothegeneralpublic.Thepublicmayonlybebannedfromthehearingincertainsituations,namely,ifthereisaconcernregardingtheendangermentof bonos moresorpublicorder,orifthepublicaccesstotheoralhearingisabused.Thecourtthenmayordertheexclusionofthepublicex officio.uponaparty’srequest,thepublicmayalsobeexcludedif familymattersaresettobediscussedbeforecourtor ifbusiness, tradeorofficialsecretswouldbeendangeredbythepublic’spresence.Judgmentsofallcivil,criminal and administrative proceedings that have been completed are collected in asearchable online database17. The database also contains all decisions of the supremeCourt,butonlyselecteddecisionsoftheminorcourts.astonon-publisheddecisionsandthecontentofcourtfilesoncompletedproceedings,thesamerulesasforongoingproceedingsapply.
ix Litigationfunding
Thefundingoflegalactionsbythird-partyfinanciersisrathernewtoaustrianlitigation.The market for such services has emerged and steadily increased over the past years.Lately,thecompaniesofferinglitigationfundingwereheavilyinvolvedinclassactionsbyprivateinvestorsagainstbanksandinvestmentconsultantsinconnectionwithlossesduetoallegedmisconductbeforeandduringthefinancialcrisis.
underatypicalfinanceagreement,thefinancierwillincurtheriskofcostsandexpensesof aparty to the litigation in return for thepartypromising thefinancier apercentage of the compensation awarded should theparty prevail in theproceedings(de facto,acontingencyfeeagreement).Thepercentageiscontractuallyfixedinadvance
16 TheConventionon thetakingofEvidenceabroad inCivil orCommercialMatters of 18March1979.
17 http://ris.bka.gv.at/Judikatur/.
Austria
62
between thefinancierand theparty, anddependson theparty’sprospectsof success,thedurationoftheproceedings,theamountclaimedandthefinancialstrengthoftheopposingparty.Priortofinancingtherespectivelitigation,thethird-partyfinancierwillcarefullyassess theclaims indispute.Third-partyfinancierswillusuallynot interveneintheproceedings,recommendaspecificrepresentativetoapartyorprovideanylegaladvicetothelatter.attorneys,ontheotherhand,areprohibitedbyaustrianlawfromactingonthebasisofastrictcontingencyfee;anyprovisioninacontractstipulatingsuchanagreementisconsideredvoid.
IV LEGAL PRACTICE
i ConflictsofinterestandChinesewalls
attorneys are not allowed to give, at any time, advice or represent a party if theypreviouslyrepresentedtheopponentoractedasa judgeorapublicprosecutorinthesameorarelatedmatter.Ontheotherhand,eveninanunrelatedmatter,theymustnotsimultaneouslyrepresenttheopponentside,andacooling-offperiodshallbeobserved.Theseethicalrulesalsoapplytoattorneysbelongingtothesamelawfirm.Thus,formalprocedureslike‘Chinesewalls’withinthelawfirmarenotatrulyviablesolutionwhencontradictoryinterestsprevailinthemattersathand.
inaccordancewiththerulesofprofessionalconduct,anattorney isobligedtocarefully review all financial or real estate transactions performed on account of theclient.Furthermore,anattorneymustemployappropriatestrategiesandproceduresinordertofulfilthedutyofcarewithrespecttotheidentificationofparties,thenotificationofsuspiciousincidents,thesafekeepingofrecords,internalmonitoring,assessmentandmanagement of risks, as well as assurance that the relevant regulations are compliedwith.
ii Moneylaundering,proceedsofcrimeandfundsrelatedtoterrorism
attorneys have to apply the above strategies and procedures in order to prevent andobviateanytransactionsrelatingtomoneylaunderingorthefinancingofterrorism.intheeventasuspicioustransactionshowsup,anattorneymust(1)complywithcertainenhancedobligationsofresearchandmonitoring,(2)discontinuethetransactionand(3)notifytheauthoritiesasnecessary.
iii Otherareasofinterest
Duetobudgetcuts,thelengthofthejudicialclerkship,whichisamandatorypartofanattorney’straininginaustria,willbereducedfromninetofivemonthsasof2012.Thus,associateswillthenhavetospendanotherfourmonthsoftrainingeitherinlawfirmsorlegaldepartmentsofprivateenterprises.
Austria
63
V DOCUMENTS AND THE PROTECTION OF PRIVILEGE
The issues relating to documents, electronic discovery and privilege are similareverywhere. This provides an opportunity to discuss how each jurisdiction is dealingwiththeseissues.
i Privilege
TheaustrianCodeonCivilProceduresetsforththatanattorneyisentitledtorefusetoreveal informationprovidedtotheattorneybytheclient.CorrespondingrulescanbefoundintheaustrianCodeonCriminalProcedureandintherulesofProfessionalConductforattorneys.Theseprovisions,knownastheattorney-clientprivilege,includeallmattersthatbecomeknowntotheattorneyduringtheperiodofhisorhermandatefortheclient.Bythesametoken,theprivilegebecomesanobligationoftheattorneywhentheconfidentialtreatmentofsuchfactsisintheclient’sinterest.astoanin-housecounsel,nosimilarprivilegeexistsundercurrentlaw.
The privilege may lapse if the attorney is suspected to have taken part in thecriminalactionofhisorherclients.Theattorney’srighttorefusetestimonyasembeddedintheaustrianCodeofCivilProcedureandtheaustrianCodeonCriminalProcedurealso applies to foreign attorneys. However, foreign attorneys will be subject to theirrespectivenationalrulesofprofessionalconduct.
ii Productionofdocuments
inaustria,discoveryproceduressensu strictoofcommonlawjurisdictionsarenotavailable.Courtordersfortheproductionofdocumentsarerareandmayonlyberequestedonthebasisofaquiterestrictiveframework.Generally,apartymayonlybeorderedtosubmitdocumentsasevidencetothecourtif it isprobablethattheotherpartypossessesthedocumentationinquestion,andifthepartycontendsthatthedocumentsinquestionarerelevantforitscase.Thesubmissioncannotberejectedifthedocumentsfallintooneofthefollowingthreecategories:(1)thepossessingpartyitselfspecificallyreferredtothedocumenttosupportitsownallegations;(2)thepartyisobligedbysubstantivecivillawtodeliverthedocumenttotherequestingparty;or(3)thedocumentwasdrawnupintheparties’jointinterest,certifiestheirmutuallegalrelationshiporrecordstheparties’statementsinthecourseofthenegotiationregardingalegalact.
as austrian provisions on civil procedure do not include any formal rules ofevidence,butratherissubjecttothediscretionofthejudge,afullandformaldefinitionof‘relevance’isnotprovidedbylaw.rather,evidenceshallbe‘material’tothedisputeonhand.
Documentation stored overseas could be argued to be ‘in possession’ of theotherparty, therefore it isnotunthinkable that a courtwould request access to suchdocumentationvia legal assistance through foreigncourts,on thebasisofoneof theinternational treaties. However, in austrian civil court proceedings such requests ororderswouldbeconsideredhighlyunusual.
athirdpartymayberequestedtoproducespecificdocumentsintheeventthatsuchdocumentationisheldbyathirdpartyand(1)thethirdpartyisunderanobligationbasedonsubstantivecivillawtodelivertherequesteddocumentor(2)thedocument
Austria
64
wasdrawnupinthejointinterestoftherequestingandthethirdparty,certifiestheirmutual legal relationshipor records their statements in the courseof thenegotiationregardingalegalact.
VI ALTERNATIVES TO LITIGATION
i Overviewofalternativestolitigation
inaustriaarbitration,bywell established tradition, is thealternative formofdisputeresolution.Onaglobal scale,Vienna isa leadingvenue for internationalcommercialarbitration.sometimespartiesmayrelyonexpertdetermination,inparticularintechnicalmatters.Mediation,unlessfamilylawmattersareconcerned,arerarelyused,andthenratherasapre-arbitrationmechanismoranexitto‘hung’adversarialproceedings.
ii Arbitration
austrianarbitrationlawcoversbothdomesticandinternationalarbitrationproceedings.On1July2006,theamendmentofaustria’sarbitrationlaw,18incorporatedintheaustrianCodeofCivilProcedure19enteredintoforce(the2006austrianarbitrationCode–‘theaaC’20). it follows theuNCitraLModelLawand thusallows theparties to freelydeterminetheproceduralrulesofarbitration.inthisrespect,referencewillbeusuallymadetoestablishedarbitrationrules(inparticulartheuNCitraLarbitrationrules,asrecentlyrevisedin201021),therulesoftheiCCinternationalCourtofarbitration22ortherulesofarbitrationandConciliationoftheViennainternationalarbitralCentre(‘the ViaC’, ‘the Vienna rules’23). Otherwise the arbitral tribunal will conduct theproceedingsinsuchmannerasitconsidersappropriateandsetforthoptionallybytheaaC.Thefewmandatoryprovisionsof theaaCwarrant thatapartywillbe treatedfairlyandwillreceivefullopportunitytopresentitscase.24recently,thesupremeCourt,however,highlightedtheimportanceofanoralhearing:inlinewiththeuNCitraLmodel law,when thepartieshavenot agreed to excludeanoralhearing, thearbitraltribunal,pursuanttosection598aaC,shalluponthemotionofapartyholdanoralhearing.Nottocomplywithsucharequestamountstotheviolationofevenpublicorderandthusresultsinthesetting-asideoftheaward.25
18 FederalGazettei17/2006.19 sections577to618.20 see www.internationales-schiedsgericht.at/images/stories/documents/en/New_Code_of_
Civil_Procedure.pdf.21 see www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/arb-rules-revised/arb-rules-revised-2010-
e.pdf.22 seewww.iccwbo.org/uploadedFiles/Court/arbitration/other/rules_arb_english.pdf.23 see www.internationales-schiedsgericht.at/images/stories/documents/en/ViaC_arbitration_
rules_2006_1.pdf.24 section594(2)oftheaaC.25 austriansupremeCourt,30June2010,docketNo.7Ob111/10i.
Austria
65
Pursuant to the aaC,26 the arbitration agreement must be in writing, eithercontainedinasigneddocumentoranexchangeofletters,facsimiles,e-mailsandotherformsofcommunicationwhichensurearecordoftheagreement.intheircontracttheparties may refer to a document containing the arbitration clause, provided that thereferenceissuchthatitrendersthearbitrationagreementapartofthecontract.additionalstrictrequirementsmustbeobservedifanemployeeoraconsumerisinvolved27.
in linewith theuNCitraLModelLaw, three arbitrators shallbe appointedunlessotherwisedeterminedbytheparties.inanycase,thenumberofarbitratorsmustbeoddand,inthenegative,mustbecomplementedbyselectinganadditionalarbitratorasthechairmanofthepanel.
ifthepartieshavenotagreedontheplaceofarbitrationorthelanguage,itisforthearbitraltribunaltodecide.
statecourtsmayinterveneonlyifprovidedforintheaaC.typically,apartymayturntothestatecourtifitschallengeofanarbitratorwasnotsuccessfulorifitsadversaryfailstoappointanarbitratorinaccordancewiththeagreedappointmentmechanism.inmultipartyproceedings, ifco-claimantsorco-respondentsareunder theobligationtojointlyappointanarbitrator,themissingappointmentwillbemadebythestatecourt,without,however,substitutingalsotheothermembersofthetribunal(asdistinctfromtheuNCitraLModellaw28).
interimmeasures, likeinmostjurisdictions,canberequestedeitherbeforethestatecourtor(providedthepartiesdidnotagreeotherwise)beforethearbitraltribunal.29DistinctfromthemoreliberalregimeoftheuNCitraLModelLaw,suchprotectivemeasurescannotbegrantedex parteandmayonlyextendtoanother‘party’.
arbitralawardsrenderedundertheaaChavethesameeffectbetweenthepartiesasafinalandbindingjudgementofastatecourt.recourseisonlypossiblebywayofsetting-asideproceedings,30whichmustbeinitiatedwithinthreemonthsasofthedateoftheserviceoftheawardonthePartytakingrecourse.Thegroundsforsettingasideanawardcorrespondwitharticle34oftheuNCitraLModelLaw.asaconsequence,anawardcannotbeappealedonthemerits(unlessbasicallyinconflictwithpublicpolicy).
Foreignarbitralawardscanbeenforcedinaustria.Theyneedtoberecognisedor declared enforceable pursuant to the provisions of the austrian Enforcement act.However, this can be more easily achieved on the basis of international conventionsaustria is aparty to, inparticular, the1958NewYorkConvention (‘theNYC’), the1927GenevaConvention, the1961EuropeanConventionor the1965WashingtonConvention.WhenenforcingaforeignawardundertheNYC,theoriginaloracertifiedcopy of the arbitration agreement needs to be presented only if the state court sorequests.31
26 section583oftheaaC.27 sections617,618oftheaaC.28 article10(3)uNCitraLarbitrationrules(asamended2010).29 section593oftheaaC.30 section611oftheaaC.31 section614(2)oftheaaC.
Austria
66
interim and protective measures of an arbitral tribunal are not put on a levelwith an award and, thus, cannot be enforced on the basis of the NYC. The aaC,however,separatelyaddressestheenforcementand,ifthespecificmeasureofprotectionisunknowntoaustrianlaw,thestatecourtmayexecutesuchmeasurethatcomesclosesttothemeasureofthetribunal.32
When the arbitration agreement is entered into by a proxy agent, the powershallbeinwritingandexpresslymentionarbitralproceedings.ifaproxyisinadequate,theadversarialparty,however,maynotinvokesuchadeficiencyandthuscannotbasejurisdictionalobjectionsthereon.33Moreover,thesupremeCourtheldinanothercase34thatanarbitrationclausethathadbeenenteredintoonthebasisofaninadequateproxyshallberemediedretroactivelywhentherequestforarbitrationismadebyanauthorisedproxyholder(anattorney-at-law,inthecaseathand).
inmanyinternationalcommercialmatterspartiesagreeontherulesoftheiCCinternationalCourtofarbitration,choosingVienna,austria,astheseatofarbitration.alternatively,theViennarulesoftheViaC,asamendedandadaptedtotheaaCin2006,arefrequentlyselected,inparticularwhenabusinessrelationshipwiththeCEEregionisconcerned.Themostrecentfigures fornewrequestsfiledwiththeViaCorthe iCC Court and going to Vienna as the place of arbitration continue to show arespectableincreaseyearafteryear.Thereexistvariouscentresandinstallationsthatcancomfortablyhostevenlargearbitralproceedings.
ifaconsumer(inthemeaningofConsumerProtectionact)isinvolved,certainrestrictionsapplythatshouldbeclarifiedintheindividualcasebyaustrianlegalcounsel.WhenitcomestoenforcementthesupremeCourt35,however,heldthatadefendant,whoraisedjurisdictionalobjectionsbasedonaustrianmandatoryconsumerprotectiononlybelatedlyinthearbitralproceedings,maynotinvokearticleV(1)(a)and(c)oftheNYC.ThesupremeCourtaddedthataviolationofconsumerrelatedprovisionsmightamounttoaviolationofaustrianpublicpolicy,butthatanagreementtoarbitratedoesnot per seviolatesuchbasicprinciplesofaustrianlaw.
iii Mediation
Distinct from other jurisdictions (e.g., Germany), the austria legislator has enacteda specific law, the2004LawonCivilMediation.36 it laysdowntherequirements forenlisting as an ‘accredited mediator’ and the rights and duties of such persons whenconductingmediationproceedings.Yettoactuallymediateinadisputeisnotreservedforaccreditedpersons.inparticular,austrianattorneys-at-lawarecalledinasmediatorsincommercialmatters.Thestatuteoflimitations,however,shallbesuspendedduringmediation proceedings only when conducted by an accredited mediator. in general,mediation isoptional,notobligatory.Yet, inacivilproceedingbeforea statecourtajudge,whendeemingmediationappropriateinthecontextwithapossiblesettlement,
32 section593(3)oftheaCC.33 austriansupremeCourt,6November2008,docketNo.6Ob194/08k.34 austriansupremeCourt,16December2009,docketNo.7Ob208/09b.35 austriansupremeCourt,22July2009,docketNo.3Ob144/09m.36 FederalGazetteiNo29/2003.
863
Christian DorDaDorda Brugger Jordis Rechtsanwälte GmbHChristian Dorda is founding partner of Dorda Brugger Jordis. He specialises in M&A-related arbitration matters. Having served as a member of the ICC International Court of Arbitration (2006 to 2009), he is now vice chairman of the ICC Austria. He is a member of the Austrian Arbitration Association and the Swiss Arbitration Association. He is active on the board of trustees of the American Chamber of Commerce in Austria and is the permanent legal counsel to the French-Austrian Chamber of Commerce. He is also past chairman of the M&A commission of the Union Internationale des Avocats. Christian Dorda is regularly sought after as a chairman, sole arbitrator, party-appointed arbitrator and counsel in both international and domestic commercial disputes. As a mediator, he was involved in settling a major dispute relating to Austria’s highway toll collection system. Christian Dorda regularly publishes in the field of international arbitration and corporate law. He is fluent in German, English and French.
Felix hörlsbergerDorda Brugger Jordis Rechtsanwälte GmbHFelix Hörlsberger is partner of Dorda Brugger Jordis. He specialises in insurance law and litigation, in particular with regard to directors’ and officers’ (‘D&O’) insurance as well as data protection law. He is a founding member and vice president of the YACLA (Young Austrian Commercial Litigation Association). Felix Hörlsberger is the author of numerous expert publications in the field of data protection, insurance, corporate and banking law. He also lectures at seminars on data protection, directors’ duties including D&O insurance, cash pooling and compliance. Felix Hörlsberger entered Austria’s largest Moot Court Competition as a participant in 2001 and thereafter regularly as counsel advising student teams. He is recognised in the Legal 500 as well as Chambers Global, 2010 edition. Felix Hörlsberger is fluent in German and English.
appendix 1
ABOUt tHE AUtHOrS
About the Authors
864
DorDa brugger JorDis reChtsanwälte gmbhDr Karl Lueger-ring 101010 ViennaAustriatel: +43 1 5334795Fax: +43 1 5334795 [email protected]
