Intellectual Property (IP) is emerging as an important asset, contributing to innovation, economic growth and global trade. The global economy has also digitalized at an unprecedented rate, transforming the methods of IP creation, its management and trade. This transaction brings forth complex taxation challenges related to IP transactions. This paper explores the intersection of IP and taxation, emphasising the challenges and opportunities in cross-border IP transactions. It seeks to analyse the key taxation issues related to IP in the context of international trade, including transfer pricing, direct tax implications, and global tax reforms aimed at addressing harmful tax practices. Further, in examining the major “Base Erosion and Profit Shifting” (BEPS) risks in direct taxation, the paper delves into preferential tax regimes, transfer pricing risks, and artificial internal trading of intangibles. The OECD and G20's BEPS Action 5 project on harmful tax practices and their implementation in India are also critically analysed. This helps in examining how these global frameworks are addressing the tax challenges posed by IP. Finally, the paper examines key aspects of IP taxation in India, discussing relevant domestic frameworks and international agreements that shape India's approach to tax IP. Issues such as licensing, royalties, transfer pricing policies, and GST implications for IP transactions are explored. By addressing these key areas, the paper highlights the need for effective tax policies that align with the realities of the digital economy and international trade.

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) reconfigures the foundations of copyright by introducing multi-actor creation and platform-mediated dissemination. Within a dual-dimensional framework combining the expressive function of originality and the disseminative function of platform power, four scenarios are developed to calibrate incentive structures and institutional efficiency. Comparative analysis of US, EU, and China's judicial practices reveals divergent yet complementary approaches: US courts emphasize market substitution and fair use's fourth factor; the EU advances restriction-based remuneration and extended collective licensing; and Chinese courts adopt a human-centered authorship model that recognizes verifiable expressive contribution. Law-and-economics reasoning supports replacing exclusivity with incentive-compatible tools—combining remuneration rights, collective management, and transparency obligations. Authorship is substantiated through process-evidence chains, while platforms assume proportional compliance duties aligned with their market power. By integrating comparative jurisprudence into this expressive–disseminative framework, copyright governance can evolve from static ownership allocation toward dynamic incentive regulation, achieving balanced innovation, equitable distribution, and long-term cultural sustainability.

This article offers a detailed analysis of the impact of Article 191 of the Chinese Company Law, which expands director accountability to include personal liability for misconduct affecting third persons and explores its alignment with international governance standards. We will focus on the interests of creditors and argue for the indirect duty towards creditors in line with Article 191 of the Chinese Company Law. As the directors' duties towards creditors need to be reflected in the Supreme Court's Interpretation on Implementing Chinese Company Law, we will also conduct a comparative analysis of the legal frameworks governing directors' duties towards creditors, focusing on the established legal system in the United Kingdom (UK). Drawing on the UK's hybrid legal framework of statutory and case law—particularly the recent Sequana judgement—the study highlights the nuanced balance between shareholder and creditor interests during financial distress. The research also investigates the potential for legal reforms in China guided by experiences from the UK, Australia and New Zealand, including insights into creditor-focused duties and restructuring mechanisms. By addressing the nature, content and trigger points of directors' duties, the article offers recommendations for improving China's governance framework to better protect creditors while fostering a robust and accountable corporate environment.

Bangladesh is expected to graduate from the least developed country (LDC) category and become classified as a developing country in the later part of 2026. This transition will make Bangladesh ineligible for the waiver in relation to the pharmaceutical patents under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Consequently, it will have to provide both product and process patents for the pharmaceutical products, potentially hindering the accessibility of medicines for the public as well as the growth of the pharmaceutical industry, which has immensely benefitted from a patent-free regime. In preparation for the expected graduation, Bangladesh has recently changed its patent law, making it compatible with the TRIPS provisions. In drafting the law, Bangladesh has borrowed from Indian patent law and incorporated the flexibilities provided under TRIPS. However, institutional capacity of the Department of Patents, Designs and Trademarks (DPDT), industrial readiness and active pharmaceutical ingredients production of the pharmaceutical sector are critical in effectively leveraging the flexibility provisions. This article critically examines the post-LDC legal landscape for pharmaceutical patents in Bangladesh, exploring both domestic and international challenges in the implementation of the TRIPS flexibilities. It argues that while Bangladesh has introduced the flexibility provisions in the widest possible way, the pharmaceutical sector must invest in research and develop and expand its business into foreign markets. Finally, drawing on the experience of India, the article offers some strategic recommendations for the pharmaceutical industry in Bangladesh to effectively navigate the post-LDC scenario and make it thrive in the global competitive market.

This article examines Colombia's 2024 compulsory license for Dolutegravir, an HIV medication. The objective is to underscore how patent assetization informed the legal argumentation contesting the compulsory license. To this end, the article connects the dots between the characterization of patents as assets, discussions on patent valuation, and the legal debate over Dolutegravir's economic value in determining compensation for its authorized use. The research method combines documentary and theoretical analysis within the framework of Law and Political Economy. The article demonstrates that dominant practices and discourses in financialized capitalism, such as discounting, enable the construction of legal arguments for valuing patented medicines based on the revenue streams they can generate. This, in turn, makes compulsory licensing dependent on viewing patented medicines as revenue-producing property, meaning that proper compensation for any authorized use must meet patent holders' commercial expectations. Accordingly, the right to health in cases of compulsory licensing is subordinated to the perpetuation of the appropriation of value as rent.

This article delineates a comprehensive framework for the achievement of effective metaverse governance that reflects the EU's current metaverse agenda and promotes respect for intellectual property rights. To do so, this article follows a two-strand methodology. It engages in a doctrinal legal analysis and a policy-oriented assessment. It comprises four substantive sections. First, the article highlights the risks for copyright and trade mark infringements in the metaverse context under the EU legislative framework, taking into consideration landmark case law from the CJEU. The narrative moves to the enforcement of copyright and trade marks in metaverse gaming platforms; assessing the extent to which the enforcement aligns with the EU Declaration on Digital Rights and Principles (EU Declaration) and the broader EU Commission's Strategy for virtual words (EU Strategy). In particular, the article undertakes a focused analysis of the Terms of Service (ToS) of four prominent metaverse gaming platforms—Roblox, Fortnite, Minecraft, Sandbox—at face value on their stated terms and observes an overall satisfactory degree of compliance with several EU objectives, and arguably a higher degree of compliance when it comes to the protection of IP rights compared to other objectives, though with some room for greater alignment with the EU's agenda.

Following the case study insights, the article turns to the widely used remedy of blocking injunctions. The issuing of blocking injunctions directly hinders users' right to access the metaverse and might encroach upon the fundamental right of freedom of expression and information of metaverse users and therefore, a limited degree of compatibility with the EU's metaverse agenda objectives has been observed. Finally, the authors put forward two core recommendations that constitute a targeted approach which could result in more effective IP enforcement within metaverse gaming platforms and other metaverse platforms which function in a similar fashion, that is, which enable online user interactions in real time and may serve as social hubs for the public. The first is a legal reform proposal to amend Article 3 of the IP Enforcement Directive to include an additional sub-section entailing key principles of the EU Commission's metaverse policy when it comes to metaverse gaming providers. The second is a techno-legal recommendation for the use of AI enforcement tools within metaverse gaming platforms with the aim of safeguarding IP rights whilst at the same time achieving a higher degree of alignment aligned with key EU strategic goals for the metaverse context.

Related party loans, due to their inherent nature, warrant a higher threshold for scrutiny when compared to loans extended by unrelated parties. Why were these monies advanced as loans, carrying higher priority in insolvency, rather than being invested as share capital? Even though such loans might be regarded as having an underlying presumption of self-interest, all related party loans are not mala fide, and many may serve genuine business needs that benefit the debtor and other stakeholders. Some jurisdictions, such as the United States, take into account these equitable considerations to evaluate whether related party claims warrant subordination in the order of priority during liquidation; while other jurisdictions, such as Germany, automatically subordinate these claims. Notably, Asian jurisdictions exhibit a regulatory vacuum, characterised by the absence of a statutory framework and minimal judicial guidance for subordination of related party claims in insolvency proceedings. The paper argues that a related-party subordination regime ought to be quintessential in the Asian context, as these regions are characterised by family-owned business and conglomerates wherein intra-group lending is prevalent. While bona fide related-party lending can benefit businesses, external investors may be deterred by uncertainty about the priority of their claims relative to related-party creditors who could exploit insider status in insolvency. With Asia now approaching a 50% contribution to global GDP, it is imperative to keep up with global standards of creditor protection and legal predictability. In light of this, the paper examines the subordination regimes of the United States, Germany, Spain, and Italy, to ultimately propose a model for Asian countries to enhance creditor confidence and legal certainty with respect to subordination of related party claims, while avoiding overly restrictive rules that could deter legitimate business activity.

The Restructuring Directive addresses the stay's impact on security enforcement but not asset deployment. It leaves uncertainty on how security agreements interact with executory contracts, giving Member States discretion. This affects debtors' ability to dispose of encumbered assets and impacts creditors' contractual rights, ultimately influencing restructuring effectiveness.

Although a local experiment, the promulgation of the Regulations of Shenzhen Special Economic Zone on Personal Bankruptcy (SPBR) in 2020 was hailed as a significant milestone in China's insolvency lawmaking which has thus far addressed only corporate insolvencies. Building on Kilborn's empirical study of the SPBR's enforcement during its initial 2 years, this paper analyses data from the subsequent 2 years (1 March 2023 to 28 February 2025). While lending support to Kilborn's conclusions, the findings in this paper, in some respects, point to an even bleaker outlook for insolvent individuals seeking a fresh start. Most non-business-related cases have continued to be excluded from the regime, while liquidation-and-discharge relief remains rare for business-related debtors. More significantly, full repayment of outstanding debts has increasingly become a standard requirement for court confirmation of reorganisation plans. To explain this troubling enforcement record, this paper examines two key insolvency procedures offered by the SPBR, namely, bankruptcy liquidation and reorganisation, and shows how their creditor-oriented procedural design, modelled on the Chinese Enterprise Bankruptcy Law, is ill-suited for addressing personal insolvencies. Reinforced by the structural features of the creditor landscape in personal insolvencies in China, this design effectively places the prospects of debtor relief in the hands of creditors, particularly state-owned or controlled financial institutions, notwithstanding the court's cramdown powers. The paper further suggests ways to moderate this creditor-oriented procedural design by drawing upon international regulatory experiences, particularly those from the United States, Japan and Australia, while remaining attentive to China's local conditions. It argues that shifting towards a more debtor-oriented approach is crucial, especially given the SPBR's significant influence on the introduction of similar regimes in other Chinese regions as well as at the national level.

As the European Directive on the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRED) marked the twentieth anniversary of its adoption, renewed calls have emerged for its revision, aimed at fostering a more effective application of the principle of proportionality in patent enforcement. Proponents of reform argue that injunctive relief continues to be granted in an overly automatic manner and should therefore be subject to greater restraint. To this end, it has been suggested that valuable guidance may be drawn from the US legal landscape and, in particular, from the framework articulated by the US Supreme Court in eBay v. MercExchange. Against this background, the paper critically examines these reform proposals, arguing that they appear to rest on the same arguments that underpinned the highly controversial regulatory proposal on standard essential patents (SEPs), and questioning the purported alignment between the European and the US approaches to patent enforcement.

This paper critically examines Section 10A of India's Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), a measure introduced during the COVID 19 (Coronavirus Disease 2019) pandemic to suspend the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process for defaults occurring between March 2020 and March 2021 (Ramesh Kymal v. Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power Pvt Ltd 3 SCC 224). While intended to protect businesses, the provision's clause that no application ‘shall ever be filed’ for such defaults created a permanent extinguishment of creditor remedies under the IBC, functioning as a blunt instrument with severe consequences (Ibid. See also Samisti Legal, ‘Impact of Section 10A of the IBC: Relief or Roadblock?’ (Samisti Legal, 29 April 2025) <https://samistilegal.in/impact-of-section-10a-of-the-ibc-relief-or-roadblock/> accessed 25 July 2025). This paper argues that the blanket prohibition, lacking a causality test or judicial discretion, was manifestly arbitrary and disproportionate, violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution (Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan [2016] 8 SCC 509). It deconstructs the legislative choice of an Ordinance, which cemented the measure's permanence, and highlights a core paradox: suspending a rehabilitative law during a crisis, treating it as a threat rather than a tool for rescue. A comparative analysis with the calibrated approaches based on discretion of the United Kingdom, United States, and Singapore underscores the anomalous nature of India's response (Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 [UK]). The paper also maps the uncoordinated actions of regulatory bodies like the Reserve Bank of India and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, which amplified uncertainty, and assesses the economic fallout, including the moral hazard and disproportionate harm to operational creditors. Concluding that Section 10A is a case study in legislative overbreadth, it proposes policy recommendations for a more resilient and constitutionally sound insolvency framework (Ramesh Kymal [n 1]).

The legal position of the concordat debtor under Article 297 of the Turkish Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law has acquired growing comparative significance in light of EU Directive 2019/1023 on Preventive Restructuring Frameworks. This article demonstrates that the Turkish concordat debtor is, in functional terms, already a debtor in possession (DIP) within the meaning of the Directive. The default DIP status, graduated court-ordered restrictions and commissioner supervision model of Turkish law map directly onto the PRD's core architecture, reflecting a shared Continental European legal tradition. Within the spectrum of EU national implementations, Turkish law sits closest to the French and Austrian models and diverges most markedly from the Dutch WHOA and German StaRUG. Notwithstanding this structural convergence, the article identifies significant operational gaps between the two frameworks and develops concrete de lege ferenda proposals for legislative reform, with the aim of advancing Türkiye's ongoing harmonisation with the EU acquis in the field of preventive restructuring law.

This article examines how Finnish and Swedish restructuring laws create opportunities for creditors to hold out on restructuring negotiations. Using Anthony Casey's new bargaining theory and the traditional creditors' bargain model as analytical frames, the study argues that holdouts arise when ex ante rights – particularly security interests, procedural privileges, and statutory limitations – are preserved in ways that impede value-preserving renegotiation ex post. Through a structured analysis of contract continuation rules, entry thresholds, security rights, cramdown design, and debt-adjustment restrictions, the article shows key holdouts in the Swedish and Finnish restructuring frameworks. The most baffling holdout is discovered in the Finnish rule requiring the restructuring plan to preserve creditor rights as far as possible. Such a rule is in direct contradiction with the view that restructuring is about renegotiation rather than a one-sided privilege of the debtor. The article offers an analysis of the justification of these holdout positions from the viewpoints of economic theory and policy goals.

This paper conducts a comparative legal analysis of corporate restructuring frameworks in England and Bhutan, examining their capacity to integrate climate variability considerations and promote sustainable business practices. It discusses the procedural mechanisms for restructuring financially distressed enterprises available under the law of both countries and assesses how the countries' tools and frameworks could be incrementally leveraged or structurally reformed to facilitate a transition to a sustainable economy. The paper also investigates Bhutan's bankruptcy legal and policy landscape including a draft Insolvency and Rehabilitation Act of Bhutan 2025, evaluating the extent to which its Gross National Happiness philosophy, with its inherent emphasis on environmental conservation and sustainable development, influences its approach to corporate distress and restructuring. By comparing two distinct legal philosophies—the market-driven English model and the sustainability-centred Bhutanese approach—this research identifies the pillars of ‘sustainability’ in each of these two legal regimes and discusses best practices and potential areas for mutual learning in developing robust, climate-responsive corporate insolvency and restructuring regimes. This comparative analysis highlights how disparate legal traditions can converge on the imperative of climate action, offering insights into regulatory enhancements that foster ecological resilience within economic frameworks (Anders K. Møller, Deviating Development? Exploring the linkages between Foreign Direct Investment and Gross National Happiness in Bhutan (2016) <https://dorjipenjore.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/deviating-development-exploring-the-linkages-between-foreign-direct-investment-and-gross-national-happiness-in-bhutan.pdf>).

This article critically examines the application of cramdown provisions under China's Enterprise Bankruptcy Law, with a focus on whether courts have meaningfully implemented the principle of judicial prudence emphasized by the Supreme People's Court. Drawing on an empirical analysis of post-2018 judicial decisions, the article finds that while courts formally comply with statutory requirements, such as voting thresholds and restrained use of public interest, they often lack substantive engagement in reviewing valuation assumptions, feasibility assessments and creditor objections. This procedural conformity has turned cramdown into a tool for expedient plan approval, rather than a mechanism to safeguard fairness and encourage good-faith negotiation. The article identifies deeper institutional and legislative deficiencies, including vague statutory language, limited judicial capacity, and the absence of structured safeguards, which collectively undermine the intended role of cramdown as a protective device for dissenting creditors. To address these challenges, the article advocates three key refinements: prioritizing tiered distribution to ensure equitable outcomes for small creditors, establishing structured feasibility assessment criteria, and equipping judges with reliable valuation tools. By institutionalizing these refinements, Chinese courts can move beyond formal compliance toward substantive prudence, restoring cramdown as a principled instrument for resolving complex corporate reorganizations.

Résumé: Cet article explore la responsabilité potentielle des opérateurs d’IA générative en matière d’atteinte à la réputation dans le cadre juridique de l’UE, en se concentrant sur trois fondements juridiques possibles: la diffamation, la responsabilité du fait des produits défectueux et la responsabilité extracontractuelle. Le droit national en matière de diffamation est confronté à des défis importants lorsqu’il s’agit de traiter les contenus générés par l’IA en l’absence d’intention humaine ou de contrôle éditorial. Si la nouvelle directive sur les produits défectueux classe les systèmes d’IA comme des produits, elle exclut de son champ d’application les dommages résultant de violations des droits de la personnalité. En conséquence, les règles de responsabilité non contractuelle des États membres peuvent offrir la voie la plus viable pour les plaignants, malgré les difficultés à prouver la faute et le risque de jugements contradictoires. Étant donné que les opérateurs d’IA générative ne peuvent pas prévoir des résultats diffamatoires spécifiques, ils ne devraient être tenus responsables que lorsqu’ils ont connaissance de l’illégalité – généralement après une notification – et qu’ils ne prennent pas de mesures raisonnables pour bloquer le résultat. Ces mesures pourraient inclure la mise en œuvre de techniques de désapprentissage machines ou filtres. Cela signifierait soumettre les opérateurs de GenAI à un régime de responsabilité similaire à celui applicable aux plateformes en ligne hébergeant des contenus diffamatoires

Zusammenfassung: Dieser Artikel untersucht die mögliche Haftung von Betreibern generativer KI für Reputationsschäden im Rahmen des Rechts der Europäischen Union, mit besonderem Fokus auf drei mögliche Rechtsgrundlagen: Verleumdung, Produkthaftung und außervertragliche Haftung. Das nationale Verleumdungsrecht steht vor erheblichen Herausforderungen bei der Behandlung von KI-generierten Inhalten, wenn es an menschlicher Absicht oder redaktioneller Kontrolle fehlt. Obwohl die neue Produkthaftungsrichtlinie KI-Systeme als Produkte einstuft, schließt sie Schäden aus, die aus Verletzungen von Persönlichkeitsrechten resultieren, von ihrem Anwendungsbereich aus. Dementsprechend könnten die außervertraglichen Haftungsregeln der Mitgliedstaaten den gangbarsten Weg für Anspruchsteller bieten, trotz der Schwierigkeiten beim Nachweis eines Verschuldens und des Risikos widersprüchlicher Entscheidungen zwischen verschiedenen Gerichtsbarkeiten. Da Betreiber generativer KI spezifische verleumderische Ausgaben nicht vorhersehen können, sollten sie nur dann haftbar gemacht werden, wenn sie von der Rechtswidrigkeit Kenntnis haben – in der Regel nach einer Benachrichtigung – und es versäumen, angemessene Schritte zur Sperrung der betreffenden Ausgabe zu unternehmen. Zu diesen Schritten könnten die Implementierung von MachineUnlearning-Techniken oder Filtern gehören. Dies würde bedeuten, Betreiber generativer KI einem Haftungsregime zu unterwerfen, das demjenigen ähnelt, das für Online-Plattformen beim Hosting verleumderischer Inhalte gilt.

Resumen: Este artículo explora la posible responsabilidad de los operadores de inteligencia artificial generativa por daños reputacionales en el marco jurídico de la Unión Europea, con base en tres posibles fundamentos jurídicos: la difamación, la responsabilidad por productos defectuosos y la responsabilidad extracontractual. El derecho nacional en materia de difamación presenta importantes dificultades para abordar los contenidos generados por IA en ausencia de intención humana o control editorial. Aunque la nueva Directiva sobre responsabilidad por productos defectuosos clasifica los sistemas de IA como productos, excluye de su ámbito de aplicación los daños derivados de vulneraciones de los derechos de la personalidad. En consecuencia, las normas de responsabilidad extracontractual de los Estados miembros pueden ofrecer la vía más viable para los demandantes, pese a las dificultades para probar la culpa y el riesgo de sentencias contradictorias. Dado que los operadores de IA generativa no pueden prever resultados difamatorios específicos, solo deberían ser considerados responsables cuando tengan conocimiento de la ilegalidad -generalmente tras una notificación – y no adopten medidas razonables para bloquear el contenido en cuestión. Estas medidas podrían incluir la implementación de técnicas de desaprendizaje automático o filtros. Ello supondría someter a los operadores de IA generativa a un régimen de responsabilidad similar al aplicable a las plataformas en línea por alojar contenidos difamatorios.

While the requirement of substantial participation in the inventive process reflects a subjective standard of inventorship, patentability criteria remain objective. As a result, although patent protection presupposes sufficient human participation, which is especially important for AI outputs, there is no mechanism to assess such participation, since patentability criteria focus on the output itself irrespective of the inventive process. However, the current study argues that there is no insurmountable gap between the subjective standard of inventorship and the objective inventive step criterion, as compliance with the inventive step requirement also evidences sufficient human participation. To illustrate this, the study examines how the level of human contribution required for inventorship can be reflected through the inventive step criterion. The article discusses the evaluation of the inventive step and argues that a person skilled in the art must be considered ‘AI-equipped’. It then illustrates how subjective participation in different stages of the inventive process corresponds to the objective assessment of outputs. The study concludes that if an output is obvious to an ‘AI-equipped’ person skilled in the art, no substantial contribution sufficient for inventorship was made; conversely, if it is non-obvious, the required substantial contribution was made during one or more stages of the inventive process.

In recent years, claims of ‘national security’ have surged internationally to protect various security interests including public health, economic security and cybersecurity. National industrial strategies for building critical technologies challenge the scope of ‘national security’ in international intellectual property (IP) protection. National security provisions in the WTO are traditionally considered narrowly in the military context or ‘an emergency in international relations' where actions are necessary to safeguard countries' essential security interests. However, it does not appear to reflect the economic and cybersecurity issues emerging from critical infrastructure and new digital technologies beyond wars or emergencies in international relations. On the other hand, many recent Preferential Trade Agreements (PTAs) have expanded the scope of national security to include cybersecurity-related measures. We investigate the legal solutions in relevant international trade and investment regimes that aim to tackle the unpredictability and instability created by selected trade measures based on national security and other non-economic objectives in international intellectual property protection. These measures include trade bans on the export and import of digital technologies and blocking investments to prevent the diffusion of intellectual property. In order to prevent abuse and ensure inclusivity, we propose a conditional right for invoking national security grounds to encompass claims reflecting multi-faceted security interests and a multistakeholder model for governing critical infrastructure and technologies.

The broad distinction between secured and unsecured debt has important implications for their treatment in insolvency. The general rule is that all creditors are treated pari passu in the distribution of the insolvency estate: sharing the assets pro rata according to their pre-insolvency entitlements. Security interests, however, modify this pari passu treatment by giving priority to secured debt in insolvency. Several national insolvency regimes also give preference to certain classes of debt, thereby altering the broad treatment of secured and unsecured debt in insolvency. These alterations are expressions of policy choices that can have direct and indirect consequences for the creditor–debtor regime. This article uncovers and evaluates the policy choices underlying the debt priority scheme in insolvent liquidation in Ghana in comparison to the stated objectives of the corporate insolvency system under the Corporate Insolvency and Restructuring Act, 2020 (Act 1015). The analysis uncovers a significant omission and two instances of confusion in the purpose of the system for the classification and priority of debt under Act 1015. Overall, the article concludes that severe subordination of general unsecured debt under the Ghanaian scheme is a strong disincentive to advancing unsecured credit to businesses, especially small businesses, which often have few viable assets for the creation of secured interests. In an economy in which the majority of businesses are small and medium enterprises, the debt priority scheme is unnecessarily skewed towards big business and does not accord with the realities of the character of the Ghanaian economy.

Effectiveness concerns both the capacity of sanctions to fulfil enforcement goals and the removal of procedural barriers. Dissuasiveness focuses on depriving offenders of illicit gains and imposing additional disadvantages, including reputational harm. Proportionality ensures that sanctions are tailored to the seriousness of the infringement and aligned with EU law objectives.

The article advocates for a more harmonized and coherent application of the triad, supported by cross-directive reasoning and the criteria introduced by the Omnibus Directive. It recommends a balanced model combining public and private enforcement, with mechanisms to ensure accountability for natural persons behind corporate violations. The triad is thus presented not as a formalistic requirement, but as a substantive tool for ensuring consistent and effective consumer law enforcement across the EU.

Résumé: Cet article examine l’exigence européenne selon laquelle les sanctions en droit de la consommation doivent être « effectives, proportionnées et dissuasives », une triade issue de l’article 4, paragraphe 3, du TUE et codifiée dans plusieurs directives de protection des consommateurs. Elle constitue un repère essentiel pour l’application nationale, orientant la législation, la jurisprudence et l’exécution du droit de la consommation dans les États membres. En s’appuyant sur la jurisprudence récente de la CJUE, la doctrine juridique et les pratiques en Belgique et aux Pays-Bas, l’article clarifie l’interprétation et la mise en œuvre de chacun des trois éléments de la triade.

L’effectivité concerne à la fois la capacité des sanctions à atteindre les objectifs d’exécution et la levée des obstacles procéduraux. La dissuasion implique la privation des avantages illicites et l’imposition de désavantages supplémentaires, y compris réputationnels. La proportionnalité garantit que les sanctions sont adaptées à la gravité de l’infraction et aux objectifs du droit de l’UE. L’article plaide pour une application plus harmonisée de la triade, appuyée par le raisonnement transversal de la CJUE et les critères de la directive Omnibus. La triade est ainsi présentée comme un outil normatif garantissant une application cohérente, équilibrée et efficace du droit de la consommation dans l’UE

Zusammenfassung: Dieser Artikel untersucht die EU-Vorgabe, dass Sanktionen im Verbraucherrecht „wirksam, verhältnismäßig und abschreckend“ sein müssen – ein Dreiklang, der in Artikel 4 Absatz 3 EUV verwurzelt und in verbraucherschutzrechtlichen Richtlinien kodifiziert ist. Er dient als zentraler Maßstab für die nationale Durchsetzung und lenkt, wie die Mitgliedstaaten das Verbraucherrecht gesetzlich regeln, anwenden und vollstrecken. Gestützt auf aktuelle Rechtsprechung des EuGH, wissenschaftliche Kommentare und Durchsetzungspraktiken in Belgien und den Niederlanden, klärt der Artikel, wie jedes Element dieses Dreiklangs auszulegen und anzuwenden ist.

Wirksamkeit betrifft sowohl die Fähigkeit von Sanktionen, Durchsetzungsziele zu erreichen, als auch den Abbau verfahrensrechtlicher Hürden. Abschreckung zielt darauf ab, Täter ihrer unrechtmäßigen Gewinne zu berauben und ihnen zusätzliche Nachteile aufzuerlegen, einschließlich Reputationsschäden. Verhältnismäßigkeit stellt sicher, dass Sanktionen an die Schwere des Verstoßes angepasst und mit den Zielen des EU-Rechts in Einklang stehen. Der Artikel plädiert für eine stärker harmonisierte und kohärente Anwendung des Dreiklangs, gestützt auf richtlinienübergreifende Argumentation und die durch die Omnibus-Richtlinie eingeführten Kriterien. Empfohlen wird ein ausgewogenes Modell, das öffentliche und private Durchsetzung kombiniert und Mechanismen vorsieht, um natürliche Personen hinter Unternehmensverstößen zur Rechenschaft zu ziehen. Der Dreiklang wird somit nicht als formale Anforderung dargestellt, sondern als substanzielles Instrument für eine konsistente und wirksame Durchsetzung des Verbraucherrechts in der EU.

Resumen: Este artículo analiza la exigencia de la UE de que las sanciones en materia de derecho del consumo sean «eficaces, proporcionadas y disuasorias», una tríada que tiene su origen en el artículo 4, apartado 3, del TUE y que se codifica en las directivas de protección de los consumidores. Sirve como referencia fundamental para la aplicación nacional, orientando la legislación y la ejecución de la legislación en materia de consumo de los Estados miembros y la jurisprudencia. Basándose en la doctrina reciente del TJUE, los comentarios académicos y las prácticas de aplicación en Bélgica y los Países Bajos, el artículo clarifica cómo debe interpretarse y aplicarse cada elemento de la tríada. La eficacia se refiere tanto a la capacidad de las sanciones para cumplir los objetivos de aplicación como a la eliminación de las barreras procedimentales. La disuasión se centra en privar a los infractores de las ganancias ilícitas e imponerles desventajas adicionales, incluidas las que afectan a su reputación. La proporcionalidad garantiza que las sanciones se adapten a la gravedad de la infracción y se ajusten a los objetivos del Derecho de la UE.

El artículo aboga por una aplicación más armonizada y coherente de la tríada, que se apoye en un razonamiento transversal sobre la base de las directivas y los criterios introducidos por la Directiva Ómnibus. Recomienda un modelo equilibrado que combine la aplicación pública y privada, con mecanismos que garanticen la responsabilidad de las personas físicas responsables de las infracciones cometidas por las empresas. Así pues, la tríada no se presenta como un requisito formalista, sino como una herramienta sustantiva para garantizar una aplicación coherente y eficaz de la legislación en materia de consumo en toda la UE.

French: En droit allemand, les actions en enrichissement sans cause ne sont pas subordonnées aux actions contractuelles, délictuelles ou autres. La coordination avec d’autres types d’actions s’effectue par l’exigence d’absence de fondement juridique, et, dans le cadre d’enrichissement sans cause, par la distinction entre l’enrichissement fondé sur une prestation et autres formes d’enrichissement. Les règles d’évaluation de l’enrichissement et des dommages-intérêts sont étroitement liées. Par ailleurs, les contrats conclus entre autorités publiques et personnes privées sont généralement exécutoires.

German: Ansprüche aus ungerechtfertigter Bereicherung sind nach deutschem Recht nicht subsidiär zu vertraglichen, deliktischen oder sonstigen Ansprüchen. Vielmehr erfolgt die Koordination dieser Ansprüche über das Merkmal, dass eine Bereicherung “ohne rechtlichen Grund” erfolgt sein muss. Innerhalb des Bereicherungsrechts haben Ansprüche aus rechtsgrundlos erfolgter Leistung Vorrang vor Ansprüchen infolge anderer Bereicherungen. Die Regeln zur Ermittlung vom Wert des Erlangten und vom zu ersetzenden Schaden sind aufeinander abgestimmt. Zudem sind öffentlich-rechtliche Verträge zwischen Personen des öffentlichen Rechts und Privatpersonen grundsätzlich durchsetzbar.

Spanish: En el derecho alemán, las acciones por enriquecimiento sin causa no son subsidiarias de las acciones contractuales, extracontractuales o de otro tipo. La coordinación con otros tipos de acciones se produce mediante el requisito de “sin fundamento jurídico”, y dentro del enriquecimiento sin causa, mediante la distinción entre el enriquecimiento basado en el cumplimiento y otros tipos. Además, los contratos entre las autoridades públicas y individuos o entidades privadas son, en general, exigibles.

Résumé: L’Amérique latine est une région qui a suivi le droit napoléonien français et, par conséquent, de nombreux codes civils latins n’ont à ce jour aucune base juridique pour l’enrichissement sans cause, tandis que, d'autre part, certaines juridictions qui ont connu des réformes législatives se sont référées à l’époque à certains codes civils européens “plus modernes”, tels que le code civil italien de 1942, et ont importé les articles 2041 et 2042 qui permettent d'intenter une action pour enrichissement sans cause à condition que le principe de subsidiarité soit respecté. C’est pourquoi une analyse comparative entre l’Amérique latine et l’Europe est utile pour déterminer comment l’arrêt italien n° 33954/2023 peut avoir un impact sur les juridictions latines.

Zusammenfassung: Lateinamerika ist eine Region, die sich an das französische Napoleonische Recht anlehnte, weshalb viele lateinamerikanische Zivilgesetzbücher bis heute keine Rechtsgrundlage für ungerechtfertigte Bereicherung haben, während andererseits einige Rechtsordnungen, die Gesetzesreformen durchlaufen haben, sich damals an bestimmten “moderneren” europäischen Zivilgesetzbüchern orientierten, wie dem italienischen Zivilgesetzbuch von 1942, und die Artikel 2041 und 2042 übernahmen, die eine Klage wegen ungerechtfertigter Bereicherung ermöglichen, sofern die Subsidiarität erfüllt ist. Aus diesem Grund ist eine vergleichende Analyse zwischen Lateinamerika und Europa sinnvoll, um zu ermitteln, wie sich das italienische Urteil Nr. 33954/2023 auf lateinamerikanische Rechtsordnungen auswirken kann.

Résumé: Aboutissement d’un processus législatif entamé en 2016, le registre italien des gages sans dépossession portant sur les actifs des entreprises est entré en vigueur le 15 juin 2023. À compter de cette date, un nouveau type de gage est devenu opérationnel en droit italien, se distinguant sensiblement du gage traditionnel prévu par le Code civil italien. Dans ce contexte, la présente contribution vise à évaluer cette nouvelle sûreté en procédant à une analyse comparative des cadres juridiques italien, anglais et néerlandais, principalement sous l’angle de l’analyse économique du droit. Afin d’assurer une approche plus équilibrée, la protection des intérêts des créanciers chirographaires et des constituants de sûretés est également prise en considération. L’étude est structurée en deux parties, chacune portant sur une caractéristique centrale du nouveau régime italien: (i) la nature du gage sans dépossession et le mécanisme de publicité par enregistrement qui lui est associé; et (ii) le champ d’application du gage sans dépossession, à savoir les types de garanties éligibles, sa nature fluctuante ainsi que l’éventail des obligations qu’il est susceptible de garantir. L’article indique qu’une telle réforme rapproche le système italien de modèles anglais et néerlandais, bien que des différences significatives subsistent entre les trois ordres juridiques. Il est en outre avancé que l’élargissement du champ d’application du nouveau gage sans dépossession nécessite l’introduction de garanties supplémentaires afin de mieux protéger la position des créanciers chirographaires et des constituants de sûretés. Sans préjudice de ce qui précède, l’évaluation globale de la réforme italienne est positive, dans la mesure où elle modernize le système italien des sûretés et contribue à en accroître l’efficacité.

Zusammenfassung: Als Höhepunkt eines 2016 begonnenen Gesetzgebungsverfahrens trat am 15. Juni 2023 das italienische Register für besitzlose Verpfändungen von Unternehmensvermögen in Kraft. Seit diesem Datum ist im italienischen Recht eine neue Art von Pfandrecht in Kraft, die sich erheblich von dem traditionellen Pfandrecht des italienischen Zivilgesetzbuches unterscheidet. Vor diesem Hintergrund zielt der vorliegende Beitrag darauf ab, das neu eingeführte Pfandrecht durch eine vergleichende Untersuchung der italienischen, englischen und niederländischen Rechtsrahmen zu bewerten, vor allem unter dem Gesichtspunkt eines rechtsökonomischen Ansatzes. Um eine ausgewogenere Analyse zu gewährleisten, wird auch der Schutz der Interessen ungesicherter Gläubiger und Sicherungsgeber berücksichtigt. Die Untersuchung gliedert sich in zwei Teile, die sich jeweils mit einem Kernmerkmal des neuen italienischen Systems befassen: (i) dem besitzlosen Charakter des Pfandrechts und dem damit verbundenen öffentlichen Registrierungsmechanismus; und (ii) dem Anwendungsbereich des besitzlosen Pfandrechts, d. h. den Arten von zulässigen Sicherheiten, seinem variablen Charakter und dem Spektrum der Verpflichtungen, die es sichern kann. Der Beitrag eruiert, dass eine solche Reform das italienische System näher an die englischen und niederländischen Modelle heranführt, obwohl zwischen den drei Rechtsordnungen weiterhin relevante Unterschiede bestehen. Darüber hinaus wird aufgezeigt, dass der erweiterte Anwendungsbereich des neuen besitzlosen Pfandrechts die Einführung zusätzlicher Schutzvorkehrungen erforderlich macht, um die Position ungesicherter Gläubiger und Sicherungsgeber wirksamer zu schützen. Unbeschadet des Vorstehenden fällt die Gesamtbewertung der italienischen Reform positiv aus, da sie das italienische System der Sicherungsrechte modernisiert und zu dessen größerer Effizienz beiträgt.

Resumen: Como culminación de un proceso legislativo iniciado en 2016, el registro italiano de prendas sin desplazamiento sobre activos societarios entró en vigor el 15 de junio de 2023. A partir de esa fecha, existe en la legislación italiana un nuevo tipo de prenda, que difiere significativamente de la prenda tradicional prevista en el Código Civil. En este contexto, la presente contribución tiene por objeto evaluar esta nueva prenda mediante un examen comparativo de los marcos jurídicos italiano, inglés y neerlandés, principalmente desde la perspectiva del enfoque jurídico-económico. Para garantizar un análisis más ponderado, también se tiene en cuenta la protección de los intereses de los acreedores no garantizados y de los garantes. La investigación se estructura en dos partes, cada una de las cuales aborda una característica fundamental del nuevo régimen italiano: i) la naturaleza no posesoria de la prenda y su mecanismo de registro público asociado, y ii) el ámbito de la prenda no posesoria, es decir, los tipos de garantías admisibles, su naturaleza flotante y la gama de obligaciones que puede garantizar. El artículo sostiene que esta reforma acerca el sistema italiano a los modelos inglés y neerlandés, aunque siguen existiendo diferencias relevantes entre las tres jurisdicciones. Además, se sostiene que el alcance ampliado de la nueva prenda no posesoria requiere la introducción de salvaguardias adicionales para proteger más eficazmente la posición de los acreedores no garantizados y fiadores y otros garantes. Sin perjuicio de lo anterior, la evaluación general de la reforma es positiva, ya que moderniza el sistema italiano de garantías reales y contribuye a su mayor eficiencia.