GA_P advises Aquiline Capital Partners on its investment in Marosa

For the Grand Chamber of the CJEU, a tax exemption based on objective and non-discriminatory criteria and integrated into the logic of the legal system which it accompanies is inherent in the ‘normal’ tax regime and does not, in principle, confer a selective advantage. In such cases, the conditions for granting the exemption are neutral from the point of view of competition, as the fact that some undertakings satisfy those conditions, while others do not, is not relevant in the light of the rules on State aid.

Royal Decree 214/2025 does not create a new register, as its title suggests, but rather keeps and expands the one in place since 2014. What is truly new is the obligation imposed on specific companies and public bodies to calculate their carbon footprint and to draw up greenhouse gas emission reduction plans, as well as to publish the same. The royal decree’s succinct wording raises some questions of interpretation.

The obligation to accommodate the workplace for persons with a permanent incapacity has come to the fore with such incapacity no longer constituting an automatic termination-of-employment-contract event. Now, unless the employee intends otherwise, the employer has three months to make necessary adjustments or to offer a suitable vacant post, and a failure to do so that is not justified on the grounds of excessive burden means not only a breach of law with all its consequences, but also the continuation of the employer/employee relationship with all its consequences.

Summary of legislative and case law developments in the automotive sector.

The newsletter covers the main developments in Pharma & Healthcare legislation and case law.

Supreme Court Judgment no. 5938/2024, which confirms its doctrine on the payment period and the accrual of late payment interest in public contracts, is examined. This doctrine, which establishes a general 60-day period, raises doubts as to its compatibility with Directive 2011/7/EU and with the CJEU’s case law.

A look at the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-589/23, Cassella-med and MCM Klosterfrau, ECLI:EU:C:2025:173.

If the creditor has a secured claim (even if the debt is covered by the "value of the security", i.e. the claim is in the money), the debtor cannot avoid the effects of the to-term forfeiture by appealing to the existence of that security because the guarantee referred to in Article 1129(1) of the Civil Code (avoiding to-term forfeiture) must then be another additional guarantee.

Si el acreedor goza de una garantía real para la seguridad de su crédito (incluso si la deuda está cubierta por el «valor de la garantía», es decir, que el crédito está in the money), el deudor no puede evitar los efectos de la pérdida del plazo apelando a la existencia de aquella garantía real porque la garantía a que se refiere el artículo 1129.1.º del Código Civil (evitadora de la pérdida del plazo) deberá ser entonces otra garantía suplementaria.