News - United Legal Network

Presentation from the ULN London Meeting, 29 May 2026

At the ULN London Meeting on 29 May 2026, Iain Gilbey and Adèle de Canson from Pinsent Masons LLP used a series of iconic infrastructure and development projects to illustrate how European planning systems differ in practice. Their session compared common law and civil law approaches to land use, major projects and public interest considerations, highlighting key legal and practical challenges across Europe. See the presentation below for further details.

ULN Presentation 29 May 2026 – Iconic Projects_ A Comparative Look at European Planning Systems Download

London, Mai 29-31, 2026

in News

From 29–31 May 2026, members of the United Legal Network gathered in London for this year’s Spring Meeting, bringing together colleagues from across Europe. The event was hosted by our member firm Gordons Partnership, and we extend our sincere thanks to Susan Hunneyball and Mike Slade for organising a truly memorable and well-curated weekend.

The programme started on Friday with a joint lunch in Canary Wharf, followed by an afternoon of presentations at the Museum of London Docklands. The sessions, covering “Iconic Projects: A Comparative Look at European Planning Systems”, “Contentious Probate”, and “Data Protection and the Effect of Brexit”, offered valuable insights and sparked engaging discussions, highlighting both common challenges and differing legal approaches across jurisdictions.

Saturday began with the General Assembly at the Riverside Hotel in Canary Wharf, focusing on ULN’s ongoing initiatives and the strategic development of the network. In the afternoon, participants travelled by ferry to Greenwich to visit the Royal Observatory, providing a relaxed setting in which professional discussions continued. The day concluded with a shared dinner and many opportunities for informal exchange and networking.

The London meeting once again demonstrated the strength of ULN: combining international collaboration and personal connections that continue to drive the network forward.

Paphos, November 7-9, 2025

in News

Members of the United Legal Network gathered for an inspiring ULN meeting in a truly exceptional setting at the Cap St. Georges Hotel, overlooking the Cypriot coastline. The weekend offered a valuable opportunity for exchange, insightful discussions and strengthening professional connections across the network.

In addition to the meeting sessions, participants explored the cultural and historical highlights of Paphos, including a visit to Paphos Castle and the famous ancient mosaics, as well as the opening of the CRS exhibition at the Psifida Gallery. Social moments were complemented by traditional Cypriot dinners and the warm hospitality that Cyprus is known for.

We extend our sincere thanks to Agis Georgiades and the entire CGA team for their excellent organisation and hospitality throughout the weekend, which contributed greatly to the success of the meeting.

The Paphos gathering once again highlighted what defines ULN: meaningful collaboration, international exchange and the personal connections that continue to strengthen our growing network.

Hamburg, May 23-25, 2025

in Event

From 23–25 May 2025, members of the United Legal Network came together in Hamburg for this year’s Spring Meeting. The gathering was hosted by our member firm Heitmann Schubert Nickelsen, and we extend a warm thank-you to Dierk Nickelsen, who organised the weekend with great care and hospitality.

The program included the General Assembly, discussions on internal matters and future initiatives, and a special visit to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), where participants received an informative presentation and a guided tour, including the courtroom. Cultural and social highlights were equally memorable: a visit to the Hamburg Opera to see Tosca, a private boat tour through the Port of Hamburg, offering a unique view of the city’s maritime heart, and two lively group dinners at CARLS Brasserie and the Chilli Club, which created a wonderful setting for networking and exchange.

The Hamburg meeting was a reminder of what makes ULN strong – a balance of legal insight, collaboration, and the personal connection that brings our international network to life.

EU Postpones Sustainability Compliance Deadlines: Implications for Businesses

in News

On 14 April 2025, the Council of the European Union officially adopted the “Stop-the-Clock” Directive, delaying the application dates of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD).

Key Changes:

CSRD Reporting Delay: The directive postpones CSRD reporting requirements by two years for companies in “wave 2” (due to report in 2026 for financial years starting on or after January 1, 2025) and “wave 3” (due to report in 2027 for financial years starting on or after January 1, 2026). These companies now have until 2028 and 2029, respectively, to comply. Reporting for “wave 1” companies and non-EU companies (due in 2029) remains unchanged.
CSDDD Implementation Delay: The transposition deadline and application of due diligence obligations have been postponed by one year, providing businesses with more time to align their operations with the new requirements.

Omnibus I Simplifications:

The Omnibus I initiative introduces several measures to reduce the regulatory burden:

Scope Reduction: The number of companies required to report under the CSRD will decrease by approximately 80%, focusing on firms with more than 1,000 employees.
Due Diligence Adjustments: The CSDDD will now primarily apply to direct suppliers, and the frequency of assessments has been extended, easing compliance for businesses.

These developments aim to balance the EU’s sustainability goals with the need to enhance the competitiveness of European businesses.

Next Steps:

Companies should use this additional time to strengthen their sustainability strategies and ensure readiness for the revised compliance timelines. Staying informed about further regulatory updates will be crucial in navigating the evolving landscape of EU sustainability requirements.

CJEU Clarifies Jurisdiction in Cross-Border Patent Infringement Cases

in News

On February 25, 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered a pivotal judgment in Case C-339/22, BSH Hausgeräte GmbH v. Electrolux AB, addressing the scope of jurisdiction in cross-border patent infringement disputes within the EU.

Background

The case originated from a dispute between BSH Hausgeräte GmbH and Electrolux AB concerning alleged infringements of a European patent validated in multiple Member States. BSH initiated proceedings in Sweden, seeking remedies for infringements occurring in various countries. Electrolux contested the jurisdiction of the Swedish court, arguing that challenges to the patent’s validity should be exclusively addressed by courts in the respective countries where the patent was validated.

CJEU’s Ruling

The CJEU held that, under Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels I bis), a national court has jurisdiction to hear an infringement action against a defendant domiciled in its member state, even if the action pertains to infringements in other member states. Importantly, the Court clarified that raising the invalidity of a patent as a defense does not negate this jurisdiction, provided that the court does not make determinations affecting the registration or validity of the patent in other member states.

Implications

This decision marks a departure from the Court’s earlier stance in the GAT v. LuK case (C-4/03), which limited the jurisdiction of national courts in cross-border patent disputes. By affirming the ability of national courts to adjudicate on infringement matters involving patents validated in multiple member states, the ruling enhances the enforcement capabilities of patent holders and may lead to increased cross-border litigation within the EU.

Legal practitioners and patent holders should consider this development when formulating litigation strategies, as it offers a broader framework for addressing cross-border infringements within the EU’s legal landscape.

🔗 Read the full judgment here: www.eur-lex.europa.eu

Key EU Court Decision on Law Firm Ownership

in News

In December 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued a landmark ruling concerning national laws that restrict ownership in law firms to qualified legal professionals. The decision holds significant implications for the legal profession across the European Union, reaffirming the importance of ethical independence and professional integrity.

The case stemmed from German legislation that prohibits purely financial investors from holding stakes in law firms. The CJEU concluded that such restrictions are compatible with EU law, emphasizing that they pursue a legitimate public interest. Specifically, the Court highlighted the essential role of these laws in ensuring that legal advice remains impartial and that the independence of the legal profession is safeguarded.

Implications for the Legal Profession

This ruling strengthens the regulatory framework that governs law firm ownership in the EU and provides clarity on the balance between professional independence and market freedom.

Key takeaways include:

Independence and Ethics: By restricting ownership to qualified legal professionals, Member States can protect the integrity of legal advice, free from external financial influences.

Public Trust: The decision underscores the profession’s duty to maintain the highest standards of impartiality and professionalism, key to fostering public confidence.

Compliance Obligations: Law firms operating within the EU should remain vigilant about aligning their ownership structures with both national and EU regulatory requirements.

This ruling serves as a reminder of the vital role that ethical and professional standards play in shaping the future of the legal industry. It is particularly relevant, as it highlights the ongoing importance of maintaining independence while navigating the evolving demands of the profession.

Read the whole decision here.