HAVEL & PARTNERS has provided comprehensive legal advice to Petr Kotvas and Hellen Berends on the sale of their 100 percent interests in IRE, s.r.o. and Best Expo s.r.o. These companies are designers of exhibition stands and residential and commercial interiors across Europe.
Both companies were acquired by the Continuum search fund via Beire Acquisition s.r.o. as its first transaction in the Czech Republic. The value of the transaction has not been disclosed by the parties.
The transactional advice on the part of the sellers was provided by HAVEL & PARTNERS’ M&A team managed by Václav Audes, a partner of the law firm, and Veronika Filipová, an attorney-at-law, working closely with the sellers’ transactional and financial adviser OMEGA, managed by Jan Skřička.
The purchaser was represented by Kocián Šolc Balaštík under the management of the firm’s partner Christian Blatchford.
(Clinical trials and personal data protection: A new notice from SUKL)
HAVEL & PARTNERS, the largest Czech-Slovak law firm, experienced further significant financial growth in the first half of 2018. All of its offices contributed to the growth with financial results exceeding ambitious plans for the given period. The turnover for legal services increased by 13.4% year-on-year while profits rose accordingly. The second quarter was particularly successful, with the turnover growing by 20.5%. All of the three key offices, namely Prague, Brno and Bratislava, delivered double-digit growth.
“Our firm’s revenues have continuously grown since its establishment in 2001. It is our great pleasure to say that even though the Czech and Slovak legal services markets are notably saturated and at the same time face a lack of high-quality lawyers, we are able to satisfy the most challenging requests of our clients and help them develop their business plans and activities both at home and abroad. Our wide range of specialization, our expert and HR know-how developed over many years combined with an individual approach to clients and building a strategic partnership with them now prove a great competitive edge. We appreciate that we are trusted by successful companies, individuals and foreign law firms alike. The latter engage us increasingly more often in various international projects and cross-border transactions,” says Managing Partner Jaroslav Havel.
The current excellent financial results of HAVEL & PARTNERS are based in particular on the provision of legal services to the most significant Czech, Slovak and international companies as well as Czech and Slovak entrepreneurs, including about a third of the wealthiest Czechs and Slovaks. The essential areas of our advisory include mergers and acquisitions, legal and tax structuring of personal assets and real estate projects, but our litigation and arbitration group shows notable growth as well.
“Our latest growth is also positively affected by all existing equity partners’ active involvement in managing individual advisory divisions of our law firm. Our long-term priorities still include especially reinforcing our leading market position, further expanding our services and strengthening our relationship with key clients. After years of recruiting the most experienced lawyers from other law firms, more than 90% of the growth of HAVEL & PARTNERS is now organic, and the results positively reflect the expansion of our team of partners and senior associates from in-house ranks. In mid-2018 we also bolstered management of our Bratislava office; we seek to concentrate the most talented attorneys in the market – as we have already succeeded in doing in the Czech Republic. That is why we put a great emphasis on professional development and in-house career growth, which is much faster with us than with competitors,” says Jaroslav Havel, outlining the law firm’s key priorities.
HAVEL & PARTNERS, the largest Czech-Slovak law firm, received the 2018 Global Law Experts’ Annual Award for the best law firm in the Czech Republic providing legal advisory in the area of law of information technologies (IT Law – Law Firm of the Year in the Czech Republic – 2018).
“Our law firm’s specialized team, dealing with information technology, telecommunications, media, e-commerce and protection of personal data (now particularly in relation to the General Data Protection Regulation – GDPR), is one of the largest in the Czech and Slovak Republics. Our clients include the most significant entities running their business in information technology and investors expanding their portfolio by focusing on investment in technological companies. The Global Law Experts international award is very important feedback for us on the quality of our services,” says Robert Nešpůrek, the law firm’s partner and head of the advisory group for IT law.
In the field of IT law, the group focuses for example on software development, supply, maintenance and protection agreements, IT system integration projects, outsourcing agreements, electronic contracts, electronization in financial (fintech) services, content use and responsibility for content on the Internet, protection of competition in the technological market as well as representation in disputes arising from comprehensive IT agreements and disputes relating to domain names.
Global Law Experts’ Annual Awards
The Global Law Experts (GLE) company is one of the most notable global online sources for legal services. Its database encompasses over 2,000 experts in more than 140 countries worldwide. The company has been selecting the best legal entities in individual countries since 2010 based on feedback from entrepreneurs, in-house legal departments, members of bar associations and users of GLE’s webpages and LinkedIn. It combines these outputs with its own research on the legal market.
Related awards in the field of IT, TMT and protection of personal data
HAVEL & PARTNERS has been given Corporate INTL’s award for the best law firm in the field of IT law in the Czech Republic for two years in a row (2017 and 2018). International rating publications European Legal 500, IFLR 1000, Chambers Europe, European Legal Experts and Global Law Experts recommend HAVEL & PARTNERS as a leading Czech law firm in the area of telecommunications, media and technologies (TMT). Who’s Who Legal, a prestigious UK agency, recognizes HAVEL & PARTNERS as having the most top experts in the Czech Republic in the fields of information technology, telecommunications, media as well as protection of personal data, and according to the Media Law International publication, HAVEL & PARTNERS is one of the top law firms in the Czech Republic providing the best legal services in the field of media. Over the past ten years of the Czech Law Firm of the Year competition, HAVEL & PARTNERS has beenawarded the best law firm in the telecommunications and media category six times and is regularly ranked among the five best-rated law firms in the IT law category.
HAVEL & PARTNERS, the largest Czech-Slovak law firm, is about to notably strengthen the team of its Slovak office in Bratislava. On 1 July 2018, Štěpán Štarha, managing associate and newly appointed partner, is taking over some of the responsibility for the development of the office. Bratislava will be further reinforced by senior associate Juraj Dubovský and associate Štefan Potočňák.
“We have agreed with Štěpán that he will work more days in Bratislava, where his family will also move. At the same time, he will continue to look after his clients in Prague and Brno. He will still focus in particular on advisory for technological and IT companies as well as on comprehensive projects for financial, energy and telecommunication companies. I believe that Štěpán’s experience will help us further develop our services and achieve good financial results in Slovakia,” says managing partner Jaroslav Havel about the promotion and work of Štěpán Štarha in Bratislava.
“We want our Bratislava office to see further strong development also in the months to come. That’s why we have agreed with two other colleagues who have worked mainly in Prague so far that they will move to Slovakia where they originally come from. Senior associate Juraj Dubovský specializes in representing clients in court and arbitration proceedings as well as insolvency and restructuring while Štefan Potočňák is an expert in civil law and IP/IT, media and telecommunication contracts,” says Jaroslav Havel.
HAVEL & PARTNERS will have 27 partners in total from 1 July 2018. It is not only Štěpán Štarha but also Ondřej Florián who has been appointed to the highest managerial position. Ondřej was managing associate in the advisory group focusing on private clients from the ranks of the most significant entrepreneurs and their families, top managers, investors, artists and professional athletes, including about 400 of the wealthiest Czechs and Slovaks. Štěpán and Ondřej also have in common the fact that they both started working for the law firm as junior associates in 2010. Their career reflects the law firm’s long-term effort to nurture further generations of professionals who are both lawyers and managers faster than usually seen in the legal bar.
The largest Czech-Slovak law firm HAVEL & PARTNERS will have 27 partners from 1 July 2018. Ondřej Florián and Štěpán Štarha, who are now managing associates and both started working for the law firm as junior associates in 2010, will be promoted to the highest managerial position. Their career reflects the law firm’s long-term effort to nurture future generations of professionals who are both lawyers and managers faster than usually seen in the legal bar.
“With Ondřej’s promotion, we seek to further strengthen our advisory group focusing on private clients, i.e. VIP clients from the ranks of the most significant entrepreneurs and their relatives, top managers, investors, artists and professional athletes, including about 400 of the wealthiest Czechs and Slovaks. We help them plan and structure the administration and long-term possession of their private and entrepreneurial property, and assist them with foreign investment, exports and international trade in general. For many years, Ondřej has specialized in domestic and foreign corporate acquisitions and transformations, which is often the case with family businesses, and in market terms, our experience with handing over and transforming these businesses is unparalleled,” says managing partner and head of the team for private clients, Jaroslav Havel.
Štěpán Štarha will continue to advise technological and IT companies as well as financial, energy and telecommunications companies on complex projects. “We have agreed with Štěpán that he will take part of the responsibility for developing our Slovak office. He will be available for our clients in Prague and Bratislava. I believe that his experience will help us achieve good financial results in Slovakia,” says Jaroslav Havel.
Mgr. Ondřej Florián has cooperated with HAVEL & PARTNERS since he joined the law firm as a junior associate in 2010. He specializes in corporate law, encompassing international and domestic acquisitions of companies, including sales of enterprises and the subsequent reorganizations of concern groupings. He also focuses on transformations of companies and other aspects of corporate law in the long term. In the area of transformations, he focuses especially on setting post-transactional holding structures, implementing mergers and other types of corporate transformations. For example, he advised and assisted one of the largest US brewery companies during the acquisition of 100% shares in CEE brewery companies, and he has advised significant private clients on planning and implementing their holding structures.
Mgr. Bc. Štěpán Štarha started working as a paralegal – legal assistant at HAVEL & PARTNERS in 2009 and was promoted to a junior associate in 2010. He specializes in contractual law, intellectual property law, information systems and telecommunications law as well as private international law. In the area of intellectual property law, he focuses in particular on the legal aspects of creating and using copyright works and on the protection of industrial property. In the area of information technologies law, he deals especially with aspects of implementing information systems and licensing computer programmes. For instance, he represented a significant multinational company implementing information systems in contractual relationships with state authorities of the Czech Republic and advised a global manufacturer of shoes on the protection of its industrial property rights, in particular enforcing industrial property and trademark rights.
Our law firm has been involved, as legal counsel, in one of the largest real estate transactions closed in Prague this year. Our team, managed by partner Martin Fučík and senior associate Albert Tatra, advised Golden Star Real Estate, an international investment and real estate group, on their acquisition of Explora Business Centre, an office complex in Prague, from the development and investment company Avestus Capital Partners.
HAVEL & PARTNERS, the largest Czech-Slovak law firm, has won the competition of the CEE Legal Matters magazine monitoring the most significant transactions in the CEE region. It has received the CEE Deal of the Year Award for advising the Dr. Max company of the Penta Investments Group during its acquisition of A&D Pharma Group, a Romanian company.
The M&A team of HAVEL & PARTNERS led by one of the law firm’s partners, Václav Audes, participated on the transaction. “The client used our knowledge of the legal and entrepreneurial environment of the CEE region as well as our know-how in some regulatory matters. We focus both on cross-border transactions and advisory related to entering foreign markets, forming international holding structures, protecting investment and optimizing taxes in the course of international expansion,” says Václav Audes, describing the team’s know-how that has been developed over many years.
Dr. Max operates pharmacy networks in Romania and four other European countries – the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, Poland and Serbia.
Author: Robert Neruda
In late April, the Czech NCA, the Office for the Protection of Competition (“NCA”) introduced a new policy for setting fines for a breach of the Competition Act.[1] In it, the NCA claims to have taken into account its experience with the application of the previous rules and the relevant case law. At the same time, it warns that starting from 24 April 2018, it will be allowed to impose much harsher penalties as a result of the new rules.[2] This issue of Competition Flash will briefly cover the most significant changes in this document.
specific circumstances of conduct taken into account
When setting the fines, the NCA will to a greater extent take into account the economic aspects of the anti-competitive conduct. They are already reflected in the initial stage of the fine assessment, where one of the input values is the turnover generated from the sale of goods that is directly or indirectly affected by the anti-competitive conduct. We hope that given its tightening in other sections of the methodology, the NCA will not assess fines based on turnover generated on the entire relevant market when only a part of the market is affected. The NCA also promises to make a distinction between the real and the potential effects on competition, the benefits achieved as a result of the anti-competitive conduct as opposed to the impact on the final consumer.
Increasing the basic amount of fine
The proportion of sales used as the basis for the fine assessment has also increased. The fine for very serious infringements has been raised from the existing maximum of 3% to 5-15%. Furthermore, the final fine for very serious infringements should amount to at least 0.5% of the total annual turnover of the undertaking. The fine for serious infringements should range from 3% to 10% and for less serious infringements should amount to a maximum of 5% of the turnover affected (i.e. turnover affected by the anti-competitive conduct).
Scope for fine adjustment
The NCA also introduces a new threshold when adjusting the fine amount as a result of mitigating and aggravating circumstances. The total fine adjustment may, as a result, amount to a maximum of 70% of the basic fine. This threshold will thus limit the possibility to lower the fine if multiple mitigating circumstances were applicable.
Conclusion
The NCA made a number of other changes that will affect the final amount of the fine. The increase in the percentage levels for serious infringements, introduction of a threshold for mitigating circumstances and classification of certain hard core vertical restrictions (e.g. setting prices for future sale) among very serious infringements are a clear signal that the NCA is ready to impose higher fines in the future. On the other hand, the new methodology allows for the application of economic reasoning to a greater extent, which could in turn benefit the undertakings namely when the anti-competitive conduct (e.g. horizontal price agreements) has no or minor effects on competition. Note that this policy is binding for the NCA in line with the case law although undertakings may seek to deviate from it whenever it contradicts the law or constitutional principles.
[1] Available at: http://www.uohs.cz/download/Legislativa/HS/CR/Metodika_pokut_2018_04.pdf
[2] See UOHS’s press release at: http://www.uohs.cz/cs/informacni-centrum/tiskove-zpravy/hospodarska-soutez/2416-uohs-prepracoval-metodiku-pro-ukladani-pokut-za-protisoutezni-jednani-tresty-budou-spravedlivejsi.html
Authors: Martin Fučík, Albert Tatra, Adam Karban
Source: Lexology
The concept of right of way by necessity in Section 1029 et seq. of the Czech Civil Code1 provides for the right of a real estate owner to seek access to their property from a public road, and their ability to secure sufficient connection between the public road and the property for the purpose of its proper use by the owner. In a situation where such sufficient connection of a public road with immovable property is not secured, the Civil Code, contrary to the previous civilist approach, provides more comprehensive and broader rights to the owner to secure such access. However, this concept may pose serious risks to developers and purchasers of large developable areas, which should be thoroughly examined during land acquisition due diligence investigations, and duly reflected in acquisition negotiations.
The right of way by necessity undoubtedly constitutes a restriction of the ownership right of the owners of the affected land plots, and potentially also a major limitation of the ability to freely deal with those land plots. The form and content of way by necessity can of course be always agreed on with the owner of a land plot with no access; however, if the parties fail to privately agree on the establishment of an easement by necessity, it is possible to ask competent courts to order the right of way by necessity based on an action of a property owner who has no access to a public road. The risks entailed in judicial proceedings include a limited ability to influence the extent and form of the easement by necessity granting the right of way across the servient land, as those parameters of the easement by necessity are solely at the court’s discretion.
However, the applicable law stipulates rather strict conditions on which the establishment of easement by necessity affecting adjacent land plots can be sought; the fundamental condition here is that the property is not connected to a public road and the property owner is thus prevented from properly using their real estate. Hence, easement by necessity cannot be established by court order in a situation, for example, where a way (access) already exists and the property owner merely seeks a more comfortable and advantageous2 access.
A situation may occur in practice where, in the middle of an area of interest, small residual land plots are fully surrounded by land owned by a third party, i.e. a person other than the owner of the surrounding land plots. This situation is quite frequent especially in big cities which still offer large areas, that have been unused for a long time, for development. This has become more frequent recently as we witness constant urban building densification coupled by on-going boom and activity in the real estate market. As a rule, such set-up and position of land plots have not been dealt with by owners of land without access to public roads (i.e., owners of residual land), because those owners did not have to overcome any obstacles to be able to use their land as the adjacent land was not developed and in fact allowed them free access (regardless of whether or not they had proper legal title to so use the adjacent land). Such residual land plots are typically owned by various operators of utilities and infrastructure who need access from a public road for the purpose of maintenance of the structures and utilities installed there.
In the case of acquisition of land for development, we recommend examining whether the area of interest does not contain any land plots of this kind which in the future might pose a risk of lack of direct access from a public road, and thus a risk that the owners of the land plots concerned might demand the establishment of easement by necessity. Indeed, the demand to establish an easement by necessity can affect the execution of the contemplated project on the land to be acquired. For example, this may involve a situation where, due to such a demand, the project will need to be modified so that the way by necessity can be established, which may have an impact on the financial yield of the whole acquisition, in particular if the project had to be modified in terms of size or layout. Such an interference may be considerable, due in particular to the rather broadly defined extent of easement by necessity as set out in the explanatory memorandum to the Civil Code, stipulating that “at present, sufficient connection to a public road can be deemed to exist if access is possible by motor vehicles; way by necessity has to be established at least to an extent allowing the beneficiary to pass through with an automobile”. At this point, however, it is necessary to add that the Civil Code affords strong protections to the owners of the affected land plots against the establishment of easement by necessity, embodied in Section 1032 of the Civil Code, and its letter (a) in particular, stipulating that: “A court shall not authorise way by necessity if the damage to the neighbour’s immovable property apparently exceeds the advantage of the way by necessity.”
In conclusion, we would add that the risk of establishment of way by necessity applies to the land directly adjacent to the property concerned (i.e., for example, land plots in the centre of the area of interest), and also to all land plots across which the way by necessity has to lead in order to connect the property concerned with a public road. The subject matter of pre-acquisition due diligence investigation should include not only verification of whether the property concerned has access to a public road, but also whether in or near the area of interest there are any immovable properties which might pose the risk that right of way by necessity will need to be established over the property to be acquired.
To view all formatting for this article (eg, tables, footnotes), please access the original here.
Authors: Dušan Sedláček, Adam Forst
Source: Lexology
In general, the law of associations is not in the focus of legal professionals, yet its importance cannot be underestimated. There are over 80 thousand associations in the Czech Republic, a number of which manage extensive asset portfolios or decide on important rights for their members (e.g. sports associations, industry organisations of entrepreneurs, influential publicly beneficial organisations, etc.).
So far, much fuss has been made over the new Civil Code (Act no. 89/2012 Sb.), which not only transformed the rather non-extensive regulation of civic associations from the beginning of the 1990s into the standard regulation of corporate legal entities (associations) but also introduced a number of new features. One of them is the re-introduction of an arbitration committee in associations, a concept which was known in our country until 1951 (as a court of arbitration or conciliation for associations), allowing associations to decide their internal disputes upon a binding enforcement title.
This article aims to present the basic characteristics of this new body and summarises key advantages and disadvantages associations should take into account when introducing it.
What’s actually new?
Traditionally, the internal structure of the bodies of an association is not bound by any strict rules. Apart from the executive body (such as the committee of an association) and the supreme body (such as the members’ meeting) which must be established in all cases, associations are authorised to create basically any body of any designation and scope of competence. Thus, in this respect the provisions of Section 265 of the new Civil Code, which enshrine the possibility of creating an arbitration committee in an association for resolving “contentious matters falling within the scope of an association’s self-governance defined by its statutes”, do not seem to be radical at all; as a matter of fact, many associations (in particular sports associations) were creating similar bodies a long time before the new Civil Code took effect without leaning on any explicit legal ground. However, the potential effects of a decision delivered by this (optional) body can be seen as radical, as such decision is now deemed to be a directly enforceable arbitration award. So far the decisions of arbitration bodies of an association have been enforceable only inside the association by means of the association’s own tools (e.g. by prohibiting participation in events organised by the association), but now they can be enforced directly without the necessity of conducting prior proceedings. Thus, if a member of an association owes membership fees to the association, the decision of an arbitration committee of the association in this matter may become an enforcement title, based on which the court bailiff will collect such debt on behalf of the association.
But there are many more advantages. Filing an action with the arbitration committee of an association has the same effects as filing an arbitration action. Based on that, limitation periods are suspended, and an obstacle is created preventing the commencement of judicial proceedings in the same matter (plea of lis pendens) or preventing a court from dealing with the same matter after it was previously decided upon by the arbitration committee of the association (plea of res judicata). Similarly, if a party to a dispute decides to file an action directly in the court, the defendant may object (similarly as in the absence of an arbitration clause) to the lack of the court’s jurisdiction to hear the matter, and such proceedings would have to be stayed. Another unquestionable advantage is the limited possibility for a court to review a decision made by the arbitration committee. While a decision of any other body of an association can be reviewed (and subsequently cancelled) by a court for its compliance with the law and the statutes only for procedural reasons (e.g. if the matter was decided by a biased judge), such decision can be cancelled only exceptionally with regard to its merits, if it is in contradiction with the principles of ethical behaviour (in Czech: dobré mravy) or public order.
How to distinguish an arbitration committee of an association
Although some legal professionals are of the opinion that with the entry into effect of the new Civil Code all bodies of associations having the same (or similar) name or a similar function became arbitration committees, we find this interpretation incorrect.
The basic condition for creating an arbitration committee of an association (if its decisions should have the above-described effects) is that this body is explicitly enshrined in the statutes of the association. At the same time, the text of the statutes may not raise doubts about the creation of an arbitration committee pursuant to Section 265 of the Civil Code. Where such doubts may occur it is always necessary to support the opinion that an arbitration committee in this sense has not been established. The reason for this restrictive interpretation is the fact that the creation of an arbitration committee substantially limits the constitutional rights of the association members in their access to the courts; their consent to such limitation by means of the statutes must be granted unambiguously. Therefore, basically all bodies of associations having a similar function or designation after 1 April 2014 created at a time when it was not possible yet to envisage the creation of an arbitration committee can be excluded from the classification of an arbitration committee (pursuant to Section 265 of the new Civil Code).
If the arbitration committee is sufficiently embodied in the statutes, it is necessary for its due creation to enter its name, members and mailing address in the register of associations. Although such registration is only of a declaratory nature and does not pose a condition for the creation of the arbitration committee, the potential inexistence of this registration in contentious cases can be interpreted as an expression of the association’s will not to create an arbitration committee pursuant to Section 265 of the new Civil Code.
The last prerequisite for the creation of the arbitration committee is appropriate staffing. The committee must consist of at least three persons who have reached the legal age, have full legal capacity and moral integrity and are not members of an executive body of the association. Pursuant to the Arbitration Act, persons that have not been sentenced for criminal offences upon a final and conclusive decision (and/or persons regarded as such) are persons deemed to possess moral integrity. From the practical perspective, it is necessary to take into account certain qualifications of the members of the arbitration committee, as in their decision-making they must be able to consistently apply the rules of proceedings following from the statutes and from the Arbitration Act; their work must then result in a decision which should in general contain a reviewable reasoning, advice on remedies and – most importantly – an enforced statement. If it fails to comply with these requirements, an association may face the risk that these decisions will be cancelled at a later point by a court and that such dispute resolution method will become ineffective.
Any disadvantages?
As apparent from the foregoing, the introduction of an arbitration committee is not an ideal solution for all associations. In contrast, for a large majority of associations, the introduction of such a body would involve an unnecessary risk, as it would substantially limit their access (and/or access of their members) to an impartial court and set high-level requirements for them for the selection of suitable members (in particular from the viewpoint of their impartiality and professional qualifications). Another particular group of associations would not benefit in any manner from the introduction of this body: they only deal with a minimum number of disputes and/or are able to enforce their decisions in a sufficiently efficient manner with the use of their own internal tools.
However, even those associations which may find the introduction of an arbitration committee advantageous should duly consider their decision. This is primarily because of the lack of practical experience with the application of legislation regulating this concept. Although to a certain extent inspiration can be found in this respect in the extensive case-law from the times of the First Czechoslovak Republic, the approach to be taken by judges in the future is completely unpredictable. On the other hand, there are many interpretation questions. For example, the borderline of competencies pertaining to the association’s self-governance defining what matters can or cannot be decided by the association’s arbitration committee is unclear. If, for example, an association fines its member for failing to show up at a sport match (relating to a sport in which the association is involved), it is apparent that the matter can be covered by the association’s self-governance. However, if the same association fined the same member for their failure to fulfil an advisory agreement (relating to a sport in which the association is involved), it is not quite unambiguous whether such a matter should fall within the association’s self-governance. Furthermore, it is not completely clear to what extent the courts will insist on the transparent and impartial appointment of the arbitration committee members. Thus, if such members are appointed (and removed) without any limitation solely by the association’s executive body, it is questionable whether their sufficient impartiality could be guaranteed when disputes are decided between the association and its members.
In our opinion, the legal uncertainty as to questions of this kind increases the risk that a decision of the arbitration committee will be cancelled at a later point and consequently decreases the efficiency of this dispute resolution method. At the same time, it is necessary to take into account the fact that cancellation of these decisions may be sought for almost an unlimited period of time (although only for limited reasons; see above), as a motion for the cancellation of a decision of the arbitration committee can be filed not only within three months from its delivery to the party to the proceedings but also at a later point during enforcement proceedings. Thus, decisions issued by the arbitration committee could be also threatened at a later point by changes in case-law as was the case of arbitration clauses concluded in the past in favour of ad hoc arbitration centres.
Summary
As follows from the foregoing, it is without question that the creation of an arbitration committee in associations substantially strengthens the autonomy of associations and provides them with an instrument combining the advantages of independent decision-making in internal disputes with the possibility of enforcing such decisions. However, if associations decide to introduce such a body, they should expect rather high-level requirements for the quality of its management (and decision-making), but also some uncertainty regarding the future application of the relevant legislation. Thus, we are of the opinion that the introduction of such a body should be based on a thorough analysis of the effects of such a change as well as on discretion as to the scope of the conferred powers.
