Expertise
- Advice and litigation
- Administrative law and litigation
-
Business criminal law and criminal proceedings
- Advice and assistance to victims, and their defence
- Assistance during the pre-trial phase
-
International mutual assistance
- Tax matters
- Criminal matters
- Co-operation between prudential supervisory authorities matters
-
IP / TMT
- e-Commerce
- Unfair competition
- IT contracts
- Intellectual property
- Data protection
-
Combatting money-laundering and the financing of terrorism
- Support to credit institutions and PFS in their relations with the CSFS and the FIU
- Suspicious activity report
- Professional obligations
-
Combatting fraud
- Civil fraud
- IT fraud
-
Domestic and international proceedings
- Co-ordination of domestic or international proceedings
- Civil and criminal exequatur of foreign judgements
- Exequatur for arbitration sentences
- Notifications of proceedings abroad
- Interdisciplinary and transnational strategies
- Advice and litigation
- Administrative law and litigation
-
Business criminal law and criminal proceedings
- Advice and assistance to victims, and their defence
- Assistance during the pre-trial phase
-
International mutual assistance
- Tax matters
- Criminal matters
- Co-operation between prudential supervisory authorities matters
-
IP / TMT
- e-Commerce
- Unfair competition
- IT contracts
- Intellectual property
- Data protection
-
Combatting money-laundering and the financing of terrorism
- Support to credit institutions and PFS in their relations with the CSFS and the FIU
- Suspicious activity report
- Professional obligations
-
Combatting fraud
- Civil fraud
- IT fraud
-
Domestic and international proceedings
- Co-ordination of domestic or international proceedings
- Civil and criminal exequatur of foreign judgements
- Exequatur for arbitration sentences
- Notifications of proceedings abroad
- Interdisciplinary and transnational strategies
Civil and commercial law - Cases
There has been a number of disputes between two competing developers, one of whom is our client, in relation to a major town planning project on the outskirts of the City of Luxembourg. As our client had initiated a number of legal proceedings in this respect, the competing developer sought damages from both our client and from our client's legal representative amounting to some EUR 30,000,000 for the alleged misuse of the right to bring legal proceedings and the alleged sabotage of actions undertaken by the competing developer with a view to developing its land. By way of defence, we stated and documented that each of the proceedings initiated by our client, considered individually and placed in context, was justified, and could not be considered to have been culpably initiated or appealed. We also stated and documented that each of the proceedings was for a different purpose and was founded on different legal arguments, and that no charge of procedural harassment within the meaning of case-law or doctrine could be brought against our client. Endorsing the arguments put forward, the District Court of and at Luxembourg simply rejected the claim made by the competing developer. The appeal procedure initiated by the interested party is still pending.