News (#07-08 July-August 2018)

Cases

Facebook account can be inherited in Germany

The German Supreme Court has authorized the transfer of Facebook accounts by succession. Under the court ruling, accounts in social networks should be considered within the framework of the law On Inheritance on the same basis as diaries and letters. The Federal Supreme Court of Germany concluded that these can be transferred to relatives after the death of their owner.

The ruling was adopted in the suit of the parents of a 15-year-old girl, who was killed by a subway train in 2012. The applicants tried to access messages on her Facebook to find out whether her death was a suicide or an accident, AFP reports. This circumstance was also important to resolve the issue of possible compensation to the train driver: the payment is made in case the deceased committed suicide. The social network refused the girl’s parents, citing data confidentiality. The social network also refused to provide them access to her correspondence.

The proceedings lasted from 2015.
The court of first instance upheld the parents by recognizing their right to get access to the account, as is the case with transfer of personal diaries and letters by succession. The court also recognized the right of parents to find out with whom and when their deceased daughter communicated. However, the ruling was not upheld during the appeal, where the parents were denied by reference to impossibility of personal information disclosure both of the account owner and of those with whom she communicated in social networks.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court found it possible to transfer the account by succession.

Prior to this ruling, Facebook provided relatives of a deceased person with the opportunity to completely delete an account or to turn it into a digital memorial, enabling users to leave their condolences. The social network did not provide access to the correspondence of the deceased. It is not known how the company’s policy will change after this court ruling.

 

Court confirmed Darnitsa’s right to produce Corvalol-Darnitsa drug

Kyiv Commercial Court has rejected the claim of JSC Farmak to cancel the state registration of Corvalol-Darnitsa mark for goods and services owned by PrJSC Pharmaceutical Firm Darnitsa.

The Corvalol-Darnitsa mark for goods and services was registered in 2005 and is owned by the firm Darnitsa.

It is reported that in 2017, retail sales of Corvalol produced by PrJSC Pharmaceutical Firm Darnitsa and JSC Farmak amounted to UAH 43 and UAH 44 million, respectively.

Legal actions between these companies regarding the right to use the name Corvalol have dragged on since 2004. In 2011, courts of all instances (including the cassation court) ruled in favor of Darnitsa and refused Farmak in similar claims regarding cancellation of the Corvalol-Darnitsa mark.

One of the last court hearings on this case took place under the appeal petition filed by Darnitsa to Kyiv Commercial Court of Appeal on 26 June. The court revoked the repeated ruling to recognize Corvalol Corvalolum the generally known designation, which was adopted by the Appeals Chamber of the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, and invalidated the Decree of the Ministry of 19 July 2017 approving the mentioned ruling.

 

USD 4 billion seized from Johnson&Johnson through court action

The total amount awarded to 22 plaintiffs is USD 4.69 billion. The plaintiffs accused the cosmetic company of hiding information about the risk of developing ovarian cancer.

The threat from the product is related to the fact that asbestos was found in baby powder.

The lawsuit was filed by 22 women who also used the product for intimate hygiene and claimed that the foreign material causes cancerous disease. They accused the manufacturer of failing to issue a warning on the risk of developing ovarian cancer. The jury recognized the truth of the women and ordered the company to pay them compensation in the amount of USD 550 million for material damage and more than USD 4 billion for moral damages.

The company denies the charges and has said it intends to appeal the ruling.
The company has already been a defendant in a number of similar lawsuits. In August 2017 the jury of the Los Angeles Supreme Court ordered it to pay USD 417 million to a woman who said she got ovarian cancer.

 

European Court of Human Rights published ruling on Kryvorizhstal re-privatization

The European Court of Human Rights published its ruling in the Industrial Financial Consortium Investment Metallurgical Union v. Ukraine case.  The applicant company complained of violation of its rights, in particular, because of abolition of final court rulings made in its favor on privatization of one of the largest metallurgical plants in the world, the Kryvyi Rih Metallurgical Plant (Kryvorizhstal).

The applicant company, which owned 93.02% of Kryvorizhstal’s share capital, demanded USD 12.9 billion for pecuniary damage, mainly referring to the increase in price of Kryvorizhstal, income received by the company during 2005-2007 and loss of dividends.

The ECHR, taking into account the comments submitted by the Government, acknowledged that there was no violation of the rights of the applicant company guaranteed by Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention. The European Court of Human Rights came to the conclusion that the applicant company failed to prove it was deprived of the opportunity to effectively protect its property rights during the second trial conducted by national courts, and also that the withdrawal of its ownership of the stake in Kryvorizhstal was committed in violation of the legislation of Ukraine and led to the imposing of an excessive burden on it.

Taking in consideration the above, the ECHR dismissed claims for redress made by the applicant company in their entirety.

 

Court dismissed Kyivstar appeal on fine for violating billing increment principles

The Kyiv City Economic Court denied mobile operator Kyivstar an appeal against a fine of UAH 21 million, imposed on the operator by the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine for violating billing increment principles. As early as 14 December 2017, AMCU adopted the decision to impose a fine on the mobile operator.

As the AMCU claimed at the time, the operator used three types of statements in its communication about billing increment terms, in two of which it was announced that the billing was “per second”. In fact, such statement was false — as the cost of a full minute of conversation was charged during the first second of a conversation.

Kyivstar applied to the court, and in early March a case was brought. Failure to pay a fine results in the charging of a fine in the amount of 1.5% of the fine for each day of delay (or UAH 319,600 a day). The court ordered a freeze on the sanction before the court ruling on the merits of the dispute.

Kyivstar’s press service noted that they took into account AMCU recommendations and initiated timely measures to make communication easier to understand for customers.

The AMCU and Lifecell are currently involved in a similar court proceeding. In September 2017 the Committee imposed a fine of UAH 19 million on the operator.

Subscribe
The Ukrainian Journal of Business Law

Subscribe to The Ukrainian Journal of Business Law right now and enjoy the most relevant issues on doing business in Ukraine on your device or in print.

All this for just USD 9.99 a month.

 

Subscribe now