eng est
QR code

NB! Please note that information below is disclosed either upon a prior consent of the client in writing or when it became public.

  • Successful representation at the Joint Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities.

The Joint Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities (the European Banking Authority, the European Securities and Markets Authority and the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) has published its decision in an appeal brought by SV Capital OÜ, an Estonian company, against a decision of the European Banking Authority. This is the first ever decision of the Board of Appeal of the ESAs.

The Board of Appeal satisfied the appeal and remitted the case to the European Banking Authority to adopt the appropriate decision in accordance with the finding of the appeal.

To read the Financial Times coverage of the story, please click here (you will be taken to the FT.com website).

Advocate in charge: Maksim Greinoman

  • Creation of SE. We advised GT Projekt AS on its reorganisation into a European company (SE, Societas Europaea). New name of the company became GT Corporation SE. The interesting point was that the Regulation does not provide for reorganisation of a national public limited company. Therefore, an SPV in the form of a Finnish public limited company was created and the merger was then effected thereby GT Projekt became a SE. GT Corporation SE became the sixth SE in Estonia.

Advocate in charge: Maksim Greinoman

  • Representation of Estonian daily Postimees against Mr Inno Tähismaa. Mr Tähismaa sued newspaper owners AS Postimees and AS Õhtuleht for the damages of 1,000,000 kroons. Mr Tähismaa alleged the newspaper articles slandered him. After reading the statement of defence on behalf of AS Postimees Mr Tähismaa decided not to appear in court. The court resolved not to review the case and ordered Mr Tähismaa to pay the costs.

Advocate in charge: Maksim Greinoman

  • Invalidating in the National Court a court order in force against O. L. The land court made an order against O.L. and ordered him to pay the claim. O.L. did not appeal and the order came into force. We submitted a cassation request to the National Court for reopening of the proceedings. The National Court ordered that although there was a postal receipt in the court file showing service of documents it was unclear what document had been served on O.L. Therefore, the National Court satisfied the petition. As in 2012 the National Court received 38 petitions to reopen a case in civil matters and only 2 were granted leave to appeal and satisfied, this has been a notable success.

Advocate in charge: Sirle Kalma