New regulations to facilitate the exit of companies from Catalonia
Changing the registered office address is now more simple for companies in Spain
On Saturday October 7th, 2017, Royal Decree-Law 15/2017, of October 6th, of urgent measures regarding mobility of economic operators inside national territory, has been released in the Spanish Official State Bulletin (BOE) and is now into force.
This law has been urgently approved in order to facilitate the exit from Catalonia of some financial entities in risk of bankruptcy for withdrawal of deposits, following the illegal movement led by the Regional Government. Indeed, according to the bylaws of some of these entities, the Shareholders Meeting was still the competent body to authorize the change of the registered office address. Given the fact that the Shareholders Meeting must be called with a long time in advance and the result of the vote for said change was unknown, the National Government decided to help these financial entities to make that change of registered office with the simple intervention of the Board of Directors.
Customs. Import documentation and proceedings in Spain
New developments in the filing of the Single Administrative Document with regard to Customs
The European Union Customs Code [Regulation (EU) 952/2013, of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 9 October 2013, laying down the Union Customs Code] establishes the obligation to make a customs declaration suited to the assignment of the goods to a customs procedure, through electronic data-processing techniques.
However, as all the procedures that have been computerized over the last few years, it has not worked well since the beginning, so a transitory regulation was set up to file the forms until the needed electronic data-processing procedures were operational.
Customs declarations have been updated and harmonized between Member States.
This update and harmonization’s reflection culminates with the recently released regulation (BOE 1 September 2017): Resolution of 25 August 2017, of the Customs and Special Taxes Department of the State Tax Administration Agency (AEAT), which amends Resolution of 11 July 2014, of instructions to draw up the Single Administrative Document (SAD).
It is particularly new the computerized system for application, authorization and control of warranties in order to obtain a deferral of a customs dept payment.
The aim of all these changes is to get from a national system of registry to a future software application in the European Union which would allow operators even to use a warranty presented in a Member State in any other Member State.
Some other new updates of this regulation are the following:
- Incomplete statements have disappeared.
- Deadlines to complete simplified statements have been modified.
- Minimum data to be declared has changed.
The Castilla y León Superior Court of Justice rules the accident of a worker during training course as a “accident at work in mission”
There is no doubt if an employee has an accident in their workplace, during work hours, they have had an accident at work.
When the accident takes place on the way to their workplace, or coming back from there, without altering their usual route, it is considered an accident in itinere and, in practice, it is considered as any other accident at work.
However, reality is much more complex, and lots of employees suffer accidents during work hours and complying instructions of their employers, but they do not take place neither in their workplace nor on their way or coming back from there. All these accidents are encompassed in a category named accident in mission.
Sometimes, an accident in misión occurs because the workplace is mobile (for instance, a carrier who has an accident in a vehicle assigned by the company to perform their duties as a carrier).
What happens when employees are in a training course? The Labour Section of the Castilla y León Superior Court of Justice in Burgos has been very clear in Sentence 25/2017: a fracture of a worker’s humerus who was participating in training sessions is an accident of work in mission, because said training is considered part of the employee’s work.
Dismissal in the pregnancy period. Can be legal in exceptional cases
According to Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the dismissal of a pregnant woman is only legal in “exceptional cases”
Collective dismissal is a way of laying off employees in droves. In order for it to be legal, a series of requirements must be met, and it is clear that pregnant women have a special protection to take into consideration in this context.
This special protection has led a Spanish Court to consult the Court of Justice of the European Union in order to be helped to construe the legal prohibition of dismissing pregnant employees during a collective dismissal, interpreted taking into consideration the European regulations applicable.
Eleanor Sharpston, Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union, considers in her ruling that the Maternity Directive, “the exception permitting the dismissal of pregnant workers only applies in exceptional cases not connected to the pregnancy”.
Sharpston explains that “there are situations that are, indeed, deemed to be exceptional”, but that does not mean that “every collective redundancy is an ‘exceptional case’ in the sense of the Maternity Directive”
In Sharpston’s opinion, the Spanish Court must determine whether the cause of the concrete employee’s dismissal can be ruled as an “exceptional case” to ascertain if the exception permiting the dismissal of pregnant workers is applicable.
However, she makes it perfectly clear that a dismissal cannot be considered an “exceptional case” for the simple fact of occurring within a collective dismissal, so there must be other exceptional reasons motivating the dismissal. She adds that “there must also be no plausible possibility of reassigning the pregnant worker to another suitable post”.
It has to be said that resolutions of the Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union are not legally binding for the Sentence of the Spanish Court, but in practice, every Court take her conclusions as their own (which is logical, given the fact that it was the Court the one to make a consultation, and they did that because they had a doubt on how to interpret a regulation).
For this reason, it is foreseeable that this ruling will be taken into account for interpretation purposes in Spanish jurisprudence, but it is not considered as a precedent.