Years ago, when a group of in-house lawyers entered the elevator of a bank, someone would mock, “Wow, what a bunch of handbrakes!” While this did not personally happen to me, I am well aware that internal legal counsels are often referred to as “problem factories” or “speedbumps” – the couriers of bad news, best to be avoided. I must admit, this scorn was not without reason. But, should this necessarily still be the case? In my view, not any longer.

In the 18 plus years I have been an in-house counsel I have had the opportunity to observe the evolution of that role. These days, in-house legal counsel do more than simply review contracts and provide legal counseling. We are no longer transactional clerks who merely approve what has already been done. General Counsels have evolved from being purely legal advisors to being strategic advisors. It is not enough now merely to provide guidance and business solutions on specific issues or resolve disputes that may arise. We must be forward looking business partners, seated at the table at which strategic decisions are made. 

The phenomenon of globalization has impacted almost every field of personal and business life of this generation – and the position of Head of Legal is no exception. In order to understand the evolution of this role compare what football or basketball looked like 30 years ago to what they look like now: Almost like different games. 

A significant anniversary inevitably causes us to reflect upon the period gone by. The sub-prime mortgage crisis in the US started in 2007 and, after spreading to other countries, became the global financial crisis that caused the longest-lasting recession of the post-war era. This recession, in conjunction with other factors, triggered sweeping changes in the Hungarian legal market. In retrospect, clear, recognizable patterns have emerged in the ten years since then. 

I have been doing deals in the CEE region in one capacity or another for over a decade now. My initial introduction to the region was during my time in New York and London with Cleary Gottlieb where I frequently instructed local law firms in the region on cross-border transactions.

In the European Union, competence of courts is harmonized and regulated by Brussels Ibis regulation No. 1215/2012 (the “Regulation”). The competence of courts determined by the Regulation is protected and applies unless the Regulation stipulates otherwise. Arbitration is not subject to EU harmonized regulations. It is governed by international treaties, most notably the New York Convention.

The unique political and administrative landscape of Bosnia and Herzegovina has resulted in far too many legislative levels and regulations for a country of its size.

2016 has been a challenging year for dispute resolution in Poland, due primarily to the numerous changes in regulatory framework that have come or will come into effect. In particular, since the country’s 2015 parliamentary elections, the government has been working on regulations related to group action proceedings, procedures for collecting claims, and various criminal law issues. 

Hungary’s current Act on Civil Litigation Procedures was adopted in 1953, and it served courts, counsels, and parties in litigations well over decades of the socialist regime.

Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of May 21, 2013, on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes (“Directive on Consumer ADR”) obliged Member States to bring into force the laws, regulations, and administrative provisions necessary to comply with it by July 9, 2015. 

Since former Of Counsel of Taylor Wessing Bratislava Lucia Zitnanska was appointed Slovak Minister of Justice in April 2016, the legislative changes prepared by her department have primarily been driven by the practical need to improve the enforceability of law and increase the importance of e-communication tools. To those ends, two major reforms concerning debt enforcement will enter into force in the first half of 2017.

Even at first blush, it is apparent that arbitration and insolvency make strange bedfellows.

Debt recovery is one of the most challenging parts of day-to-day business, especially in an environment where debtors aim to hinder enforcement by fraudulently diminishing their estate. 

Currently, one of the main issues in Slovenia is the ruling in late October 2016 of the Constitutional Court of Slovenia regarding constitutional rights violations suffered by investors in five major Slovenian banks when both their equity capital and the subordinated instruments were written off as a result of extraordinary measures exercised by the Bank of Slovenia between December 2013 and December 2014 as a result of the systemic banking crisis. 

In November, the Bulgarian Parliament began debating the amendments to the Competition Protection Act (CPA) with respect to the implementation of the EU’s Directive 2014/104/EE on Damages Actions for Antitrust Infringements (the “Directive”). Interestingly, the main aim of the Directive and the proposed amendments to the CPA – facilitating the private enforcement of infringements of competition law – coincides with what is probably the biggest cartel investigation in the history of the Bulgarian Commission for Competition Protection (CCP).

An issue that has been increasingly raised in international arbitration is whether third parties can be included in arbitration without their explicit consent. 

The Ukrainian court system saw significant changes in 2016. The first, and probably the most important, was the initiation of judicial reform, which included changes to the Constitution of Ukraine and a truly significant amount of new laws (some of which have already passed through the Parliament, with others still under development). In addition, in 2016, Ukrainian legal community witnessed some unexpected decisions of the Supreme Court of Ukraine affecting the jurisdiction of Ukrainian courts, which contributed to uncertainty in the Ukrainian judiciary.

As part of comprehensive arbitration law reform in Russia, the new Russian Arbitration Law (Domestic) has come into force and become better aligned with the UNCITRAL Model Law. Several aspects of the new Arbitration Law need to be kept in mind when executing new arbitration agreements and enforcing existing ones.