News

 In recent years, Greece has been dynamically trying to become an attraction for foreigners, competing with other European countries such as Malta, Cyprus, and Portugal, which are organized in similar incentive practices.

The "Golden Visa" plan in combination with the residence permit in Greece (and consequently with free movement throughout the Schengen area) that accompanied it, had paid off, especially during 2019. Foreigners Investors who wanted to acquire it could do so either by investing in real estate in our country, but also in bond shares and mutual funds. However, the coronavirus pandemic seems to have slowed its rise and the relative numbers have dropped significantly.

As a result, new tax incentives were designed targeting both the repatriation of young Greek immigrants (many of them being highly specialized or dispose of qualified scientific training) in order to achieve a reversal of the "brain drain" of the last decade but also aiming at Greece to attract citizens from third countries ready to settle and work or even invest in Greece.

For individuals who decide to relocate in Greece as self-employed or as employees, to another professional employment, a reduction of 50% of their income tax is introduced in Greece for the next 7 years after their establishment, under certain conditions.

At the same time, pensioners (foreigners or of Greek origin) are encouraged to choose to settle in Greece, where their tax obligations are limited to an annual income tax of only 7% of the income from their pensions they earn abroad as long as they now live in our country.

This creates a multifaceted framework of tax incentives which can be of particular interest with proper planning both for the repatriation of Greeks and for the settlement of other active or retired individuals.

Our Law firm through its network in Switzerland is quite familiar with the double taxation avoidance conventions and with the EU directives/regulations as well as the OECD recommendations to the extent that they are included in the national tax regulations. We follow with particular interest the developments in the Greek tax legislation in relation to abroad in order to be informed and able to provide quality services in the cross-border tax planning of our clients.

The Depakine (also known as Depakote) is a medicine used in case of epilepsy or as a preventive treatment from child fever convulsions. But, if the Depakine is used during pregnancy, it could cause defects and brain troubles to a born child.

On November, 12th 2020, a family who decided to intent an action against Sanofi (the French pharmaceutical company), appeared for the first time before the Geneve Court. This family claimed that the French company is liable for the lack of information regarding the medicine. In this particular case, Sanofi recognizes its liability but claim as a defense that the action is time-barred. Nevertheless, this case follows many more cases as it is established that around forty Swiss children have been victims of this lack of information from the medical system.

This case remains the first one in Switzerland but it appears that another justice State had to rule a similar case. As a matter of fact, on July, 2nd 2020 the French Administrative Court of Montreuil ruled that the French State Sanofi and the doctors who gave Depakine as prescription to pregnant women, were liable for the children defects. The French State was condemned to compensate the three families that intent the action.

It is thanks to a class action that the French Court of Montreuil recognized that the State « was responsible of not fulfilling its obligation to control and not taking the necessary means to do so. »

The French State had to pay each family 200 000 euros, 157 000 euros and 20 000 euros, according to the birth year of the five children that were concerned and are now between 11 and 35 years old.

Yet, this medical issue is still keeping busy the French justice. In fact, on November, 9th 2020, the National Medicine and Health Product Security Association (ANSM) was indicted for « injuries and unintended manslaughter. » These charges are the result of an investigation that started in 2016 and was handled by the Judicial Court of Paris on behalf of the Association for the welfare of the children’s parents suffering from the Depakine syndrome (APESAC). An ongoing class action will be heard on March 2021 in order to compensate more than fifty gathered families that are victims to this issue.

It would be no surprise that the Swiss justice as well as the French justice will ruling in favor of the victims. In fact, it seems that the judicial power is willing to condemn a significant number of medical professionals that failed to inform properly the victims about this medicine. This tendency to rule in favor of the families appears since the European Commission finale decision from June, 7th 2018 that forbids the prescription of valproate (which is a component of Depakine) to all women who are able to become pregnant or, moreover, who are pregnant. Thanks to this class action, many families can gather and sue a person or a company in order to obtain a financial compensation. The reunion of these harmed families ensures to be heard in a Court and therefore, maximize their chances to have justice.

 The class action is a legal mean that is as specific as efficient. If you consider yourself as a victim of this medical issue or would like to join a class action before the Swiss Courts, our firm would be pleased to be of assistance in  your case or answer any questions you might have in connection to your possible entitlements.  

            Since January 31, 2020, the United Kingdom (UK) is no longer part of the European Union (EU). Nevertheless, until the end of December, the British as well as the European Union’s States remains subjected to the European Union law. Since the official withdrawal of the UK in January, the EU had strong hopes that the transition period would lead to the conclusion of a free-trade agreement. But, Boris Johnson, the British Prime Minister, maintained his strong position of a « no deal Brexit » that implies no agreement between the two parties. The global pandemic acted like a real freezing of the negotiations. Every EU States thought it would have helped to conclude even a small agreement. In fact, the British Parliament decided, in July 2020, to extend the application of the EU law until July 2021 for customs matters. Nevertheless, this forward step was only a small exception. Indeed, since the beginning of the negotiations until today, the two parties did not find an agreement to conclude together. Furthermore, we are ready to face a « no deal Brexit » at the end of the year.

            But what consequences for Greece ?

            Greece is indeed part of the European Union, nevertheless, thanks to strong and ancient economic relations, the United Kingdom and greek citizens always had the privilege to obtain specialized laws adapted to each country. Brexit does not seem to change this long term relationship. In fact, before the official withdrawal of United Kingdom from the EU, the Greek government passed the 4652/2020 law that aims the relations between the two countries during the transition period. The purpose of this law (PDF version in Greek : https://www.hellenicparliament.gr/UserFiles/c8827c35-4399-4fbb-8ea6-aebdc768f4f7/11167727.pdf) is to protect British residents’ status and rights in Greece, as the upcoming residents. The purpose of this law was to evict the uncertainties concerning what is, will be or won’t be enforced until the official withdrawal of the United Kingdom in December, 31 2020. This law concerns, among others, the social rights (employment, insurance…) of British residents that won’t be anymore subjected to EU law in a « no deal » scenario.

            However, this law is enforced only during the transition period. Thus, from December, 31 2020, the United Kingdom becomes a third State to the European Union and, in extension, to Greece. The British companies as well as the greek ones are getting ready for an important customs change due to a non-agreement of free-trade. The freedom of movement between the United Kingdom and Greece will be substituted to customs procedures.

            Nevertheless, the non-conclusion of a free-trade agreement is not an obstacle to the  common business exchanges between the two States. In fact, some British companies found a new strategy by acquiring the Greek or Cypriot nationality. As a consequence, these companies are insured to benefit the EU law and more specifically, the free-trade principle. This solution, available for major companies, is also extended to nationalities from Portugal, Austria or even Malta. Herewith, compared to the official negotiators of Brexit, it seems that the practice and its actors succeed to adapt themselves to the future 2021 post-Brexit.

By Erwin Chemerinsky: Dean and professor of law at the UC Berkeley Law School

The law is clear: the government has broad power in a public health emergency to take the steps needed to stop the spread of a communicable disease. In 1905, the Supreme Court declared: “Upon the principle of self-defense, of paramount necessity, a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members.”Some conservative voices are now questioning the legality of stay-at-home orders. One conservative commentator called stay-at-home orders “totalitarian” and cast doubt on their constitutionality. These claims have no basis in law.

There is absolutely no right to put the health of others in danger and to act in a way that risks the collapse of our health care system. The government can, if it chooses, impose criminal penalties on those who willfully disobey orders designed to limit the spread of the coronavirus.

This is not a new principle. A few years after the end of the Revolutionary War, Philadelphia was isolated to control the spread of yellow fever. By the time the Constitution was drafted and approved, quarantine was already a well-established form of public health regulation. States, as part of their police power, were deemed to have the authority to order quarantines to prevent the spread of communicable diseases. In 1926, the Supreme Court wrote: “it is well settled that a state, in the exercise of its police power, may establish quarantines against human beings, or animals, or plants.”

In Jacobson v. Massachusetts, in 1905, the court upheld laws requiring compulsory vaccination against smallpox. A challenge was brought to this law on the ground that it interfered with the liberty of people to choose to not be vaccinated and to decide how to protect their own health. The court emphatically rejected this argument and stated: “But the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good.”

Every challenge to a compulsory vaccination law, even without exceptions for religious beliefs, has been rejected with courts always upholding the government’s power to protect public health. A person’s liberty does not include the right to injure or endanger others. It long has been recognized that my ability to swing my fist stops at another person’s nose.

Thus, there is no doubt that a state has the authority to impose the restrictions necessary to limit the spread of a communicable disease. State laws give governors and city officials broad authority to deal with public health emergencies.

If the government can quarantine individuals and prevent them from leaving their homes, then it also has the power to do something less restrictive, such as shelter in place requirements. Likewise, the law is clear that the government can close businesses when necessary for the sake of public health. The orders for restaurants, bars and non-essential businesses are thus unquestionably constitutional. I hope that arrests and criminal prosecutions are not needed to enforce these restrictions, but the government has that power if needed.

These enormous powers do restrict freedoms and therefore are not to be lightly undertaken. Courts would step in if the government used this authority when it was not needed or in an unreasonable manner. But under the current circumstances with the spread of coronavirus COVID-19, courts certainly would back up the government’s authority to protect society from “an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members.”

I am discouraged to hear conservatives questioning the government’s authority to take the measures necessary to protect public health. They are not only wrong as a matter of law, but those who advocate disobeying restrictions may be contributing to the spread of disease, deaths and the overburdening of the health care system. I would hope in our deeply politically polarized times that all of us, regardless of ideology, can come together for protecting the health of all of us and deal with the pandemic.

Also appeared at Fresnobee.com. Published with permission granted to us by author Prof. Erwin Chemerinsky Dean and Professor of Law at U.C. Berkeley Law school  in California.