Blog

WP_Query Object
(
    [query] => Array
        (
            [paged] => 6
            [news-type] => blog-en
        )

    [query_vars] => Array
        (
            [paged] => 6
            [news-type] => blog-en
            [error] => 
            [m] => 
            [p] => 0
            [post_parent] => 
            [subpost] => 
            [subpost_id] => 
            [attachment] => 
            [attachment_id] => 0
            [name] => 
            [pagename] => 
            [page_id] => 0
            [second] => 
            [minute] => 
            [hour] => 
            [day] => 0
            [monthnum] => 0
            [year] => 0
            [w] => 0
            [category_name] => 
            [tag] => 
            [cat] => 
            [tag_id] => 
            [author] => 
            [author_name] => 
            [feed] => 
            [tb] => 
            [meta_key] => 
            [meta_value] => 
            [preview] => 
            [s] => 
            [sentence] => 
            [title] => 
            [fields] => 
            [menu_order] => 
            [embed] => 
            [category__in] => Array
                (
                )

            [category__not_in] => Array
                (
                )

            [category__and] => Array
                (
                )

            [post__in] => Array
                (
                )

            [post__not_in] => Array
                (
                )

            [post_name__in] => Array
                (
                )

            [tag__in] => Array
                (
                )

            [tag__not_in] => Array
                (
                )

            [tag__and] => Array
                (
                )

            [tag_slug__in] => Array
                (
                )

            [tag_slug__and] => Array
                (
                )

            [post_parent__in] => Array
                (
                )

            [post_parent__not_in] => Array
                (
                )

            [author__in] => Array
                (
                )

            [author__not_in] => Array
                (
                )

            [search_columns] => Array
                (
                )

            [meta_query] => Array
                (
                )

            [ignore_sticky_posts] => 
            [suppress_filters] => 
            [cache_results] => 1
            [update_post_term_cache] => 1
            [update_menu_item_cache] => 
            [lazy_load_term_meta] => 1
            [update_post_meta_cache] => 1
            [post_type] => 
            [posts_per_page] => 10
            [nopaging] => 
            [comments_per_page] => 50
            [no_found_rows] => 
            [taxonomy] => news-type
            [term] => blog-en
            [order] => DESC
        )

    [tax_query] => WP_Tax_Query Object
        (
            [queries] => Array
                (
                    [0] => Array
                        (
                            [taxonomy] => news-type
                            [terms] => Array
                                (
                                    [0] => blog-en
                                )

                            [field] => slug
                            [operator] => IN
                            [include_children] => 1
                        )

                )

            [relation] => AND
            [table_aliases:protected] => Array
                (
                    [0] => wp_term_relationships
                )

            [queried_terms] => Array
                (
                    [news-type] => Array
                        (
                            [terms] => Array
                                (
                                    [0] => blog-en
                                )

                            [field] => slug
                        )

                )

            [primary_table] => wp_posts
            [primary_id_column] => ID
        )

    [meta_query] => WP_Meta_Query Object
        (
            [queries] => Array
                (
                )

            [relation] => 
            [meta_table] => 
            [meta_id_column] => 
            [primary_table] => 
            [primary_id_column] => 
            [table_aliases:protected] => Array
                (
                )

            [clauses:protected] => Array
                (
                )

            [has_or_relation:protected] => 
        )

    [date_query] => 
    [queried_object] => WP_Term Object
        (
            [term_id] => 71
            [name] => Blog
            [slug] => blog-en
            [term_group] => 0
            [term_taxonomy_id] => 71
            [taxonomy] => news-type
            [description] => 
            [parent] => 0
            [count] => 68
            [filter] => raw
        )

    [queried_object_id] => 71
    [request] => SELECT SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS  wp_posts.ID
					 FROM wp_posts  LEFT JOIN wp_term_relationships ON (wp_posts.ID = wp_term_relationships.object_id) LEFT  JOIN wp_icl_translations wpml_translations
							ON wp_posts.ID = wpml_translations.element_id
								AND wpml_translations.element_type = CONCAT('post_', wp_posts.post_type) 
					 WHERE 1=1  AND ( 
  wp_term_relationships.term_taxonomy_id IN (71)
) AND ((wp_posts.post_type = 'post' AND (wp_posts.post_status = 'publish' OR wp_posts.post_status = 'acf-disabled' OR wp_posts.post_status = 'tribe-ea-success' OR wp_posts.post_status = 'tribe-ea-failed' OR wp_posts.post_status = 'tribe-ea-schedule' OR wp_posts.post_status = 'tribe-ea-pending' OR wp_posts.post_status = 'tribe-ea-draft'))) AND ( ( ( wpml_translations.language_code = 'en' OR (
					wpml_translations.language_code = 'nl'
					AND wp_posts.post_type IN ( 'attachment' )
					AND ( ( 
			( SELECT COUNT(element_id)
			  FROM wp_icl_translations
			  WHERE trid = wpml_translations.trid
			  AND language_code = 'en'
			) = 0
			 ) OR ( 
			( SELECT COUNT(element_id)
				FROM wp_icl_translations t2
				JOIN wp_posts p ON p.id = t2.element_id
				WHERE t2.trid = wpml_translations.trid
				AND t2.language_code = 'en'
                AND (
                    p.post_status = 'publish' OR p.post_status = 'private' OR 
                    ( p.post_type='attachment' AND p.post_status = 'inherit' )
                )
			) = 0 ) ) 
				) ) AND wp_posts.post_type  IN ('post','page','attachment','wp_block','wp_template','wp_template_part','wp_navigation','our_sector','our_rechtsgebieden','acf-field-group','bwl_advanced_faq','tribe_venue','tribe_organizer','tribe_events','mc4wp-form','slider-data','actualiteiten','accordion','failissementens','advocaten','blogs','seminar','juridisch-medewerker','backoffice','rechtsgebied-detail' )  ) OR wp_posts.post_type  NOT  IN ('post','page','attachment','wp_block','wp_template','wp_template_part','wp_navigation','our_sector','our_rechtsgebieden','acf-field-group','bwl_advanced_faq','tribe_venue','tribe_organizer','tribe_events','mc4wp-form','slider-data','actualiteiten','accordion','failissementens','advocaten','blogs','seminar','juridisch-medewerker','backoffice','rechtsgebied-detail' )  )
					 GROUP BY wp_posts.ID
					 ORDER BY wp_posts.menu_order, wp_posts.post_date DESC
					 LIMIT 50, 10
    [posts] => Array
        (
            [0] => WP_Post Object
                (
                    [ID] => 19971
                    [post_author] => 26
                    [post_date] => 2020-03-30 13:50:57
                    [post_date_gmt] => 2020-03-30 11:50:57
                    [post_content] => Data breaches are any occurrences related with the security of personal data, including the loss, alteration or unauthorized disclosure. The definition under the GDPR includes both deliberate acts, such as hacker attacks; or accidents, such as the loss of a pen drive by an organization employee.

Because of the GDPR obligation to notify the authorities, we are aware that data breaches recently happened in big companies like Uber and Facebook, which have huge potential and technical skills to invest in security measures. Therefore, it seems that it does not matter the sector, if the company is big or small, the main question is not if a data breach will happen, but when it will happen.

Contact us (e-mail) in order to receive our paper with advice regarding action plans to prevent and deal with data breaches.
Introduction: Definition and Obligations under the GDPR
Data breaches are any occurrences related with the security of personal data, including the loss, alteration or unauthorized disclosure. The definition under the GDPR includes both deliberate acts, such as hacker attacks; or accidents, such as the loss of a pen drive by an organization employee.

In accordance with Articles 33 and 34 of the GDPR, the responsible for determining the purposes and means of personal data processing (“Controller”) has the obligation to communicate the data breaches to the competent data protection authority (“DPA” or “Authority”) within 72 hours after becoming aware of it and the individuals affected in reasonable time. However, not all of them shall be notified.

It shall be analysed if the data breach is likely to result in a risk to the rights and freedoms of any individuals in order to meet the requirement to notify the DPA. On the other hand, the data breach shall be likely to result not only in a risk, but a high risk for the rights and freedoms, in order to require communication to the data subjects.

Because of the obligation to notify the Authorities, we are aware that data breaches recently happened in big companies like Uber and Facebook, which have huge potential and technical skills to invest in security measures. Therefore, it seems that it does not matter the sector, if the company is big or small, the main question is not if a data breach will happen, but when it will happen.

In this regard, the first important point to mention is the fact that the notification of a data breach does not automatically represent that the company will receive a fine. The European DPAs haven been considered if the security measures in place before the data breach were reasonable in order to prevent data breaches and, when positive, the investigations were concluded without further consequences for the Controllers, except to review and reinforce its security policies.

Another option, if the company is in doubt about the risks posed by the data breach, is to notify the DPA in order to receive guidance in relation to the incident. There is also no penalty for the notification of incidents that are end up considered data breaches unlikely to result in risk and, therefore, would not be required to be notified.
Prevention
Besides to the adoption of organisational and technical measures to avoid intrusions in the systems, as well to ensure security in the processes, it is relevant to have a well-structured incident response plans to deal with data breaches when they occur.

It is common that the first to identify irregularities are the employees without decision-making power in the organization. Normally such employees do not have an overview of the business and may not understand what risks are related with the incident leading to their decision not to communicate the incident for the superiors.

Some employees will also not communicate the incident thinking that they may be considered responsible for the problem. Even when they decide to communicate it, without a defined response plan, the communication flow is normally disorganized and inefficient.

In view of the above, one of the basic requirements of an effective response plan is the obligation of communication of operational irregularities related to data protection by employees, as well as the provision of disciplinary measures for omitting any information related to an incident. In addition, it will be necessary to establish a well-structured communication flow leading the information to someone with decision-making power inside of the organization, which may, finally, bring the matter to a pre-selected interdisciplinary committee for data breach situations.

Since service providers considered data processors (“Processor”) have the responsibility under the GDPR to inform any data breach to the Controller, the incident response plans shall also include them. It is recommended to include who in the organization shall be informed by the Processor and in which manner.
Communication to Authorities and Data Subjects
GDPR establishes the tasks and powers of the National DPAs, which includes the promotion of public awareness regarding data protection, awareness of Controllers and Processors in relation to the compliance with the GDPR, giving advice on processing operations, among others. In this sense, it is important to highlight that the Controller may benefit from the notification obligation to the national DPA in order to have guidance in how to remediate the risks of a data breach, but also and preferable, before any data breach occurs.

The GDPR sets forth the following minimum content to be included in the notification: (i) description of the data breach, including the categories and number of individuals concerned; (ii) contact details of the Data Protection Office or other point of contact inside of the organization; (iii) description of potential consequences of the data breach; and (iv) description of the measures taken or proposed in order to mitigate the possible risks.

Despite the minimum content, even if the organization still do not have all the respective information available, the guidelines of the national DPAs indicate to notify the Authority within 72 hours after becoming aware of the incident in order to comply with the timely notification requirement.

The lack of the minimum content shall not hinder the timely data breach notification by the Controller. Even after the first notification, it will be possible to complement, amend and even correct the previous information provided together with the reasons of delay to provide such information. This is the recommendation aiming to have Controllers and competent DPAs working together against the risks of the data breach since the first stages.

The data breach communication to the data subjects should contain at least the same elements of the notification to the Authority, except for information of the categories and number of individuals concerned which are not required. The main difference between the data breach notification to the authority and the data breach communication to the data subject is that, in the last one, it shall be written in clear and plain language.

In view of this specificity, it is recommendable to involve an interdisciplinary team with representants of different areas of the organization, such as the legal team, which will advise in relation to the minimum requirements of the GDPR for this communication; the Information Technology team, which analyses the technical details of the incident; and the communication and marketing team, which have the ability to choose the best strategy to communicate the data breach to the affected persons and write it in a easily understandable manner.

In this regard, the involvement of an interdisciplinary team is recommended also in the occasion of the notification to the authority, but it is seems to be even more important in the elaboration of the communication to the data subjects.

In case the individual communication to each affected data subject involve disproportionate effort to the Controller, the GDPR provides that it is possible to make public announcements considered equally effective. To achieve this purpose, the interdisciplinary team mentioned above will need to study the best strategy to deliver the communication ensuring its effectiveness.
Mitigation Measures
The GDPR also exempts the necessity to the data breach communicate to data subjects when the Controller has taken measures which neutralize the risks of the data breach. In order to prevent the risks of data breaches, it is recommendable to apply encryption or other techniques avoiding the access of personal data by non authorized individuals. After the data breach, other measures are considered by the DPAs.

Besides to a correct data breach notification to the competent Authority and communication to the data subjects, the following measures are considered by DPAs as best practices to deal with data breaches:

 	
Avoiding negotiation with criminal hackers involved in the data breach;
 	
application of disciplinary measures to employees involved in the data breach in order to avoid reoccurrence or spreading of personal data in power of this employees;
 	
opening of disciplinary and judicial proceedings for the same purpose mentioned in item “ii” and for repairing damages;
 	
hiring of forensic services when in doubt of a data breach related with the processing activities by a Processor;
 	
full internet research with cybersecurity specialists in order to analyze if the personal data was affected, including in the deep web;
 	
mandatory change of relevant passwords;
 	
collection of correspondences or request erasing of online messages sent to the wrong address;
 	
in case of lack of internal expertise related with hacker attacks, seek external advisory;
 	
review internal processes in general and raise the employees awareness, specially in relation to that type of data breach.

Conclusion
In view of the above, it is important to highlight that the occurrence of a data breach does not necessarily means the violation of the GDPR and application of penalties by the competent DPA.

If the organization have appropriate organisational and technical measures in place, including an incident response plan, as well as adopt measures in order to mitigate the data breach after it happens, the administrative procedures before the DPA may be concluded without further consequences to the organization. In addition, the organization may benefit from guidance of the DPA and from the data breach experience in order to avoid future data breaches of the same nature.

 

 

 
                    [post_title] => Data breaches under the GDPR
                    [post_excerpt] => 
                    [post_status] => publish
                    [comment_status] => open
                    [ping_status] => open
                    [post_password] => 
                    [post_name] => data-breaches-under-the-gdpr
                    [to_ping] => 
                    [pinged] => 
                    [post_modified] => 2020-03-30 13:53:05
                    [post_modified_gmt] => 2020-03-30 11:53:05
                    [post_content_filtered] => 
                    [post_parent] => 0
                    [guid] => https://bg.legal/?p=19971
                    [menu_order] => 0
                    [post_type] => post
                    [post_mime_type] => 
                    [comment_count] => 0
                    [filter] => raw
                )

            [1] => WP_Post Object
                (
                    [ID] => 19751
                    [post_author] => 6
                    [post_date] => 2020-03-12 11:12:25
                    [post_date_gmt] => 2020-03-12 10:12:25
                    [post_content] => The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently authorized marketing of a software based on Artificial Intelligence (AI) intended to guide medical professionals in capturing quality cardiac ultrasounds used to identify and treat heart diseases. The Software Caption Guidance is based on a machine learning technology that differentiates quality images and non-acceptable images. In addition, it is connected with an AI based interface designed to give described commands to untrained professional about the operation of the ultrasound probe in order to capture relevant images.

Considering that heart diseases are one of the most known causes of death in the world and this technology promotes access to effective cardiac diagnostics by professionals without prior experience with ultrasound technologies, it is a potential lifesaving tool.

Several AI based medical devices has been analysed and approved by the FDA since 2018. New instruments were included in the premarket submission in order to analyse the transparency and accuracy of the respective AI algorithms. This was discussed in the FDA’s paper launched in April, 2019 ““Proposed Regulatory Framework for Modifications to Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning (AI/ML)-Based Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) - Discussion Paper and Request for Feedback”. This movement has encouraged even more investments on the sector and has been influencing the European scenario.

The European Commission is working on the development of AI regulation in multi-dimensional perspectives and it seems to have concluded why and how regulate it through the publication of “Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI” in April, 2019 by the European Commission’s High-level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence. The recommendations are related with the principles of ethics, lawfulness and robustness from a technical and societal perspectives.

Specifically in relation to the health sector, the Regulation EU 2017/745 on Medical Devices (Medical Devices Regulation), which will be fully applicable in May 2020, provides that software programs created with the clear intention to be used for medical purposes are considered medical devices. Therefore, AI based health technologies helping to decide on treatment of diseases through prediction or prognosis usually fall under this definition.

In this regard, while different sectors are pressing for a practical regulation for AI, the European health sector has been mentioned as one possible case in which pre existing regulation, such as the Medical Device Regulation and its certification process, may be enough to keep up with AI based technologies.

Despite the fact that medical devices are regulated by national authorities, the European Medicine Agency (EMA) is the responsible for assessment, authorization and supervision of certain categories in accordance with the European legislation.

Considering the potential of innovative technologies to transform healthcare, including AI based medical devices, as well as the risks it raises, EMA has joined an European task force involving the matter[1] and has launched its main strategic goals[2], including the exploitation of digital technologies and artificial intelligence in decision making. Besides to develop expertise to engage with digital technology, artificial intelligence and cognitive computing, EMA’s idea is to create an AI test laboratory to explore application of AI based technologies which support data driven decisions.

In general, the main European concerns about AI are related with transparency and accountability considering the complexity of the respective algorithms, but specially, the identification of unlawful biases and prejudicial elements. In this regard, health data breaches and AI decision making based on sensitive data such as health data may lead to discrimination and is considered of a huge risk.

In addition, the Medical Devices Regulation mentions requirement such as informed consent, transparency, access to information and provision of accessible and essential information about the device to the patient.  Therefore, its recommendable at least to demonstrate the efforts to overcome the challenges related with AI mentioned above in the submissions for approvals of medical devices to EMA. It can be tackled by presenting predictable and verifiable algorithms, a clear understanding of the categories of data used in the project and the implementation of regular audits and procedures to avoid discrimination, errors and inaccuracies.

In view of the above, EMA seems still be searching an adequate approach to ensure that AI based innovative technologies are effective and appropriate to support medical decisions, as well as to fit AI in the existing regulatory framework in a manner that these technologies are supported by the society. Notwithstanding, EMA has been supporting initiatives to explore AI and already approved investigations researches based on artificial intelligence, such as the pediatric investigation plan for PXT3003 by Pharnext company[3], which demonstrates it is open to discuss AI based projects.

As included in a recent article written by Daniel Walch, director of groupement hospitalier de l’Ouest lémanique (GHOL) and by Xavier Comtesse, head of the first Think Tank in Switzerland and PHD in Computer Science: “Artificial intelligence will not replace doctors. But the doctors who will use AI will replace those who will not do it”. Therefore, it will be key to have a more practical approach in relation to the approval of AI medical devices for the promotion of innovation and trust in the European health sector, specially upon May, 2020, with the full applicability of the Medical Devices Regulation.

[1] HMA-EMA Joint Big Data Taskforce

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/minutes/hma/ema-joint-task-force-big-data-summary-report_en.pdf

[2] EMA Regulatory Science to 2025

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/regulatory-procedural-guideline/ema-regulatory-science-2025-strategic-reflection_en.pdf

[3] European Medicines Agency Agrees with Pharnext’s Pediatric Investigation Plan for PXT3003

https://www.pharnext.com/images/PDF/press_releases/2018.07.10_PIP_agreement_EN.pdf


                    [post_title] => European Perspectives on AI Medical Devices
                    [post_excerpt] => 
                    [post_status] => publish
                    [comment_status] => open
                    [ping_status] => open
                    [post_password] => 
                    [post_name] => europese-perspectieven-op-ai-medische-hulpmiddelen
                    [to_ping] => 
                    [pinged] => 
                    [post_modified] => 2020-03-12 11:40:15
                    [post_modified_gmt] => 2020-03-12 10:40:15
                    [post_content_filtered] => 
                    [post_parent] => 0
                    [guid] => https://bg.legal/?p=19751
                    [menu_order] => 0
                    [post_type] => post
                    [post_mime_type] => 
                    [comment_count] => 0
                    [filter] => raw
                )

            [2] => WP_Post Object
                (
                    [ID] => 18547
                    [post_author] => 6
                    [post_date] => 2019-10-21 14:31:31
                    [post_date_gmt] => 2019-10-21 12:31:31
                    [post_content] => At 20 October 2019, Jos van der Wijst gave a presentation about legal aspects of blockchain cases in food.

Jos is technology lawyer with a focus on the Food sector.

The presentation was part of the program of the Den Bosch Data Week and was held in the Jheronimus Academy of Data Science.

The next presentation of Jos will at the Agri Food Tech conference, 11 December 2019 in Den Bosch.

Jos will give a presentation about collaboration in tech innovations in Food.

The title of the presentation is: “Don’t let legal be a troublemaker in a collaboration”.

The slides of the presentation are available here.


                    [post_title] => Den Bosch Data Week: Practical experiences Blockchain and Food
                    [post_excerpt] => 
                    [post_status] => publish
                    [comment_status] => open
                    [ping_status] => open
                    [post_password] => 
                    [post_name] => den-bosch-data-week-practical-experiences-blockchain-and-food
                    [to_ping] => 
                    [pinged] => 
                    [post_modified] => 2019-10-30 16:40:07
                    [post_modified_gmt] => 2019-10-30 15:40:07
                    [post_content_filtered] => 
                    [post_parent] => 0
                    [guid] => https://bg.legal/?p=18547
                    [menu_order] => 0
                    [post_type] => post
                    [post_mime_type] => 
                    [comment_count] => 0
                    [filter] => raw
                )

            [3] => WP_Post Object
                (
                    [ID] => 12018
                    [post_author] => 6
                    [post_date] => 2018-03-27 10:47:18
                    [post_date_gmt] => 2018-03-27 08:47:18
                    [post_content] =>  

Bogaerts & Groenen Advocaten will organize a meeting on ‘How block chain can be used in the AgriFood chain'

When: Tuesday, June 12, 2018
Where: Den Bosch

Topic
In four presentations the practical applications of block chain for the AgriFood will be outlined.

With block chain technology the complete food production chain could be made transparent. With block chain technology insight can be given from which farm a product originates, who has processed the product, who transported the product, who packaged the product and how the product ended up on the shelf of the supermarket. In this way block chain technology could contribute to sustainable production and transparent supply chains. In this way block chain technology could contribute to the restoration of consumer confidence in food.

But to what extent is this only theory? To what extent can this be used in practice in the Agri Food sector?

 	
What is already clear and what is not?
 	
How can AgriFood companies use this technology?
 	
What are opportunities and threats?
 	
What are the experiences of other Food companies with block chain technology
 	
What are the legal issues of block chain technology

Speakers will discuss:

1. Block chain in practice for AgriFood companies
- Introduction what is block chain, what problem does it solve?
- How does it work? What are the components?
- How does block chain work in practice (different types / functionalities)
- Where are the opportunities and threats of block chain for AgriFood companies?

2. The legal aspects of block chain / smart contracts
- What is block chain and what are smart contracts?
- Applications of block chain and smart contracts
- Legal aspects of block chain (governance, privacy, applications)
- Legal aspects of smart contracts (qualification, change and termination, disputes)
- Future legal challenges

3. Practice case A

4. Practice case B

Program
14.30 Reception
15.00 Block chain in practice
15.30 Legal aspects of block chain / smart contracts
16.00 Pause
16.15 Practice case A
16.45 Practice case B
17.15 End + drinks

Cost
Free entrance.

Sign Up
Prior notification is required. For more information and registration, please contact Jos van der Wijst: wijst@bg.legal
                    [post_title] => Meeting: ‘How blockchain can be used in the AgriFood chain'
                    [post_excerpt] => 
                    [post_status] => publish
                    [comment_status] => open
                    [ping_status] => open
                    [post_password] => 
                    [post_name] => meeting-how-blockchain-can-be-used-in-the-agrifood-chain
                    [to_ping] => 
                    [pinged] => 
                    [post_modified] => 2019-06-11 15:55:25
                    [post_modified_gmt] => 2019-06-11 13:55:25
                    [post_content_filtered] => 
                    [post_parent] => 0
                    [guid] => https://bgadvocaten.nl?p=12018
                    [menu_order] => 0
                    [post_type] => post
                    [post_mime_type] => 
                    [comment_count] => 0
                    [filter] => raw
                )

            [4] => WP_Post Object
                (
                    [ID] => 11506
                    [post_author] => 26
                    [post_date] => 2017-08-21 14:06:47
                    [post_date_gmt] => 2017-08-21 12:06:47
                    [post_content] =>  
Marc Heuvelmans is full of energy. He talks passionately about everything he does, whether that is his legal practice, writing columns, or presiding over entrepreneurial association BORT.
Heuvelmans is one of the five partners at Bogaerts & Groenen attorneys, a firm with offices in Boxtel and Tilburg. Forty five employees work there, mainly in entrepreneurial law.

“We would like to be a partner for entrepreneurs”, says Heuvelmans. When they are about to make an important decision, they are always welcome for a cup of coffee without immediately having the meter running. A free sounding board, we call it. “You don’t pay, but it pays off.”

Read more


                    [post_title] => Marc has made it in Tilburg
                    [post_excerpt] => 
                    [post_status] => publish
                    [comment_status] => open
                    [ping_status] => open
                    [post_password] => 
                    [post_name] => marc-has-made-it-tilburg
                    [to_ping] => 
                    [pinged] => 
                    [post_modified] => 2019-06-11 16:05:49
                    [post_modified_gmt] => 2019-06-11 14:05:49
                    [post_content_filtered] => 
                    [post_parent] => 0
                    [guid] => https://bgadvocaten.nl/?p=11506
                    [menu_order] => 0
                    [post_type] => post
                    [post_mime_type] => 
                    [comment_count] => 0
                    [filter] => raw
                )

            [5] => WP_Post Object
                (
                    [ID] => 15342
                    [post_author] => 26
                    [post_date] => 2016-06-22 16:58:40
                    [post_date_gmt] => 2016-06-22 14:58:40
                    [post_content] => Wanneer u tijdens het jaarlijkse functioneringsgesprek nietsvermoedend een vaststellingsovereenkomst onder uw neus geschoven krijgt, kan er paniek ontstaan.

Dat snap ik.

Wat nu? Moet u akkoord gaan met ontslag? Wat zijn uw rechten? Op welke vergoeding heeft u recht? Krijgt u de juridische advieskosten vergoed? En hoe zit het met een WW-uitkering als u dit ondertekent? In dit artikel loods ik u door deze moeilijke situatie.

Voordat u gaat nadenken over hoe een ontslagregeling eruit zou moeten zien, is het belangrijk te beseffen dat het – sinds de invoering van de Wet Werk en Zekerheid in 2015 –  moeilijker is geworden voor uw werkgever om de arbeidsovereenkomst te laten ontbinden door de rechter. Daar zijn hoge(re) eisen aan gesteld dan voorheen. Wanneer u überhaupt niet met het ontslag akkoord wilt gaan, kunt u er dus ook voor kiezen geen vaststellingsovereenkomst te ondertekenen en indien nodig verweer te voeren in een ontbindingsprocedure. Zie ter illustratie bijvoorbeeld dit nieuwsartikel.

Lees hier het gehele artikel in pdf.



Dirk School
                    [post_title] => Een vaststellingsovereenkomst. En nu?
                    [post_excerpt] => 
                    [post_status] => publish
                    [comment_status] => open
                    [ping_status] => open
                    [post_password] => 
                    [post_name] => vaststellingsovereenkomst-en-nu
                    [to_ping] => 
                    [pinged] => 
                    [post_modified] => 2019-07-05 10:08:49
                    [post_modified_gmt] => 2019-07-05 08:08:49
                    [post_content_filtered] => 
                    [post_parent] => 0
                    [guid] => https://bg.legal/vaststellingsovereenkomst-en-nu
                    [menu_order] => 0
                    [post_type] => post
                    [post_mime_type] => 
                    [comment_count] => 0
                    [filter] => raw
                )

            [6] => WP_Post Object
                (
                    [ID] => 15385
                    [post_author] => 26
                    [post_date] => 2015-12-19 09:52:07
                    [post_date_gmt] => 2015-12-19 08:52:07
                    [post_content] => Met ingang van boekjaar 2016 zullen jaarrekeningen uitsluitend nog digitaal kunnen worden gedeponeerd bij de Kamer van Koophandel. Dat is het gevolg van de wetswijziging, die de Tweede Kamer op 26 november 2015 en de Eerste Kamer op 8 december 2015 als hamerstuk heeft afgedaan. De Handelregisterwet 2007, het Burgerlijk Wetboek en de Wet op de formeel buitenlandse vennootschappen in verband met deponering van bescheiden in het handelsregister langs elektronische weg worden gewijzigd.

Rechtspersonen die een verplichting hebben een jaarrekening op te stellen, zijn verplicht die jaarlijks bij het handelsregister van de Kamer van Koophandel te deponeren. In de memorie van toelichting is opgenomen dat het in totaal gaat om circa 820.000 deponeringsplichtige rechtspersonen. Verder wordt in die memorie aandacht besteed aan het feit dat er met deponering tijd en kosten zijn gemoeid voor zowel de ondernemer als de Kamer van Koophandel en de achterliggende gedachte van de wetswijziging dus vermindering van regeldruk is.

In dit artikel wil ik u tevens herinneren aan de wijzigingen die in 2012 zijn ingetreden met de invoering van kort gezegd de flexibilisering van het B.V.-recht. In de situatie dat aandeelhouder of aandeelhouders ook bestuurder of bestuurders is c.q. zijn, hetgeen het geval is bij 70% van de B.V.’s in Nederland, dient de jaarrekening niet uiterlijk binnen 13 maanden na sluiting van het boekjaar te worden gedeponeerd. In die situatie dient de jaarrekening uiterlijk op 8 december van het jaar dat volgt op het boekjaar te worden gedeponeerd. Concreet betekent dit dat de jaarrekening van 2014 moet zijn gedeponeerd uiterlijk op 8 december 2015 en niet [zoals voorheen] op 31 januari 2016.

Sinds invoering van de flexibilisering van het B.V.-recht is ondertekening van de jaarrekening door alle bestuurders en commissarissen ook direct de vaststelling van de jaarrekening. Op het moment dat het bestuur de jaarrekening conform haar wettelijke verplichting ondertekent, wordt deze dus direct vastgesteld. In de wet is verder geregeld dat acht dagen na vaststelling van de jaarrekening – hetgeen dus na uiterlijk elf maanden moet geschieden – tot openbaarmaking (door middel van deponering) moet worden overgegaan.

Kort gezegd dient de jaarrekening dus uiterlijk op 8 december van het opvolgende jaar te worden gedeponeerd, in het geval de aandeelhouder tevens bestuurder is. Dit is overigens ook terug te vinden op de website van de Kamer van Koophandel zelf. Indien over het bovenstaande vragen bestaan, kunt u uiteraard contact opnemen.

Dirk School
                    [post_title] => Jaarrekening deponeren uitsluitend nog digitaal
                    [post_excerpt] => 
                    [post_status] => publish
                    [comment_status] => open
                    [ping_status] => open
                    [post_password] => 
                    [post_name] => jaarrekening-deponeren-uitsluitend-nog-digitaal
                    [to_ping] => 
                    [pinged] => 
                    [post_modified] => 2019-07-05 10:08:58
                    [post_modified_gmt] => 2019-07-05 08:08:58
                    [post_content_filtered] => 
                    [post_parent] => 0
                    [guid] => https://bg.legal/jaarrekening-deponeren-uitsluitend-nog-digitaal
                    [menu_order] => 0
                    [post_type] => post
                    [post_mime_type] => 
                    [comment_count] => 0
                    [filter] => raw
                )

            [7] => WP_Post Object
                (
                    [ID] => 15414
                    [post_author] => 26
                    [post_date] => 2015-10-23 00:00:00
                    [post_date_gmt] => 2015-10-23 00:00:00
                    [post_content] => Het zal bekend zijn dat het arbeidsrecht ingrijpend is veranderd op grond van de Wet Werk en Zekerheid (WWZ) en dat per 1 juli 2015 nogmaals belangrijke wijzigingen zijn doorgevoerd. Kantonrechters dienen op verzoeken tot beëindiging van de arbeidsovereenkomst te beslissen aan de hand van deze nieuwe regelgeving, maar lijken nog zoekende te zijn. Dat heeft in het prille bestaan van de WWZ al geleid tot onderling tegenstrijdige beslissingen. Deze tegenstrijdige beslissingen vloeien deels voort uit pro forma procedures: procedures waarbij werkgever en werknemer de afspraken die zij al in goed overleg hebben gemaakt, willen laten vastleggen in een rechterlijke beschikking in plaats van in slechts een vaststellingsovereenkomst.

Deze mogelijkheid was onder het oude recht gemeengoed. Er wordt dan een toneelstukje opgevoerd in het verzoek- en verweerschrift, omdat partijen onderling al volledige overeenstemming hebben bereikt over de condities van de beëindiging. Partijen delen de kantonrechter op voorhand mede af te zien van een mondelinge behandeling. Het resultaat van dit toneelstukje is de ontvangst per post van een beschikking en daarmee dus ook een executoriale titel. Met die titel kan een werknemer de deurwaarder opdracht geven het bedrag te incasseren indien de vergoeding niet zou worden betaald door de werkgever. De beschikking is bij een slechte betalingsmoraal van de werkgever dus “sterker” dan de vaststellingsovereenkomst. Er bestaan ook andere redenen om een pro forma procedure te starten, maar in dit artikel richt ik mij op de pro forma procedures die uitsluitend die executoriale titel ten doel hebben.

De vraag is namelijk wat de toekomstige rol en mogelijkheden van de pro forma beschikking zullen zijn. Naast de inperking van de gevallen waarin partijen überhaupt nog bij de kantonrechter terecht kunnen, is de kantonrechter op grond van de WWZ ook beperkt in zijn mogelijkheden ten aanzien van de inhoud van de beschikking. Daarbij gaat het onder andere om de vaststelling van de datum van de ontbinding en de toewijzing van vergoedingen.

De WWZ biedt in het kader van de beëindiging van de arbeidsovereenkomst nog slechts ruimte voor een beperkt aantal (schade)vergoedingen. Zo is de vergoeding naar billijkheid in het kader van de reguliere ontbindingsprocedure, waarbinnen ook andere vergoedingen konden worden toegewezen, vervangen door slechts twee mogelijke vergoedingen: de transitievergoeding en de billijke vergoeding. En de laatste is in tegenstelling tot voorheen, behoudens enkele uitzonderingen, slechts toewijsbaar bij ernstig verwijtbaar handelen of nalaten door de werkgever of werknemer, wat door de kantonrechter moet worden getoetst. Daardoor komt het voor dat de kantonrechter wel tot ontbinding van de arbeidsovereenkomst kan overgaan, maar de tussen partijen al overeengekomen andersoortige vergoeding wordt afgewezen, omdat ernstige verwijtbaarheid niet als grond is aangevoerd. Te denken valt bijvoorbeeld aan de outplacementvergoeding, vergoeding advocaatkosten of de ontslagvergoeding die is vastgesteld op grond van een sociaal plan. Ook zijn er kantonrechters die de transitievergoeding niet opnemen in de beschikking, nu deze al uit de wet voortvloeit.

Het opgevoerde toneelstukje heeft in dat geval niet tot de door partijen gewenste executoriale titel voor de vergoedingen geleid. Het komt ook voor dat een kantonrechter een praktische oplossing verkiest en de gewenste inhoud toch opneemt in een beschikking, maar gegarandeerd is dit zeker niet. Daarnaast wordt soms een vrijblijvende woordkeuze in de beschikking gehanteerd, wat tot problemen kan leiden wanneer de werknemer tot incasso wil overgaan.

Hoe nu verder? Want ook na invoering van de WWZ is de wens blijven bestaan om gemaakte afspraken in het kader van de beëindiging van de arbeidsovereenkomst vast te leggen in een “sterker” document dan de vaststellingsovereenkomst. Dat blijkt alleen al uit de gepubliceerde beschikkingen sinds 1 juli 2015. Mijns inziens zouden partijen die een executoriale titel beogen zich met de getekende vaststellingsovereenkomst beter tot een notaris kunnen wenden. Een notariële akte is immers ook een executoriale titel, indien deze akte aan enkele voorwaarden voldoet.

De notariële vaststellingsovereenkomst biedt voordelen ten opzichte van de tegenwoordig onzekere en uitgeklede pro forma procedure. Ten eerste is de notaris in tegenstelling tot de kantonrechter niet gehouden aan de bovenomschreven beperkingen uit de WWZ ten aanzien van de verschillende soorten vergoedingen. Een notaris kan een akte verlijden die inhoudelijk gebaseerd is op een tussen werkgever en werknemer bereikte beëindigingsovereenkomst. Hierbij lopen partijen dus niet het risico op afwijzing van vorderingen.

Daarnaast zijn de kosten (hoogstwaarschijnlijk) beperkter in het notariële traject. Voor een pro forma procedure is de verzoeker griffierecht verschuldigd aan de rechtbank en aan het opstellen van een verzoek- en verweerschrift zijn in de regel ook kosten verbonden.

Tot slot is sprake van een korte doorlooptijd, want bij beëindiging op grond van een vaststellingsovereenkomst ontstaat al na veertien dagen duidelijkheid. Dat is namelijk de bedenktermijn die de wetgever de werknemer heeft gegeven indien partijen onderling overeenstemming hebben bereikt over de beëindiging van de arbeidsovereenkomst. Binnen deze termijn kan de werknemer zonder opgave van redenen tot ontbinding van de vaststellingsovereenkomst overgaan. Let wel, deze ontbindingstermijn zal ook bij een notarieel traject moeten worden gerespecteerd.

Na ondertekening van de vaststellingsovereenkomst kan de advocaat die een executoriale titel wenst dus beter contact opnemen met de notaris in plaats van het toneelstukje van de pro forma procedure opvoeren. Daarmee wordt dan ook direct tegemoet gekomen aan de wil van de wetgever, voor wie de pro forma procedures vanwege de onnodige belasting van de rechterlijke macht al jaren een doorn in het oog zijn.

Dirk School
                    [post_title] => WWZ en pro forma: waarom niet naar de notaris voor een executoriale titel?
                    [post_excerpt] => 
Het zal bekend zijn dat het arbeidsrecht ingrijpend is veranderd op grond van de Wet Werk en Zekerheid (WWZ) en dat per 1 juli 2015 nogmaals belangrijke wijzigingen zijn doorgevoerd. Kantonrechters dienen op verzoeken tot beëindiging van de arbeidsovereenkomst te beslissen aan de hand van deze nieuwe regelgeving, maar lijken nog zoekende te zijn. Dat heeft in het prille bestaan van de WWZ al geleid tot onderling tegenstrijdige beslissingen. Deze tegenstrijdige beslissingen vloeien deels voort uit pro forma procedures: procedures waarbij werkgever en werknemer de afspraken die zij al in goed overleg hebben gemaakt, willen laten vastleggen in een rechterlijke beschikking in plaats van in slechts een vaststellingsovereenkomst.

                    [post_status] => publish
                    [comment_status] => open
                    [ping_status] => open
                    [post_password] => 
                    [post_name] => wwz-en-pro-forma-waarom-niet-naar-de-notaris-voor-een-executoriale-titel-2
                    [to_ping] => 
                    [pinged] => 
                    [post_modified] => 2019-07-05 10:09:36
                    [post_modified_gmt] => 2019-07-05 08:09:36
                    [post_content_filtered] => 
                    [post_parent] => 0
                    [guid] => https://bg.legal/wwz-en-pro-forma-waarom-niet-naar-de-notaris-voor-een-executoriale-titel-2
                    [menu_order] => 0
                    [post_type] => post
                    [post_mime_type] => 
                    [comment_count] => 0
                    [filter] => raw
                )

            [8] => WP_Post Object
                (
                    [ID] => 15426
                    [post_author] => 26
                    [post_date] => 2015-09-28 00:00:00
                    [post_date_gmt] => 2015-09-28 00:00:00
                    [post_content] => Het zal bekend zijn dat het arbeidsrecht ingrijpend is veranderd op grond van de Wet Werk en Zekerheid (WWZ) en dat per 1 juli 2015 nogmaals belangrijke wijzigingen zijn doorgevoerd. Kantonrechters dienen op verzoeken tot beëindiging van de arbeidsovereenkomst te beslissen aan de hand van deze nieuwe regelgeving, maar lijken nog zoekende te zijn. Dat heeft in het prille bestaan van de WWZ al geleid tot onderling tegenstrijdige beslissingen. Deze tegenstrijdige beslissingen vloeien deels voort uit pro forma procedures: procedures waarbij werkgever en werknemer de afspraken die zij al in goed overleg hebben gemaakt, willen laten vastleggen in een rechterlijke beschikking in plaats van in slechts een vaststellingsovereenkomst.  

Deze mogelijkheid was onder het oude recht gemeengoed. Er wordt dan een toneelstukje opgevoerd in het verzoek- en verweerschrift, omdat partijen onderling al volledige overeenstemming hebben bereikt over de condities van de beëindiging. Partijen delen de kantonrechter op voorhand mede af te zien van een mondelinge behandeling. Het resultaat van dit toneelstukje is de ontvangst per post van een beschikking en daarmee dus ook een executoriale titel. Met die titel kan een werknemer de deurwaarder opdracht geven het bedrag te incasseren indien de vergoeding niet zou worden betaald door de werkgever. De beschikking is bij een slechte betalingsmoraal van de werkgever dus “sterker” dan de vaststellingsovereenkomst. Er bestaan ook andere redenen om een pro forma procedure te starten, maar in dit artikel richt ik mij op de pro forma procedures die uitsluitend die executoriale titel ten doel hebben.
De vraag is namelijk wat de toekomstige rol en mogelijkheden van de pro forma beschikking zullen zijn. Naast de inperking van de gevallen waarin partijen überhaupt nog bij de kantonrechter terecht kunnen, is de kantonrechter op grond van de WWZ ook beperkt in zijn mogelijkheden ten aanzien van de inhoud van de beschikking. Daarbij gaat het onder andere om de vaststelling van de datum van de ontbinding en de toewijzing van vergoedingen.
De WWZ biedt in het kader van de beëindiging van de arbeidsovereenkomst nog slechts ruimte voor een beperkt aantal (schade)vergoedingen. Zo is de vergoeding naar billijkheid in het kader van de reguliere ontbindingsprocedure, waarbinnen ook andere vergoedingen konden worden toegewezen, vervangen door slechts twee mogelijke vergoedingen: de transitievergoeding en de billijke vergoeding. En de laatste is in tegenstelling tot voorheen, behoudens enkele uitzonderingen, slechts toewijsbaar bij ernstig verwijtbaar handelen of nalaten door de werkgever of werknemer, wat door de kantonrechter moet worden getoetst. Daardoor komt het voor dat de kantonrechter wel tot ontbinding van de arbeidsovereenkomst kan overgaan, maar de tussen partijen al overeengekomen andersoortige vergoeding wordt afgewezen, omdat ernstige verwijtbaarheid niet als grond is aangevoerd. Te denken valt bijvoorbeeld aan de outplacementvergoeding, vergoeding advocaatkosten of de ontslagvergoeding die is vastgesteld op grond van een sociaal plan. Ook zijn er kantonrechters die de transitievergoeding niet opnemen in de beschikking, nu deze al uit de wet voortvloeit.
Het opgevoerde toneelstukje heeft in dat geval niet tot de door partijen gewenste executoriale titel voor de vergoedingen geleid. Het komt ook voor dat een kantonrechter een praktische oplossing verkiest en de gewenste inhoud toch opneemt in een beschikking, maar gegarandeerd is dit zeker niet. Daarnaast wordt soms een vrijblijvende woordkeuze in de beschikking gehanteerd, wat tot problemen kan leiden wanneer de werknemer tot incasso wil overgaan.
Hoe nu verder? Want ook na invoering van de WWZ is de wens blijven bestaan om gemaakte afspraken in het kader van de beëindiging van de arbeidsovereenkomst vast te leggen in een “sterker” document dan de vaststellingsovereenkomst. Dat blijkt alleen al uit de gepubliceerde beschikkingen sinds 1 juli 2015. Mijns inziens zouden partijen die een executoriale titel beogen zich met de getekende vaststellingsovereenkomst beter tot een notaris kunnen wenden. Een notariële akte is immers ook een executoriale titel, indien deze akte aan enkele voorwaarden voldoet.
De notariële vaststellingsovereenkomst biedt voordelen ten opzichte van de tegenwoordig onzekere en uitgeklede pro forma procedure. Ten eerste is de notaris in tegenstelling tot de kantonrechter niet gehouden aan de bovenomschreven beperkingen uit de WWZ ten aanzien van de verschillende soorten vergoedingen. Een notaris kan een akte verlijden die inhoudelijk gebaseerd is op een tussen werkgever en werknemer bereikte beëindigingsovereenkomst. Hierbij lopen partijen dus niet het risico op afwijzing van vorderingen.
Daarnaast zijn de kosten (hoogstwaarschijnlijk) beperkter in het notariële traject. Voor een pro forma procedure is de verzoeker griffierecht verschuldigd aan de rechtbank en aan het opstellen van een verzoek- en verweerschrift zijn in de regel ook kosten verbonden.
Tot slot is sprake van een korte doorlooptijd, want bij beëindiging op grond van een vaststellingsovereenkomst ontstaat al na veertien dagen duidelijkheid. Dat is namelijk de bedenktermijn die de wetgever de werknemer heeft gegeven indien partijen onderling overeenstemming hebben bereikt over de beëindiging van de arbeidsovereenkomst. Binnen deze termijn kan de werknemer zonder opgave van redenen tot ontbinding van de vaststellingsovereenkomst overgaan. Let wel, deze ontbindingstermijn zal ook bij een notarieel traject moeten worden gerespecteerd.
Na ondertekening van de vaststellingsovereenkomst kan de advocaat die een executoriale titel wenst dus beter contact opnemen met de notaris in plaats van het toneelstukje van de pro forma procedure opvoeren. Daarmee wordt dan ook direct tegemoet gekomen aan de wil van de wetgever, voor wie de pro forma procedures vanwege de onnodige belasting van de rechterlijke macht al jaren een doorn in het oog zijn.
Dirk School
                    [post_title] => WWZ en pro forma: waarom niet naar de notaris voor een executoriale titel?
                    [post_excerpt] => 
Het zal bekend zijn dat het arbeidsrecht ingrijpend is veranderd op grond van de Wet Werk en Zekerheid (WWZ) en dat per 1 juli 2015 nogmaals belangrijke wijzigingen zijn doorgevoerd. Kantonrechters dienen op verzoeken tot beëindiging van de arbeidsovereenkomst te beslissen aan de hand van deze nieuwe regelgeving, maar lijken nog zoekende te zijn. Dat heeft in het prille bestaan van de WWZ al geleid tot onderling tegenstrijdige beslissingen. Deze tegenstrijdige beslissingen vloeien deels voort uit pro forma procedures: procedures waarbij werkgever en werknemer de afspraken die zij al in goed overleg hebben gemaakt, willen laten vastleggen in een rechterlijke beschikking in plaats van in slechts een vaststellingsovereenkomst.  

Deze mogelijkheid was onder het oude recht gemeengoed. Er wordt dan een toneelstukje opgevoerd in het verzoek- en verweerschrift, omdat partijen onderling al volledige overeenstemming hebben bereikt over de condities van de beëindiging. Partijen delen de kantonrechter op voorhand mede af te zien van een mondelinge behandeling. Het resultaat van dit toneelstukje is de ontvangst per post van een beschikking en daarmee dus ook een executoriale titel. Met die titel kan een werknemer de deurwaarder opdracht geven het bedrag te incasseren indien de vergoeding niet zou worden betaald door de werkgever. De beschikking is bij een slechte betalingsmoraal van de werkgever dus “sterker” dan de vaststellingsovereenkomst. Er bestaan ook andere redenen om een pro forma procedure te starten, maar in dit artikel richt ik mij op de pro forma procedures die uitsluitend die executoriale titel ten doel hebben.

 

                    [post_status] => publish
                    [comment_status] => open
                    [ping_status] => open
                    [post_password] => 
                    [post_name] => wwz-en-pro-forma-waarom-niet-naar-de-notaris-voor-een-executoriale-titel
                    [to_ping] => 
                    [pinged] => 
                    [post_modified] => 2019-07-05 10:10:12
                    [post_modified_gmt] => 2019-07-05 08:10:12
                    [post_content_filtered] => 
                    [post_parent] => 0
                    [guid] => https://bg.legal/wwz-en-pro-forma-waarom-niet-naar-de-notaris-voor-een-executoriale-titel
                    [menu_order] => 0
                    [post_type] => post
                    [post_mime_type] => 
                    [comment_count] => 0
                    [filter] => raw
                )

            [9] => WP_Post Object
                (
                    [ID] => 7874
                    [post_author] => 10
                    [post_date] => 2014-09-23 00:00:00
                    [post_date_gmt] => 2014-09-23 00:00:00
                    [post_content] => 
Changes per January first, 2015:

Probation period

In the case of an employment contract of six months ore less it is not permitted to include a probation period. This means that in the case of a fixed term employment contract longer than six months, a probation period is still allowed.

Non competition clause

For a fixed term contract it will no longer be allowed to conclude a non competition clause, unless the employer has a predominant business interest and motivates this interest in writing upon agreeing to a non competition clause. Failing to give this motivation or failing to prove sufficient ground for the non competition clause will render the clause invalid.

Announcement that the fixed term contract ends

An obligation for the employer is introduced to notify the employee in writing in case the employer decides not to extent the present fixed term contract nor offers the employee a new contract. So contrary to the present law, the fixed term contract does not expires without the employer is re-quired to take action. The announcement [of ending the fixed term contract] should be made in writing no later than one month before the end of the fixed term. Failing to do so ore to do so timely will cause the employer to be liable to pay a penalty to the employee equal to the amount of one month of basic salary [including holiday allowance]. 
Changes per July first 2015:

Number of contracts for a defined period of time

The rules with regard to the number of contracts for a defined period of time before it causes a contract for an undefined period of time, change.

Under present law an employer may conclude up to three fixed term employment contracts, for a total of three years. Concluding a fourth contract for a defined period of time or exceeding the maximum of three years in total [intermissions of three months ore less will not be taken into account] will cause the employment contract to automatically become a contract for an undefined period of time.

Under the new law fixed term contracts will be restricted to a maximum of three over a period of two years with intervals of six months.

Legal procedures tot terminate the contract

The present two-tier system with regard to dismissals changes. The employer can no longer choose between the UWV [Employee Insurance Agency] or the cantonal judge. All dismissals for economic reasons and for long term sickness [more than two years of sickness] are decided upon by UWV. All dismissals for personal reasons will need to be routed through the cantonal judge.

Consideration after settlement agreement

Completely new is a so called “cooling off period” for termination agreements. The employee can revoke his written agreement [with termination] within fourteen days without specifying his reasons.

The employer has the obligation to inform in writing the employee of the possibility to revoke his written agreement in the termination agreement. This can be done in the termination agreement itself or within two working days after the termination agreement has been signed. If the employer does not comply with his obligation to inform the employee, the cooling of period is extended to three weeks.

If within six months after the employee has revoked his written agreement, a new termination agreement is concluded, the cooling of period does not apply anymore.

Compensation

The current formula on compensation used by the cantonal judges will be replaced by a new transition compensation. This transition compensation will be available to all employees who are dis-missed and had a contract that lasted for two years ore more. So this also includes fixed term employees, who under the present law are not entitled to any compensation.

The transition compensation is [globally] calculated as follows: for the first ten years of service the compensation consists of one third of a regular monthly salary for each full year of employment. For the years of service exceeding ten years of service, the compensation consists of half of a regular monthly salary for each full year of employment.

There is a maximum to the compensation payable of EUR 75.000 or the amount that equals one annual salary if the employee earns more than EUR 75.000 per year.

Given their [in general difficult] position on the labour market, employees over fifty with at least ten years of service [and of which the employer has more than 25 employees],  will be entitled [ until January first 2020 to a higher transition compensation. These employees are entitled to a transition compensation equal to one monthly salary per full year of employment after they have reached the age of 50 but which is also capped by the maximum of EUR 75.000 or the amount that equals one annual salary if the employee earns more than EUR 75.000 per year.

No [ore lower] transition compensation may be due if the dismissal is a result of the fact that the employee is grossly to blame for the dismissal. Vice versa, in the case of seriously culpable acts or omissions of the employer, the judge may ground an additional sufferance payment which is not capped.  

Appeal

In the present law there is [with some limited exceptions] no possibility for an appeal against a judgment given by the cantonal judge regarding termination of the employment agreement. This will change.

Appeal [and as a next step the so called “cassation” at the High Court] of the decision of the cantonal judge regarding the termination of the labour contract will be possible for both parties.

A new rule as well is that if a request for permission to give notice has been denied by UWV, the employer may initiate proceedings for rescission with the cantonal court. The employee may also initiate separate legal proceedings with the cantonal court after permission to give notice has been granted by UWV.

Changes per January first 2016:

As of January first 2016 through 2019 the period of unemployment benefits will be gradually reduced to a maximum of 24 months.

During the first ten years of employment, unemployment benefits will be accrued in a rate of one month for each completed year of service and after that, the rate of accrual will reduce to half a month.

Rik Wevers
Attorney-at-law
Section Employment and Dismissal

                    [post_title] => The Changes in Dutch Labour Law in 2015 in a nutshell
                    [post_excerpt] => 
Changes per January first, 2015:

Probation period

In the case of an employment contract of six months ore less it is not permitted to include a probation period. This means that in the case of a fixed term employment contract longer than six months, a probation period is still allowed.

Non competition clause

For a fixed term contract it will no longer be allowed to conclude a non competition clause, unless the employer has a predominant business interest and motivates this interest in writing upon agreeing to a non competition clause. Failing to give this motivation or failing to prove sufficient ground for the non competition clause will render the clause invalid.

Announcement that the fixed term contract ends

An obligation for the employer is introduced to notify the employee in writing in case the employer decides not to extent the present fixed term contract nor offers the employee a new contract. So contrary to the present law, the fixed term contract does not expires without the employer is re-quired to take action. The announcement [of ending the fixed term contract] should be made in writing no later than one month before the end of the fixed term. Failing to do so ore to do so timely will cause the employer to be liable to pay a penalty to the employee equal to the amount of one month of basic salary [including holiday allowance]. 

                    [post_status] => publish
                    [comment_status] => open
                    [ping_status] => open
                    [post_password] => 
                    [post_name] => the-changes-in-dutch-labour-law-in-2015-in-a-nutshell
                    [to_ping] => 
                    [pinged] => 
                    [post_modified] => 2019-06-10 15:13:35
                    [post_modified_gmt] => 2019-06-10 13:13:35
                    [post_content_filtered] => 
                    [post_parent] => 0
                    [guid] => http://bgadvocaten.nl/en/2014/09/23/the-changes-in-dutch-labour-law-in-2015-in-a-nutshell/
                    [menu_order] => 0
                    [post_type] => post
                    [post_mime_type] => 
                    [comment_count] => 0
                    [filter] => raw
                )

        )

    [post_count] => 10
    [current_post] => -1
    [before_loop] => 1
    [in_the_loop] => 
    [post] => WP_Post Object
        (
            [ID] => 19971
            [post_author] => 26
            [post_date] => 2020-03-30 13:50:57
            [post_date_gmt] => 2020-03-30 11:50:57
            [post_content] => Data breaches are any occurrences related with the security of personal data, including the loss, alteration or unauthorized disclosure. The definition under the GDPR includes both deliberate acts, such as hacker attacks; or accidents, such as the loss of a pen drive by an organization employee.

Because of the GDPR obligation to notify the authorities, we are aware that data breaches recently happened in big companies like Uber and Facebook, which have huge potential and technical skills to invest in security measures. Therefore, it seems that it does not matter the sector, if the company is big or small, the main question is not if a data breach will happen, but when it will happen.

Contact us (e-mail) in order to receive our paper with advice regarding action plans to prevent and deal with data breaches.
Introduction: Definition and Obligations under the GDPR
Data breaches are any occurrences related with the security of personal data, including the loss, alteration or unauthorized disclosure. The definition under the GDPR includes both deliberate acts, such as hacker attacks; or accidents, such as the loss of a pen drive by an organization employee.

In accordance with Articles 33 and 34 of the GDPR, the responsible for determining the purposes and means of personal data processing (“Controller”) has the obligation to communicate the data breaches to the competent data protection authority (“DPA” or “Authority”) within 72 hours after becoming aware of it and the individuals affected in reasonable time. However, not all of them shall be notified.

It shall be analysed if the data breach is likely to result in a risk to the rights and freedoms of any individuals in order to meet the requirement to notify the DPA. On the other hand, the data breach shall be likely to result not only in a risk, but a high risk for the rights and freedoms, in order to require communication to the data subjects.

Because of the obligation to notify the Authorities, we are aware that data breaches recently happened in big companies like Uber and Facebook, which have huge potential and technical skills to invest in security measures. Therefore, it seems that it does not matter the sector, if the company is big or small, the main question is not if a data breach will happen, but when it will happen.

In this regard, the first important point to mention is the fact that the notification of a data breach does not automatically represent that the company will receive a fine. The European DPAs haven been considered if the security measures in place before the data breach were reasonable in order to prevent data breaches and, when positive, the investigations were concluded without further consequences for the Controllers, except to review and reinforce its security policies.

Another option, if the company is in doubt about the risks posed by the data breach, is to notify the DPA in order to receive guidance in relation to the incident. There is also no penalty for the notification of incidents that are end up considered data breaches unlikely to result in risk and, therefore, would not be required to be notified.
Prevention
Besides to the adoption of organisational and technical measures to avoid intrusions in the systems, as well to ensure security in the processes, it is relevant to have a well-structured incident response plans to deal with data breaches when they occur.

It is common that the first to identify irregularities are the employees without decision-making power in the organization. Normally such employees do not have an overview of the business and may not understand what risks are related with the incident leading to their decision not to communicate the incident for the superiors.

Some employees will also not communicate the incident thinking that they may be considered responsible for the problem. Even when they decide to communicate it, without a defined response plan, the communication flow is normally disorganized and inefficient.

In view of the above, one of the basic requirements of an effective response plan is the obligation of communication of operational irregularities related to data protection by employees, as well as the provision of disciplinary measures for omitting any information related to an incident. In addition, it will be necessary to establish a well-structured communication flow leading the information to someone with decision-making power inside of the organization, which may, finally, bring the matter to a pre-selected interdisciplinary committee for data breach situations.

Since service providers considered data processors (“Processor”) have the responsibility under the GDPR to inform any data breach to the Controller, the incident response plans shall also include them. It is recommended to include who in the organization shall be informed by the Processor and in which manner.
Communication to Authorities and Data Subjects
GDPR establishes the tasks and powers of the National DPAs, which includes the promotion of public awareness regarding data protection, awareness of Controllers and Processors in relation to the compliance with the GDPR, giving advice on processing operations, among others. In this sense, it is important to highlight that the Controller may benefit from the notification obligation to the national DPA in order to have guidance in how to remediate the risks of a data breach, but also and preferable, before any data breach occurs.

The GDPR sets forth the following minimum content to be included in the notification: (i) description of the data breach, including the categories and number of individuals concerned; (ii) contact details of the Data Protection Office or other point of contact inside of the organization; (iii) description of potential consequences of the data breach; and (iv) description of the measures taken or proposed in order to mitigate the possible risks.

Despite the minimum content, even if the organization still do not have all the respective information available, the guidelines of the national DPAs indicate to notify the Authority within 72 hours after becoming aware of the incident in order to comply with the timely notification requirement.

The lack of the minimum content shall not hinder the timely data breach notification by the Controller. Even after the first notification, it will be possible to complement, amend and even correct the previous information provided together with the reasons of delay to provide such information. This is the recommendation aiming to have Controllers and competent DPAs working together against the risks of the data breach since the first stages.

The data breach communication to the data subjects should contain at least the same elements of the notification to the Authority, except for information of the categories and number of individuals concerned which are not required. The main difference between the data breach notification to the authority and the data breach communication to the data subject is that, in the last one, it shall be written in clear and plain language.

In view of this specificity, it is recommendable to involve an interdisciplinary team with representants of different areas of the organization, such as the legal team, which will advise in relation to the minimum requirements of the GDPR for this communication; the Information Technology team, which analyses the technical details of the incident; and the communication and marketing team, which have the ability to choose the best strategy to communicate the data breach to the affected persons and write it in a easily understandable manner.

In this regard, the involvement of an interdisciplinary team is recommended also in the occasion of the notification to the authority, but it is seems to be even more important in the elaboration of the communication to the data subjects.

In case the individual communication to each affected data subject involve disproportionate effort to the Controller, the GDPR provides that it is possible to make public announcements considered equally effective. To achieve this purpose, the interdisciplinary team mentioned above will need to study the best strategy to deliver the communication ensuring its effectiveness.
Mitigation Measures
The GDPR also exempts the necessity to the data breach communicate to data subjects when the Controller has taken measures which neutralize the risks of the data breach. In order to prevent the risks of data breaches, it is recommendable to apply encryption or other techniques avoiding the access of personal data by non authorized individuals. After the data breach, other measures are considered by the DPAs.

Besides to a correct data breach notification to the competent Authority and communication to the data subjects, the following measures are considered by DPAs as best practices to deal with data breaches:

 	
Avoiding negotiation with criminal hackers involved in the data breach;
 	
application of disciplinary measures to employees involved in the data breach in order to avoid reoccurrence or spreading of personal data in power of this employees;
 	
opening of disciplinary and judicial proceedings for the same purpose mentioned in item “ii” and for repairing damages;
 	
hiring of forensic services when in doubt of a data breach related with the processing activities by a Processor;
 	
full internet research with cybersecurity specialists in order to analyze if the personal data was affected, including in the deep web;
 	
mandatory change of relevant passwords;
 	
collection of correspondences or request erasing of online messages sent to the wrong address;
 	
in case of lack of internal expertise related with hacker attacks, seek external advisory;
 	
review internal processes in general and raise the employees awareness, specially in relation to that type of data breach.

Conclusion
In view of the above, it is important to highlight that the occurrence of a data breach does not necessarily means the violation of the GDPR and application of penalties by the competent DPA.

If the organization have appropriate organisational and technical measures in place, including an incident response plan, as well as adopt measures in order to mitigate the data breach after it happens, the administrative procedures before the DPA may be concluded without further consequences to the organization. In addition, the organization may benefit from guidance of the DPA and from the data breach experience in order to avoid future data breaches of the same nature.

 

 

 
            [post_title] => Data breaches under the GDPR
            [post_excerpt] => 
            [post_status] => publish
            [comment_status] => open
            [ping_status] => open
            [post_password] => 
            [post_name] => data-breaches-under-the-gdpr
            [to_ping] => 
            [pinged] => 
            [post_modified] => 2020-03-30 13:53:05
            [post_modified_gmt] => 2020-03-30 11:53:05
            [post_content_filtered] => 
            [post_parent] => 0
            [guid] => https://bg.legal/?p=19971
            [menu_order] => 0
            [post_type] => post
            [post_mime_type] => 
            [comment_count] => 0
            [filter] => raw
        )

    [comment_count] => 0
    [current_comment] => -1
    [found_posts] => 68
    [max_num_pages] => 7
    [max_num_comment_pages] => 0
    [is_single] => 
    [is_preview] => 
    [is_page] => 
    [is_archive] => 1
    [is_date] => 
    [is_year] => 
    [is_month] => 
    [is_day] => 
    [is_time] => 
    [is_author] => 
    [is_category] => 
    [is_tag] => 
    [is_tax] => 1
    [is_search] => 
    [is_feed] => 
    [is_comment_feed] => 
    [is_trackback] => 
    [is_home] => 
    [is_privacy_policy] => 
    [is_404] => 
    [is_embed] => 
    [is_paged] => 1
    [is_admin] => 
    [is_attachment] => 
    [is_singular] => 
    [is_robots] => 
    [is_favicon] => 
    [is_posts_page] => 
    [is_post_type_archive] => 
    [query_vars_hash:WP_Query:private] => 470b80fdcc8618e01226490a1eb74b9e
    [query_vars_changed:WP_Query:private] => 1
    [thumbnails_cached] => 
    [allow_query_attachment_by_filename:protected] => 
    [stopwords:WP_Query:private] => 
    [compat_fields:WP_Query:private] => Array
        (
            [0] => query_vars_hash
            [1] => query_vars_changed
        )

    [compat_methods:WP_Query:private] => Array
        (
            [0] => init_query_flags
            [1] => parse_tax_query
        )

    [tribe_is_event] => 
    [tribe_is_multi_posttype] => 
    [tribe_is_event_category] => 
    [tribe_is_event_venue] => 
    [tribe_is_event_organizer] => 
    [tribe_is_event_query] => 
    [tribe_is_past] => 
    [tribe_controller] => Tribe\Events\Views\V2\Query\Event_Query_Controller Object
        (
            [filtering_query:Tribe\Events\Views\V2\Query\Event_Query_Controller:private] => WP_Query Object
 *RECURSION*
        )

)

Data breaches under the GDPR

30 Mar 2020

BG.legal

Data breaches are any occurrences related with the security of personal data, including the loss, alteration or unauthorized disclosure. The definition under the GDPR includes both deliberate acts, such as...

Read more

European Perspectives on AI Medical Devices

12 Mar 2020

Jos van der Wijst

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently authorized marketing of a software based on Artificial Intelligence (AI) intended to guide medical professionals in capturing quality cardiac ultrasounds used...

Read more

Den Bosch Data Week: Practical experiences Blockchain and Food

21 Oct 2019

Jos van der Wijst

At 20 October 2019, Jos van der Wijst gave a presentation about legal aspects of blockchain cases in food. Jos is technology lawyer with a focus on the Food sector....

Read more

Meeting: ‘How blockchain can be used in the AgriFood chain'

27 Mar 2018

Jos van der Wijst

  Bogaerts & Groenen Advocaten will organize a meeting on ‘How block chain can be used in the AgriFood chain' When: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 Where: Den Bosch Topic In...

Read more

Marc has made it in Tilburg

21 Aug 2017

BG.legal

  Marc Heuvelmans is full of energy. He talks passionately about everything he does, whether that is his legal practice, writing columns, or presiding over entrepreneurial association BORT. Heuvelmans is...

Read more

Een vaststellingsovereenkomst. En nu?

22 Jun 2016

BG.legal

Wanneer u tijdens het jaarlijkse functioneringsgesprek nietsvermoedend een vaststellingsovereenkomst onder uw neus geschoven krijgt, kan er paniek ontstaan. Dat snap ik. Wat nu? Moet u akkoord gaan met ontslag? Wat...

Read more

Jaarrekening deponeren uitsluitend nog digitaal

19 Dec 2015

BG.legal

Met ingang van boekjaar 2016 zullen jaarrekeningen uitsluitend nog digitaal kunnen worden gedeponeerd bij de Kamer van Koophandel. Dat is het gevolg van de wetswijziging, die de Tweede Kamer op...

Read more

WWZ en pro forma: waarom niet naar de notaris voor een executoriale titel?

23 Oct 2015

BG.legal

Het zal bekend zijn dat het arbeidsrecht ingrijpend is veranderd op grond van de Wet Werk en Zekerheid (WWZ) en dat per 1 juli 2015 nogmaals belangrijke wijzigingen zijn doorgevoerd. Kantonrechters dienen op verzoeken tot beëindiging van de arbeidsovereenkomst te beslissen aan de hand van deze nieuwe regelgeving, maar lijken nog zoekende te zijn. Dat heeft in het prille bestaan van de WWZ al geleid tot onderling tegenstrijdige beslissingen. Deze tegenstrijdige beslissingen vloeien deels voort uit pro forma procedures: procedures waarbij werkgever en werknemer de afspraken die zij al in goed overleg hebben gemaakt, willen laten vastleggen in een rechterlijke beschikking in plaats van in slechts een vaststellingsovereenkomst.

Read more

WWZ en pro forma: waarom niet naar de notaris voor een executoriale titel?

28 Sep 2015

BG.legal

Het zal bekend zijn dat het arbeidsrecht ingrijpend is veranderd op grond van de Wet Werk en Zekerheid (WWZ) en dat per 1 juli 2015 nogmaals belangrijke wijzigingen zijn doorgevoerd. Kantonrechters dienen op verzoeken tot beëindiging van de arbeidsovereenkomst te beslissen aan de hand van deze nieuwe regelgeving, maar lijken nog zoekende te zijn. Dat heeft in het prille bestaan van de WWZ al geleid tot onderling tegenstrijdige beslissingen. Deze tegenstrijdige beslissingen vloeien deels voort uit pro forma procedures: procedures waarbij werkgever en werknemer de afspraken die zij al in goed overleg hebben gemaakt, willen laten vastleggen in een rechterlijke beschikking in plaats van in slechts een vaststellingsovereenkomst.   Deze mogelijkheid was onder het oude recht gemeengoed. Er wordt dan een toneelstukje opgevoerd in het verzoek- en verweerschrift, omdat partijen onderling al volledige overeenstemming hebben bereikt over de condities van de beëindiging. Partijen delen de kantonrechter op voorhand mede af te zien van een mondelinge behandeling. Het resultaat van dit toneelstukje is de ontvangst per post van een beschikking en daarmee dus ook een executoriale titel. Met die titel kan een werknemer de deurwaarder opdracht geven het bedrag te incasseren indien de vergoeding niet zou worden betaald door de werkgever. De beschikking is bij een slechte betalingsmoraal van de werkgever dus “sterker” dan de vaststellingsovereenkomst. Er bestaan ook andere redenen om een pro forma procedure te starten, maar in dit artikel richt ik mij op de pro forma procedures die uitsluitend die executoriale titel ten doel hebben.  

Read more

The Changes in Dutch Labour Law in 2015 in a nutshell

23 Sep 2014

Rik Wevers

Changes per January first, 2015: Probation period In the case of an employment contract of six months ore less it is not permitted to include a probation period. This means that in the case of a fixed term employment contract longer than six months, a probation period is still allowed. Non competition clause For a fixed term contract it will no longer be allowed to conclude a non competition clause, unless the employer has a predominant business interest and motivates this interest in writing upon agreeing to a non competition clause. Failing to give this motivation or failing to prove sufficient ground for the non competition clause will render the clause invalid. Announcement that the fixed term contract ends An obligation for the employer is introduced to notify the employee in writing in case the employer decides not to extent the present fixed term contract nor offers the employee a new contract. So contrary to the present law, the fixed term contract does not expires without the employer is re-quired to take action. The announcement [of ending the fixed term contract] should be made in writing no later than one month before the end of the fixed term. Failing to do so ore to do so timely will cause the employer to be liable to pay a penalty to the employee equal to the amount of one month of basic salary [including holiday allowance]. 

Read more