Publication
Vietnam: Competition Law Fact Sheet
Overview of the main provisions of the Competition Law, and discussion of the enforcement regime and recent enforcement trends.
Global | Publication | August 2016
On August 2, 2016, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (CC of the SCJ) issued a decision on an action for annulment filed by practicing lawyer R. Guilarte against article 31 of the 2014 Income Tax Law (ITL)1, which regulates the taxable base for calculating income tax on employee remuneration (the Decision)2.
In the Decision, the CC of the SCJ ruled that article 31 of the 2014 ITL replicates the content and intent of article 31 of the 2007 ITL, which was subject to constitutional review by the CC of the SCJ in its 2007 decision in the case Adriana Vigilanza and Carlos Vecchio3, where it analyzed the scope and content of the provision that defines the taxable base of employee remuneration.
In the Decision, the CC of the SCJ ruled the action as inadmissible on the grounds that such court had already ruled on the issue with the authority of a final decision in the above-mentioned 2007 case, where the CC of the SCJ held that only employee remuneration that is earned on a regular and permanent basis, namely the “normal salary,” is subject to income tax.
Through the Decision, the CC of the SCJ confirmed the position held in the decision issued on June 30, 2016, in the case SINTRALCASA4, where it concluded that only employee remuneration that qualifies as normal salary is subject to income tax.
1 Published in Special Edition of Official Gazette No. 6,152 dated November 18, 2014
2 Ruling No. 499 of the CC of the SCJ
3 Ruling No. 301 of the CC of the SCJ dated February 27, 2007
4 Ruling No. 499 of the CC of the SCJ dated June 30, 2016
Publication
Overview of the main provisions of the Competition Law, and discussion of the enforcement regime and recent enforcement trends.
Publication
Artificial intelligence (AI) raises many intellectual property (IP) issues.
Publication
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR or the Court) recently ruled in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz & Ors v. Switzerland (Application No. 53600/20) that Switzerland had breached the European Convention of Human Rights (the Convention) by not taking sufficient action against climate change. In particular, it found a breach of the right to respect for private and family life contained in Article 8 of the Convention, based on Switzerland’s failure to mitigate the impact of climate change on the lives, health, well-being and quality of life of its citizens. It also ruled that Switzerland had breached the right to a fair trial in terms of Article 6, in that the domestic courts failed to examine the merits of the applicants’ complaints, including the scientific evidence. In this article we consider the key features of this landmark judgment, which has wide ramifications for Member States of the Convention.
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2023