Do not let a faulty product spoil your New Year’s Eve

Every year in the run-up to Christmas, millions of gifts are carefully wrapped and distributed around the world, and these often include increasingly sophisticated and intelligent tech gifts.

However, these technologies are not risk-free.

Imagine a new product – an autonomous robot called “GreenBot” that can look after your garden, by planting, pruning trees and lawns, and recommending treatments for your soil. GreenBot has been produced and assembled outside the European Union and is equipped with artificial intelligence (“AI”).

Now let’s assume that the AI system integrated into GreenBot has not been subjected to the risk analysis and assessment processes in accordance with the new Artificial Intelligence Regulations [1].

When it was activated the day after Christmas Eve, you noticed a power surge. Suddenly, GreenBot suffers a major malfunction: instead of mowing your lawn, it removes all the hedges in your garden, fortunately causing only material damage. You assume that your gardening assistant has probably suffered a programming error or a failure in its functional algorithm.

What rules will apply?

At present, national liability rules are not adapted to legal action for damage caused by AI products. These rules require the victim to prove a prejudicial act or omission by the liable person, whereas specific AI characteristics – including complexity, autonomy and opacity (the “black box” effect) – can make it very difficult to identify the liable person and to provide the necessary evidence [2].

It is against this backdrop that two new closely related European laws [3] should soon see the light of day:

• the proposal (not yet adopted) for a directive on liability in the field of AI (the “AILD“) [4]; and
• the Product Liability Directive (the “PLD“) [5], which recently came into force on 8 December 2024.

The PLD replaces Directive 85/374/EEC on liability for defective products [6] in order to adapt liability rules to new technologies, new circular economy models and new global supply chains [7].

Defective products

The PLD enshrines a natural person’s right to compensation where they have suffered damage caused by virtually any type of defective “product” [8]. The concept of product now encompasses all types of movable property, including components, even if they are integrated into or interconnected with other property.

Software, applications and AI systems are explicitly covered by the PLD.  Their manufacturers may be held liable for defects present at the time their software or AI system is placed on the market, including defects that arise following an update.

Damage

The PLD provides for a broadening of the damage covered, i.e. bodily, injury and psychological health damage, as well as damage to property [9].

A product is considered defective when it does not offer the safety that an average person would expect, taking into account in particular the presentation of the product (including the installation, use and maintenance instructions) and the foreseeable use of the product [10].

The manufacturer of the defective product will then be liable for damage caused by the product as a result of the defect.

If this manufacturer is established outside the EU (as is the case with our example of GreenBot), the importer of the defective product, or even its agent, or the service provider responsible for fulfilling orders may be held liable for damage caused [11]. Where none of these persons can be identified, the distributor of the defective product may be held liable for damage caused [12].

Easing the burden of proof

A person claiming to have suffered such damage must currently prove (i) that the product is defective, (ii) that damage has been suffered, and (iii) that there is a causal link between the defect and the damage [13]. This burden of proof has not changed under the new PLD.

However, to make things easier for victims, the PLD provides for the following:

• Victims will be able to apply to the competent court in their place of residence or in the place where the damage was suffered for an order for manufacturers to provide the relevant evidence relating to the product concerned; and
• In certain circumstances, the PLD allows the existence of a defect or a causal link to be presumed, unless the manufacturer can prove otherwise, in particular if:
• The product does not comply with mandatory safety standards;
• The damage is caused by a malfunction under normal conditions of use;
• There are certain circumstances to be taken into account that give rise to a presumption of this, such as the fact that the product concerned is described as complex in such a way that the victim encounters disproportionate difficulties in proving the defect or the causal link.

Other rules could still be added, as Member States have until 9 December 2026 to transpose the PLD at national level.

But beware of the limitation period: the right to bring an action for damages lapses 3 years after the date of damage, the defect or the identification of the person liable [14].

Extra-contractual fault

Finally, the AILD has not yet been adopted by the European institutions. It should apply specifically to AI systems [15] and to actions for damages caused by extra-contractual fault – particularly in cases where there is no contractual link between the party who suffered the damage and the party who manufactured the AI system [16]. In such cases, special rules will apply.

Courts will have the power to order the disclosure of evidence relating to high-risk AI systems suspected of causing harm [17], as well as to impose specific measures to ensure the preservation of that evidence [18].

In the event that the party responsible for the AI system fails to comply with the order to disclose or preserve the above-mentioned evidence, the courts could then presume that they have breached a duty of care [19].

The causal link between the fault of the party responsible for the AI system, for example, and the result produced by the AI system would be presumed when three conditions are met: (i) the fault of this party following a breach of a duty of care; (ii) the fault is likely to have influenced the result of the AI system; and (iii) the victim would be able to demonstrate that the result of the AI system caused damage [20].

However, we will have to wait for the European institutions to continue their discussions on AILD before the current legal framework can be adapted to meet new technological challenges.

In anticipation of these future technological and legal advances, the Media, Data, Technologies & IP team at MOLITOR Avocats à la Cour wishes you a very happy festive season!

Ne laissez pas un produit défectueux vous gâcher votre Réveillon

Chaque année, à l’approche de Noël, des millions de cadeaux sont soigneusement emballés et distribués à travers le monde lesquels s’avèrent de de plus en plus sophistiqués et intelligents.

Cependant, ces technologies ne sont pas exemptes de risques.

Imaginons un nouveau produit — un robot autonome dénommé « GreenBot » permettant d’entretenir votre jardin, réalisant les plantations, taillant des arbres et des pelouses, et faisant des recommandations de traitements pour vos sols. GreenBot a été produit et assemblé en dehors de l’Union européenne et est doté d’intelligence artificielle.

Supposons maintenant que le système d’IA dont GreenBot est composé n’a pas été soumis aux processus d’analyse et d’évaluation des risques conformément au nouveau Règlement sur l’intelligence artificielle [1],

Lors de son activation, le lendemain du Réveillon de Noël, vous constatez une surcharge de puissance. Soudainement, GreenBot subit un dysfonctionnement majeur puisqu’au lieu de tondre votre pelouse, celui-ci a enlevé toutes les haies de votre jardin, ne causant heureusement que des dégâts matériels.  Vous supposez que votre assistant jardinier a vraisemblablement dû subir une erreur de programmation ou une défaillance de son algorithme fonctionnel.

Quelles seront les règles applicables ?

Actuellement, les règles nationales en matière de responsabilité ne sont pas adaptées aux actions en réparation des dommages causés par des produits dotés d’intelligence artificielle (l’« IA »). Ces règles requièrent que la victime prouve un acte préjudiciable ou une omission de la part de la personne responsable, alors que les caractéristiques spécifiques de l’IA — dont la complexité, l’autonomie et l’opacité (l’effet de « boîte noire ») — peuvent rendre très difficile l’identification du responsable et l’apport des preuves nécessaires [2].

C’est dans ce contexte que deux nouvelles lois européennes, étroitement liées [3], devraient bientôt voir le jour :

• la proposition (non encore adoptée) de directive sur la responsabilité en matière d’IA (la « DRIA ») [4] et,
• la directive relative à la responsabilité du fait des produits défectueux (la « DRP ») [5], qui est récemment entrée en vigueur le 8 décembre 2024.

Cette nouvelle directive remplace la directive 85/374/CEE relative à la responsabilité du fait des produits défectueux [6] afin d’adapter les règles de la responsabilité aux nouvelles technologies, aux nouveaux modèles de l’économie circulaire et aux nouvelles chaînes d’approvisionnement mondiales [7].

Produit défectueux

La DRP consacre le droit à réparation de toute personne physique ayant subi un dommage causé par quasiment tout type de « produit » défectueux [8]. La notion de produit englobe désormais tous types de biens mobiliers, y compris les composants, même s’ils sont intégrés ou interconnectés à d’autres biens.

Les logiciels, les applications et systèmes d’IA sont explicitement couverts par la DRP.  Leurs fabricants pourront être tenus responsables des défauts présents au moment de la mise sur le marché de leur logiciel ou système d’IA, y compris des défauts qui surviendraient à l’issue d’une mise à jour.

Dommages

La DRP prévoit un élargissement des dommages couverts, à savoir aussi bien les dommages corporels et psychologiques, que les dommages matériels [9].

Un produit est considéré comme défectueux lorsqu’il n’offre pas la sécurité à laquelle une personne moyenne peut s’attendre, compte tenu notamment de la présentation du produit (y compris les instructions d’installation, d’utilisation et d’entretien) et de l’utilisation prévisible du produit [10].

Le fabricant du produit défectueux sera alors responsable du dommage causé.

Si ce fabricant est établi hors de l’UE (comme c’est le cas pour GreenBot), l’importateur du produit défectueux, voire son mandataire, ou encore le prestataire de services d’exécution des commandes, peuvent être tenus responsables du dommage causé [11]. Lorsque l’on ne peut identifier aucune de ces personnes, c’est le distributeur du produit défectueux qui pourra être tenu pour responsable des dommages causés [12].

Assouplissement de la charge de la preuve

Celui qui prétend avoir subi un tel dommage doit actuellement prouver trois éléments : (i) la défectuosité du produit, (ii) le dommage subi, et (iii) le lien de causalité entre la défectuosité et le dommage [13]. Ce principe ne changera pas avec la DRP.

Cependant, afin de faciliter la tâche des victimes, la DRP prévoit le suivant :

• Vous serez en mesure de solliciter au Tribunal compétent du lieu de votre domicile ou du lieu où le dommage a été subi d’ordonner aux fabricants de fournir les preuves pertinentes relatives au produit concerné ;
• Dans certaines circonstances, la DRP permet de présumer l’existence d’un défaut ou d’un lien de causalité, sauf si le fabricant peut prouver le contraire, notamment si :
• Le produit ne respecte pas des normes de sécurité obligatoires ;
• Le dommage est causé par un dysfonctionnement dans des conditions normales d’utilisation ;
• Certaines circonstances à prendre en compte font présumer cela, telles que le fait que le produit concerné soit qualifié de complexe de telle sorte que la victime rencontre des difficultés disproportionnées pour prouver le défaut ou le lien de causalité.

D’autres règles pourraient encore être ajoutées puisque les Etats Membres disposent d’un délai jusqu’au 9 décembre 2026 pour transposer la DRP au niveau national.

Mais attention : la possibilité d’introduire une action en réparation d’un dommage prescrit 3 ans à compter du dommage, de la défectuosité ou de l’identification de la personne responsable [14].

Faute extracontractuelle

Enfin, concernant la DRIA, elle n’a pas encore été adoptée par les institutions européennes. Elle devrait s’appliquer spécifiquement aux systèmes d’IA [15] et aux actions en réparation de dommages causés par une faute extracontractuelle – notamment dans les cas où il n’y a pas de lien contractuel entre la personne ayant subi le dommage et celle ayant fabriqué le système d’IA [16]. Dans ces cas, certaines règles spéciales s’appliqueront.

Les tribunaux auront le pouvoir d’ordonner la divulgation des preuves relatives au système d’IA à haut risque soupçonné d’avoir causé un dommage [17], ainsi que des mesures spécifiques pour assurer la conservation de ces preuves [18].

Dans le cas où la personne responsable pour le système d’IA ne respecterait pas l’ordre de divulguer ou conserver les preuves précitées, les tribunaux pourraient alors présumer son manquement à un devoir de vigilance [19].

Le lien de causalité entre la faute de  la personne responsable pour le système d’IA par exemple et le résultat produit par le système d’IA serait présumé lorsque trois conditions seraient réunies : (i) la faute de cette personne à la suite d’un manquement d’un devoir de vigilance ; (ii) la faute ait vraisemblablement influencé le résultat du système d’IA, et (iii) la victime serait en mesure de démontrer que le résultat du système d’IA est à l’origine de son dommage [20].

Il faudra néanmoins attendre la poursuite des discussions à l’égard de la DRIA, par les institutions européennes, pour que le cadre juridique actuel puisse être adapté aux nouveaux défis technologiques.

En attendant ces futures avancées technologiques et juridiques, l’équipe Media, Data, Technologies & IP de l’Etude MOLITOR Avocats à la Cour vous souhaite de très belles fêtes de fin d’année !

[1] End of recital (12) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence.

[2] Proposal for a Directive on adapting non-contractual civil liability rules to artificial intelligence, Explanatory Memorandum, COM(2022) 496 final, p.1.

[3] op.cit, end p.3.

[4] Proposal for a Directive on adapting non-contractual civil liability rules to artificial intelligence, COM(2022) 496 final.

[5] Directive (EU) 2024/2853 of 23 October 2024 on liability for defective products and repealing Council Directive 85/374/EEC.

[6] Art. 21 of the PLD.

[7] Recitals (3) to (5) of the PLD.

[8] Art. 5 of the PLD.

[9] Art. 6.1 of the PLD.

[10] Arts. 7.1 and 7.2 of the PLD.

[11] Art. 8.1 of the PLD.

[12] Art. 8.3 of the PLD.

[13] Art. 10.1 of the PLD.

[14] Art. 16.1 of the PLD.

[15] Art. 1.1 of the AILD.

[16] Art. 1.2 of the AILD.

[17] Art. 3.1 of the AILD.

[18] Art. 3.3 of the AILD.

[19] Art. 3.5 of the AILD.

[20] Art. 4.1 of the AILD.

DORA’S ENTRY INTO FORCE IS FAST APPROACHING : HAVE YOU UPDATED YOUR IT CONTRACTS?

Regulation (EU) 2022/2554 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 on digital operational resilience for the financial sector (DORA) will come into effect on 17 January 2025, imposing new obligations on financial and insurance entities regarding digital operational resilience.

Article 30 of DORA is particularly crucial, as it details the contractual requirements between these entities and their third-party ICT (Information and Communication Technologies) service providers.

Article 30 applies to all financial entities, including insurance companies, that outsource ICT services to third-party providers. It aims to ensure that contracts with these providers are clear, comprehensive, and compliant with the new standards of digital operational resilience.

Mapping and Reviewing Existing Contracts
Companies must undertake a comprehensive mapping of their current contracts with third-party ICT service providers.

The objectives are to:

• Identify old contracts affected by the new obligations.
• Review and amend contracts to ensure compliance with Article 30.
• Integrate DORA’s requirements into all future contracts.

Contractual Provisions from Article 30

1^st layer: General Obligations Compliance

To be compliant, each contract must include at least the following elements:

1- Description of ICT Services:

• Does the contract contain a clear and complete description of all ICT services and functions to be provided by the supplier?
• Does it indicate whether subcontracting of these services is permitted and, if so, the applicable conditions?

2- Location of Services and Data:

• Does the contract specify the locations (regions or countries) where the ICT services will be provided and where the data will be processed?
• Is the supplier obliged to inform the financial entity in advance if it plans to change these locations?

3- Data Protection:

• Does the contract include provisions on the availability, authenticity, integrity, and confidentiality of data, including personal data?

4- Access and Recovery of Data:

• Does the contract provide for access, recovery, and return of data in the event of insolvency, resolution, discontinuation of the business operations, or termination of the contract?
• Do these provisions ensure that data will be provided in an easily accessible format?

5- Descriptions of Service Levels:

• Does the contract include descriptions of service levels, including updates and revisions?

6- Assistance in the Event of ICT Incidents:

• Is the supplier obliged to provide assistance to the financial entity, at no additional cost or at a pre-determined cost, in the event of an ICT-related incident?

7- Cooperation with Competent Authorities:

• Does the contract require the supplier to fully cooperate with the financial entity’s competent authorities and resolution authorities, including persons appointed by them?

8- Termination Rights:

• Does the contract specify the termination rights and related minimum notice periods, in line with the expectations of competent authorities and resolution authorities?

9- Participation in Security Programmes:

• Is the supplier required to participate in ICT security awareness programs and digital operational resilience training developed by the financial entity?

2^nd layer: Critical or Important Functions

Additional requirements apply if the ICT services support a critical or important function, which is defined as a function whose disruption could seriously impair a financial entity’s financial performance, or the soundness or continuity of its services and activities, or where an interruption, defect, or failure in its execution could seriously undermine the financial entity’s ability to continuously comply with the conditions and obligations of its authorisation, or its other obligations under applicable financial services law.

Again, each contract must include at least the following elements:

1- Comprehensive Descriptions of Service Levels:

• Does the contract provide comprehensive and detailed descriptions of service levels, with precise quantitative and qualitative performance targets?
• Do these descriptions enable effective monitoring by the financial entity and the ability to take appropriate corrective measures without undue delay?

2- Notification of Impacting Developments:

• Is the supplier obliged to notify the financial entity of any developments that could significantly affect its ability to provide the ICT services?

3- Emergency Plans and ICT Security:

• Is the supplier required to implement and test business contingency plans?
• Has it established measures, tools, and ICT security policies that provide an appropriate level of security?

4- Participation in Penetration Testing:

• Is the supplier obliged to participate and fully cooperate in threat-led penetration testing carried out by the financial entity?

5- Audit and Inspection Rights:

• Does the contract grant the financial entity unlimited rights of access, inspection, and auditing, and the right to agree on alternative assurance levels if other clients’ rights are affected?
• Is the supplier required to fully cooperate during on-site inspections and audits?
• Does the contract provide details on the scope, and procedures to be followed, and the frequency of these inspections and audits?

6- Exit Strategies:

• Does the contract include exit strategies, notably:

– An obligatory adequate transition period during which the supplier continues to provide the services to reduce disruption risk?

– A plan to migrate to another supplier or to utilise suitable in-house solutions?

3^rd layer: Register Requirements

Regardless of the criticality of functions, all financial entities must maintain and update a detailed register of information in relation to all contractual arrangements on the use of ICT services provided by third-party ICT service providers.

Be prepared and ensure your contractual arrangements are compliant with DORA by 17 January 2025!

MOLITOR Avocats à la Cour is ready to assist you in this complex process to ensure a smooth transition towards DORA regulatory compliance.

LAW OF 24 JULY 2024 ON TRANSPARENT AND PREDICTABLE WORKING CONDITIONS

LAW OF 24 JULY 2024 ON TRANSPARENT AND PREDICTABLE WORKING CONDITIONS

Directive n°2019/1152 voted by the European Parliament on 20 June 2019 (the “Directive”) is part of the European Parliament’s desire to require employers to fully inform all workers of their working conditions at the time of recruitment, or very shortly thereafter. The Directive was transposed into Luxembourg law by a law of 24 July 2024, which came into force on 4 August this year (the “Law”).

Although the Law is not revolutionary in terms of the amount of compulsory information to be provided (the Labour Code (the “Code”) already contains numerous provisions in this respect), it does introduce a number of new features, particularly with a view to protecting the rights of employees on fixed-term and/or part-time contracts, as well as new subtleties and, above all, fines for employers who fail to comply with their information obligations. We therefore consider it appropriate to advise you of the main provisions of the Law to enable you to assess the need to amend your current contractual documentation.

1. Affected workers

The Law covers all workers employed by Luxembourg employers. Thus, while it excludes the self-employed, its provisions apply to employees, apprentices, students and pupils (and even civil servants).

2. Terms and conditions

Notwithstanding the provisions of this Law, the principle of a contract (of employment, apprenticeship, student/pupil) drawn up in writing prior to or at the time of the employee’s commencement date will remain intact in Luxembourg law. However, the Law adds new procedures for unilateral information to be provided, whether at the start of the employment relationship or during it (for example, in the event of the employee’s departure abroad or in the event of a unilateral amendment to the employment contract).

While these extended information obligations mainly take the form of additional mandatory information that must be included in the contract between the employer and the employee, the Law provides that an employer acting in good faith may communicate certain information essential to the employment relationship to the employee in writing after the employee has commenced work. The Law provides the employer with two-time limits (i.e., seven days or one month from the employee’s request, depending on the nature of the request) to fulfil its obligations as regards the contractual documentation to be exchanged with the employee. The deadline will depend on the nature of the missing information (for example, seven days to confirm the place of work, and one month to confirm the amount of paid leave). The mere coexistence of the previous provisions of employment law and those of the Law introducing new procedures and subtleties is bound to generate litigation in the years to come, particularly because of the responsibility the Law places on employers.

3. New information to be included and changes to be respected

The Law requires employers to include new information in their employees’ contracts (including the full amount of additional pay and benefits, how overtime is to be compensated, and the procedure for terminating the contractual relationship) and in the documentation to be sent to employees who leave to work abroad for more than four consecutive weeks.

4. New Regimes

With regard specifically to employees, two important contributions of the Law should be mentioned:

• Probationary period clauses

The law now regulates the duration of the probationary period in a fixed-term contract. New article L. 122-11 (1) paragraph 3 of the Code stipulates that the probationary period cannot be less than two weeks or exceed a quarter of the fixed term set out in the contract (or the minimum duration where applicable).

• Exclusivity clauses

New article L. 121-4 (8) of the Code prohibits, in principle, exclusivity clauses preventing an employee or apprentice from having multiple jobs. However, the same article provides for exceptions where such multiple employment can be prohibited by the employer on objective grounds, whether this justification is provided ab initio or is the subject of a dispute. These grounds include, for example, the health and safety of the employee at work, the imperative need for confidentiality, or conflicts of interest.

5. New rights

The Law introduces two new rights for employees:

• The right to switch to a more secure and predictable form of employment: here the Law complements existing arrangements by covering scenarios where (i) part-time employees ask to work full-time, and (ii) employees on fixed-term contracts ask to be converted to permanent contracts. Once the agreed probationary period has expired and provided, they have been working for the same employer for at least six months, these employees will be able to make such a request to their employer once a year. The employer will have a period of one month from the date of this request to either amend the contract, or to send the employee the detailed reasons justifying refusal.
• The right to free compulsory training courses that employers must provide for their employees.

6. Penalties

The employer’s breaches of the Law may be subject to both civil and criminal penalties. The Luxembourg legislator has provided for criminal fines of up to 10,000 euros if the employer is a legal entity, it being understood that these fines may be cumulative.

The Law also provides for sanctions against employers who, faced with requests for regularisation from workers, retaliate against them.

Conclusions

While new employment contracts must comply with the provisions of the Law, contracts signed before 4 August 2024 will not necessarily have to be updated, as the Law does not impose any obligation to sign an amendment unless the workers concerned request one. The Law will also require certain collective agreements to be brought into line.

Our team is at your disposal to answer any questions you may have about this Law, as well as to review and ensure compliance of your contractual documentation.

LOI DU 24 JUILLET 2024 SUR LES CONDITIONS DE TRAVAIL TRANSPARENTES ET PREVISIBLES

La Directive n°2019/1152 votée par le Parlement Européen le 20 juin 2019 (la « Directive ») s’inscrit dans la volonté du Parlement Européen d’imposer aux employeurs une parfaite information de chaque travailleur sur leurs conditions de travail au moment de leur embauche ou très rapidement à la suite de celle-ci. Cette Directive a été transposée en droit luxembourgeois par une loi du 24 juillet 2024 qui est entrée en vigueur le 4 août dernier (la « Loi »).

Si cette Loi n’est pas une révolution en ce qui concerne les mentions obligatoires, dont elle étend le nombre, (le Code du travail (« CT ») comportant déjà de nombreuses dispositions à cet égard) elle introduit néanmoins des nouveautés, notamment en vue de protéger les droits des salariés sous contrats à durée déterminée et/ou à temps partiel, de nouvelles subtilités et surtout des peines d’amendes en cas de manquements des employeurs à ces obligations d’information. Aussi, il nous semble opportun de vous informer sur les principaux points de la Loi afin de vous permettre d’évaluer la nécessité de modifier votre documentation contractuelle actuelle.

1. Travailleurs ciblés

La Loi vise tous les travailleurs au service des employeurs luxembourgeois. Ainsi, si elle exclue les indépendants, ses dispositions s’appliquent aux salariés, apprentis, étudiants et élèves (et même aux fonctionnaires).

2. Modalités à respecter

Nonobstant les dispositions de cette Loi, le principe d’un contrat (de travail, d’apprentissage, étudiant/élève) établi par écrit préalablement ou au moment de l’entrée en service du travailleur demeurera intact en droit luxembourgeois. Cependant, la Loi ajoute de nouvelles modalités d’information unilatérale que ce soit au début de la relation de travail ou au cours de celle-ci (i.e., en cas de départ à l’étranger du salarié ou en cas de modification unilatérale du contrat de travail).

Si ces obligations d’information étendues prennent principalement la forme de mentions obligatoires additionnelles devant figurer dans le contrat liant l’employeur et le travailleur, la Loi prévoit que l’employeur de bonne foi pourra communiquer par écrit au travailleur, postérieurement à l’entrée en service de celui-ci, certaines informations essentielles à la relation de travail. En effet, la Loi accorde deux délais à l’employeur (i.e., sept jours ou un mois à compter de la demande du travailleur) pour « compléter » la documentation contractuelle échangée avec le travailleur. Le délai à respecter dépendra de la nature des informations manquantes (e.g., sept jours pour le lieu de travail, one mois pour les congés). La simple coexistence des dispositions précédentes du droit du travail avec celles de la Loi et les nouvelles modalités et subtilités introduites ne manqueront pas de générer un contentieux dans les années à venir, notamment en raison de la responsabilité qu’il fait peser sur les employeurs.

3. Nouvelles mentions à insérer et changements à respecter

La Loi impose aux employeurs l’insertion de nouvelles mentions dans les contrats de leurs travailleurs (e.g., intégralité des compléments de salaire et des avantages, exécution et modalités de compensation d’heures supplémentaires, procédure pour résilier la relation contractuelle) et dans la documentation à transmettre au travailleur qui partirait travailler à l’étranger pour une durée supérieure à quatre semaines consécutives.

4. Nouveaux régimes

Concernant spécifiquement la situation des salariés, deux apports importants de la Loi doivent être mentionnés :

• Clauses d’essai

La Loi règlemente désormais la durée de la période d’essai contenue dans un contrat à durée déterminée. En effet, le nouvel article L. 122-11 (1) alinéa 3 du CT prévoit que celle-ci ne pourra être inférieure à deux semaines ni supérieure à un quart de la durée fixée au contrat (ou de la durée minimale le cas échéant).

• Clauses d’exclusivité

Le nouvel article L. 121-4 (8) du CT prévoit une prohibition de principe des clauses d’exclusivité interdisant au salarié ou à l’apprenti, un cumul d’emploi. Cependant, le même article prévoit des exceptions lorsque ce cumul doit être refusé pour des motifs objectifs que cette justification se fasse ab initio ou soit débattue lors d’un litige. Ces motifs pourront relevés, par exemple, de la santé/sécurité au travail du travailleurs ou d’impérieux besoins de confidentialité ou de conflits d’intérêts.

5. Nouveaux droits

La Loi introduit deux nouveaux droits pour les salariés :

• Droit de passer vers une forme d’emploi plus sûre et plus prévisible : ici la Loi vient compléter les dispositifs existants en visant les hypothèses (i) du salarié à temps partiel qui demanderait à travailler à temps plein et (ii) du salarié sous contrat à durée déterminée qui demanderait la conversion en un contrat à durée indéterminée. En effet, à l’expiration de la période d’essai éventuellement convenue, et à condition de travailler depuis au moins six mois auprès d’un même employeur, ces salariés pourront en faire la demande auprès de l’employeur à raison d’une fois par an maximum. L’employeur disposera à compter de cette demande d’un délai d’un mois pour soit procéder à la modification du contrat, soit adresser au salarié les motifs détaillés justifiant son refus.
• Droit à la gratuité concernant les formations obligatoires que les employeurs doivent faire suivre à leurs salariés

6. Sanctions

Les manquements de l’employeur pourront être sanctionnés sur un plan civil mais également sur un plan pénal. En effet, le législateur luxembourgeois a prévu des amendes pénales dont les montants pourront aller jusqu’à 10.000 euros lorsque l’employeur est une personne morale, étant entendu que ces amendes pourront se cumuler.

La Loi prévoit également des sanctions à l’encontre des employeurs qui, face à des demandes de régularisation de travailleurs qui exercerait des représailles à l’encontre de ces derniers.

Conclusions

Si les nouveaux contrats devront se conformer aux dispositions de la Loi, les contrats signés avant le 4 août 2024 ne devront pas nécessairement être mis à jour, la Loi ne prévoyant aucune obligation de signer un avenant sauf si les travailleurs concernés le demandent. Par ailleurs, la Loi impliquera également une mise en conformité de certaines conventions collectives.

Nos équipes se tiennent à votre disposition pour toute question concernant cette Loi ainsi que pour la revue et pour une mise en conformité de votre documentation contractuelle.

GESETZ VOM 24. JULI 2024 ÜBER TRANSPARENTE UND VORHERSEHBARE ARBEITSBEDINGUNGEN

Die vom Europäischen Parlament am 20. Juni 2019 verabschiedete Richtlinie Nr. 2019/1152 (die “Richtlinie”) entspricht dem Bestreben des Europäischen Parlaments, Arbeitgeber dazu zu verpflichten, jeden Arbeitnehmer zum Zeitpunkt seiner Einstellung oder sehr bald danach umfassend über seine Arbeitsbedingungen zu informieren. Die Richtlinie wurde durch das Gesetz vom 24. Juli 2024 in luxemburgisches Recht umgesetzt, das am 4. August 2024 in Kraft trat (das “Gesetz”).

Obwohl dieses Gesetz keine revolutionären Neuerungen bezüglich der obligatorischen Angaben darstellt, deren Anzahl erweitert wird (das Arbeitsgesetzbuch enthält bereits zahlreiche Bestimmungen in dieser Hinsicht), so führt es doch einige Neuerungen ein, insbesondere zum Schutz der Rechte von Arbeitnehmern mit befristeten und/oder Teilzeitverträgen, neue Feinheiten und vor allem Geldstrafen bei Verstößen der Arbeitgeber gegen diese Informationspflichten. Daher halten wir es für angebracht, Sie über die wesentlichen Punkte des Gesetzes zu informieren, damit Sie beurteilen können, ob eine Anpassung Ihrer aktuellen Vertragsunterlagen erforderlich ist.

1. Betroffene Arbeitnehmer

Das Gesetz gilt für alle Arbeitnehmer, die bei luxemburgischen Arbeitgebern beschäftigt sind. Es schließt zwar Selbstständige aus, seine Bestimmungen gelten jedoch für Arbeitnehmer, Auszubildende, Studenten und Schüler (und sogar für Beamte).

2. Einzuhaltende Modalitäten

Ungeachtet der Bestimmungen dieses Gesetzes bleibt das Prinzip eines schriftlichen Vertrags (Arbeits-, Lehr-, Studenten-/Schülervertrag) vor oder bei Arbeitsantritt des Arbeitnehmers im luxemburgischen Recht unberührt. Das Gesetz fügt jedoch neue Modalitäten für die einseitige Information zu Beginn oder während des Arbeitsverhältnisses hinzu (z. B. bei einem Auslandsaufenthalt des Arbeitnehmers oder bei einer einseitigen Änderung des Arbeitsvertrags).

Während diese erweiterten Informationspflichten hauptsächlich die Form zusätzlicher obligatorischer Angaben haben, die in den Vertrag zwischen Arbeitgeber und Arbeitnehmer enthalten sein müssen, sieht das Gesetz vor, dass ein gutgläubiger Arbeitgeber dem Arbeitnehmer nach der  Arbeitsaufnahme bestimmte Informationen, die für das Arbeitsverhältnis wesentlich sind, schriftlich mitteilen kann. Das Gesetz gewährt dem Arbeitgeber zwei Fristen (d. h. sieben Tage oder einen Monat ab dem Antrag des Arbeitnehmers), um die mit dem Arbeitnehmer ausgetauschten Vertragsunterlagen zu “vervollständigen”. Die einzuhaltende Frist hängt von der Art der fehlenden Informationen ab (z. B. sieben Tage für den Arbeitsort, ein Monat für den Urlaub). Die bloße Koexistenz der früheren Bestimmungen des Arbeitsrechts mit denen des Gesetzes sowie die neu eingeführten Modalitäten und Feinheiten werden in den kommenden Jahren sicherlich zu Rechtsstreitigkeiten führen, insbesondere aufgrund der Verantwortung, die den Arbeitgebern dadurch auferlegt wird.

3. Neue Angaben einfügen und Änderungen einhalten

Das Gesetz verpflichtet Arbeitgeber, neue Angaben in die Verträge ihrer Arbeitnehmer aufzunehmen (z. B. Vollständigkeit von Lohnzuschlägen und Vergünstigungen, Durchführung und Modalitäten des Ausgleichs von Überstunden, Verfahren zur Beendigung des Vertragsverhältnisses) sowie in die Unterlagen, die Arbeitnehmern, die für mehr als vier aufeinanderfolgende Wochen im Ausland arbeiten, ausgehändigt werden müssen.

4. Neue Regelungen

In Bezug auf die Situation der Arbeitnehmer sind zwei wesentliche Neuerungen des Gesetzes zu erwähnen:

• Probezeitklauseln

Das Gesetz regelt nun die Dauer der Probezeit in einem befristeten Arbeitsvertrag. Der neue Artikel L. 122-11 (1) Abs. 3 des Arbeitsgesetzbuches sieht vor, dass die Probezeit nicht kürzer als zwei Wochen und nicht mehr als ein Viertel der im Vertrag festgelegten Dauer (oder der Mindestdauer, falls zutreffend) betragen darf.

• Ausschließlichkeitsklauseln

Der neue Artikel L. 121-4 (8) des Arbeitsgesetzbuches sieht ein grundsätzliches Verbot von Ausschließlichkeitsklauseln vor, die dem Arbeitnehmer oder Auszubildenden eine Mehrfachbeschäftigung untersagen. Der gleiche Artikel sieht jedoch Ausnahmen vor, wenn Mehrfachtätigkeit aus objektiven Gründen abgelehnt werden muss, unabhängig davon, ob diese Rechtfertigung ab initio erfolgt oder in einem Rechtsstreit erörtert wird. Diese Gründe können sich beispielsweise auf die Gesundheit und Sicherheit des Arbeitnehmers am Arbeitsplatz beziehen oder auf zwingende Vertraulichkeitserfordernisse oder Interessenkonflikte.

5. Neue Rechte

Das Gesetz führt zwei neue Rechte für Arbeitnehmer ein:

• Recht auf Wechsel zu einer sichereren und vorhersehbareren Beschäftigungsform: Hier ergänzt das Gesetz die bestehenden Regelungen, indem es auf die Fälle abzielt, in denen (i) Teilzeitbeschäftigte eine Vollzeitbeschäftigung beantragen und (ii) Beschäftigte mit einem befristeten Arbeitsvertrag die Umwandlung in einen unbefristeten Arbeitsvertrag beantragen. Nach Ablauf der vereinbarten Probezeit und unter der Voraussetzung, dass sie seit mindestens sechs Monaten bei demselben Arbeitgeber beschäftigt sind, können diese Arbeitnehmer höchstens einmal pro Jahr beim Arbeitgeber einen entsprechenden Antrag stellen. Der Arbeitgeber hat ab diesem Zeitpunkt einen Monat Zeit, um entweder die Vertragsänderung vorzunehmen oder dem Arbeitnehmer eine ausführliche Begründung für seine Ablehnung zu übermitteln.
• Recht auf kostenlose Teilnahme an Pflichtschulungen, die Arbeitgeber für ihre Arbeitnehmer durchführen müssen

6. Sanktionen

Verstöße des Arbeitgebers können nicht nur zivilrechtlich, sondern auch strafrechtlich geahndet werden. Der luxemburgische Gesetzgeber hat strafrechtliche Bußgelder vorgesehen, die bis zu 10.000 Euro betragen können, wenn der Arbeitgeber eine juristische Person ist, wobei diese Bußgelder kumuliert werden können.

Das Gesetz sieht auch Sanktionen gegen Arbeitgeber vor, die angesichts von Anträgen auf Legalisierung von Arbeitnehmern Vergeltungsmaßnahmen gegen diese ergreifen.

Schlussfolgerungen

Während neue Verträge den Bestimmungen des Gesetzes entsprechen müssen, müssen Verträge, die vor dem 4. August 2024 unterzeichnet wurden, nicht unbedingt aktualisiert werden, da das Gesetz keine Verpflichtung zur Unterzeichnung einer Zusatzvereinbarung vorsieht, es sei denn, die betroffenen Arbeitnehmer verlangen dies. Darüber hinaus wird das Gesetz auch eine Anpassung bestimmter Tarifverträge mit sich bringen.

Unsere Teams stehen Ihnen für alle Fragen zu diesem Gesetz sowie für die Überprüfung und Anpassung Ihrer Vertragsunterlagen zur Verfügung.

Running into the Future: How AI-Enhanced Wearables Are Redefining Paris Olympics

The Paris Olympics are just around the corner which give us a great opportunity to explore artificial intelligence used by connected devices in sport to highlight underlying legal issues.

Already during the Rugby World Cup in 2023, connected devices embedded in players’ jerseys revolutionised performance monitoring and injury prevention. Such technologies, and others like GPS vests in football (e.g. Barça GPS Tracker and CityPlay), have paved the way for even more sophisticated applications in sports.

The Paris Olympic Games are no exception. Athletes will not only be in the spotlight for their exceptional skills but also as early adopters of AI-enhanced wearable technology. These devices are transforming how athletes train, compete, and improve. They track everything from heart rates and oxygen levels to stride patterns and fatigue, offering insights that were once the domain of high-tech labs.

This brings up an important question: now that the Data Act Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 on harmonised rules on fair access to and use of data, and the AI Act Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence are in force, amid the current sweltering summer temperatures, is it just as challenging to identify the new applicable obligations and to categorise the risk levels of the AI systems used by Olympic athletes?

1. Delving into the AI Act:

The AI Act ensures that artificial intelligence systems (or “AI systems”) used in the EU are safe, transparent, and respect people’s fundamental rights. This applies to all AI systems, whether or not integrated into technology, such as a wearable device.

The AI Act also introduces a risk-based approach, which means that the applicable rules depend on the systems’ risk levels.

AI systems are therefore classified into three or four levels of risk:

• low-risk AI systems,
• high-risk AI systems,
• prohibited AI practices that are considered unacceptable, and
• certain AI systems that are subject to transparency obligations (e.g. when it may be unclear if users are interacting with an AI system or a human).

The use of AI systems at the Paris Olympics poses various challenges with regards to the athletes’ privacy, protection of sensitive data, and transparency of algorithms. At the same time, identifying the categories of AI systems being used, and understanding the rules that apply to them, has become increasingly important.

While low-risk AI systems are mostly not covered by the AI Act and only need to meet transparency requirements whenever necessary, high-risk AI systems must comply with various requirements, including:

• A risk management system to spot and assess health and safety risks,
• Detailed technical documents,
• Automatic record-keeping of the AI system’s activities throughout its life,
• Clear instructions for those setting up the AI system, and
• Tools that properly allow for controlling the AI system, etc.

We believe that AI systems used for the Paris Olympics will mainly be categorised as low or high-risk, requiring strict security and personal data protection controls, in the context of:

• Performance analysis: AI systems can analyse athletes’ biomechanical and physiological data in real-time to optimise their training. Sensors integrated into sports equipment can collect detailed data on movements and efforts, helping trainers to adjust training programs in a personalised way. These systems are likely to be generally classified in the low-risk category, as they influence users’ decisions without impacting their safety or fundamental rights.
• Injury prevention: AI algorithms can analyse health data and past injury records to predict injury risks and suggest preventive measures. This approach enables athletes to stay in better shape and avoids interruptions in their preparation. These AI systems will be classified as high-risk since they process sensitive personal data and have a direct impact on the health and safety of athletes.
• Nutrition and recovery: AI and connected devices can also play a role in managing athletes’ nutrition and recovery. By analysing athletes’ nutritional needs and optimal recovery periods, AI systems can recommend tailored diet plans and recovery programs. Currently, these systems are generally low-risk AI systems. However, they may be subject to transparency obligations and requirements concerning the content they generate. Moreover, if these systems process sensitive health data or substantially influence athletes’ performance and physical recovery, they could also be classified as high-risk.

Data on health, nutrition, and recovery collected by wearable devices could subsequently be shared by the company selling or renting the devices, including with emergency and first aid services, as well as with insurance companies that provide coverage to athletes. The Data Act governs how this data is managed and shared with these entities.

2. Delving into the Data Act:

The Data Act aims to set up a harmonised framework for sharing and using data across all business areas within the EU. It ensures that all types of data (personal and non-personal data alike) are shared fairly, securely and in a way that respects individual rights.

For example, during training, connected devices gather a lot of athletes’ data, which helps optimise their overall performance. This data may be shared with many different stakeholders for processing. This data may be shared in various contexts, such as:

• Business to consumer data sharing,
• Business to business data sharing, and
• Business to public sector data sharing (a public sector body, or an EU institution).

In this regard, the Data Act requires data collected by devices and shared with others to adhere to strict measures, ensuring sensitive information is secure and correctly used:

• The company selling or renting the device must inform users what data it collects, including the data types and volume,
• Users must be able to access their data quickly and without paying anything for such access,
• If rules are not followed, users can complain to specific authorities,
• Users can ask that their data be shared with a third party (e.g. an insurance company), and
• The third parties that receive data can only use it for the agreed reasons, etc.

We believe that the use of AI in connected devices will be an integral part of these Olympic Games. This will undoubtedly mark an important milestone in the eyes of the public in terms of the undeniable benefits that AI can provide.

The flip side of the coin is the need for these technologies to comply with the AI Act, the Data Act and finally the GDPR, which leads to the conclusion that robots must, in their own way, pass an anti-doping test!

The legal framework applicable to new technologies and the protection of data, either personal or not, is complex – and an area in which MOLITOR’s Media, Data, Technology, and IP team can offer comprehensive expertise.

Please contact us if you require our legal assistance in complying with and navigating the complexities of the GDPR, and the AI Act and the Data Act Regulations.

Adapting to changes in the real estate and construction market

Stéphanie Juan, Partner and head of the “Real estate, construction and urban planning” department of the law firm MOLITOR Avocats à la Cour in Luxembourg, shares her perspective on the real estate and construction market.

This year, you are celebrating your 18-year work anniversary. Such loyalty to a company is increasingly rare these days. How have you achieved this?

I began my professional career with our firm in 2006 after obtaining my doctorate in public law at the University of Metz. Having always been interested in legal matters, becoming a lawyer was a natural choice from my first experience with the profession.

My loyalty is based on different pillars. Above all, it is linked to full adherence to the fundamental values ​​of the firm: service excellence, integrity and trust, teamwork, and approachability. These values ​​motivate my commitment to our clients and colleagues and promote an environment conducive to professional development.

Added to these values ​​are independence of mind and freedom of initiative, which are two strong markers of our firm. I have had the opportunity to be in charge of the real estate department for more than 10 years, to leave my mark on it, and to build a dedicated team.

Finally, giving great importance to the quality of work rather than essentially quantitative objectives is in line with my professional tenets.

Your expertise is in real estate law and construction. Beyond the crisis the sector is currently going through, what trends do you predict for 2024/2025?

Like many European countries, the Luxembourg real estate and construction sector has indeed come to a significant halt since the end of 2021 due to a combination of factors that no longer need to be explained.

These factors have led to the freezing of development projects as well as financial difficulties for players in the construction market and an increase in the number of bankruptcies.

This crisis has naturally affected the transactional aspect of our real estate practice, whereas our support for clients in matters of leases and real estate litigation is conversely sustained.

Finally, we observe two growing trends in parallel. The first relates to the importance of ESG criteria for industry stakeholders. In this context, securing contractual documents (leases, sales contracts, construction contracts) is essential.

The second trend concerns a new real estate offering. Having already emerged in other European countries (Netherlands, France and Belgium), “co-living” is materialising in Luxembourg. Based on an economy of shared living spaces, co-living is aimed at young professionals, as well as people on secondment, or people who do not wish to live alone. Such residences are developing in the Grand Duchy, providing a solution to the problems of tension in the real estate market and diversification of investments.

How does MOLITOR support its clients in this unstable environment?

I could talk to you again about our entrepreneurial spirit or the quality of our teams, which are of course important elements. However, what characterises us and what we instil in our teams is the desire to understand the real needs of clients as well as the constraints they face. Listen, obviously, but above all, ask questions. Being authentically interested allows us to create a lasting and trusting relationship.

Added to this is a conception of time that I would describe as long term. We are not looking at a relationship over the next 6, 12 or 24 months but over the next 3, 5 or even 10 years, reflecting the seniority of our partners and certain members of our teams.

Brand Voice 21rst June 2024 – Paperjam & Delano – Luxembourg

Besteuerung der Überstunden von Grenzgängern mit Wohnsitz in Deutschland

Am 11. Januar 2024 haben Luxemburg und Deutschland eine Konsultationsvereinbarung unterzeichnet (die „Konsultationsvereinbarung “), um die Anwendungsmethode des Abkommens zur Vermeidung der Doppelbesteuerung und zur Verhinderung von Steuerhinterziehung auf dem Gebiet der Steuern vom Einkommen und vom Vermögen zu klären, das zwischen den beiden genannten Ländern am 23. April 2012, in der geänderten Fassung, unterzeichnet wurde (das “Abkommen“).

Das Abkommen sieht die Möglichkeit vor, dass Deutschland Einkommen oder ein Teil der Einkommen besteuern kann, die normalerweise nur in Luxemburg steuerpflichtig sind und in Deutschland steuerfrei bleiben. Diese Besteuerung erfolgt jedoch nur, wenn Luxemburg keine Steuer auf diese Einkommen erhebt.

Gemäß den Bestimmungen der Konsultationsvereinbarung wird Deutschland nun Überstundenlöhne von Grenzgängern, die in Deutschland ansässig sind, besteuern, auch wenn diese Überstunden in Luxemburg geleistet wurden. Diese Regelung gilt selbst dann, wenn das Grundgehalt dieser Grenzgänger vollständig in Luxemburg steuerpflichtig ist, was zutrifft, wenn der Grenzgänger ausschließlich auf luxemburgischem Gebiet gearbeitet hat oder die Toleranzgrenze von 34 Arbeitstagen außerhalb des Großherzogtums Luxemburg nicht überschritten hat.

Zur Erinnerung: Nach der derzeitigen luxemburgischen Steuergesetzgebung sind Überstundenlöhne vollständig von der Einkommensteuer befreit. Solange Luxemburg diese Überstunden von der Einkommensteuer befreit, werden sie für Grenzgänger, die in Deutschland leben, in Deutschland steuerpflichtig sein.

Es ist wichtig, darauf hinzuweisen, dass gemäß Punkt VIII. 2. der Konsultationsvereinbarung diese Bestimmungen für alle Fälle gelten, die zum Zeitpunkt des Inkrafttretens der Konsultationsvereinbarung noch nicht endgültig abgeschlossen oder Gegenstand eines Schlichtungsverfahrens zwischen den Steuerbehörden der beiden Länder sind, was in einigen Fällen zu einer rückwirkenden Besteuerung führen kann.

Es bleibt jedoch unklar, ob die deutschen Steuerbehörden auch andere Einkommen oder Einkommensbestandteile besteuern werden, die in Luxemburg vollständig steuerfrei sind, wie z.B. Abfindungen, Essensgutscheine oder Zinszuschüsse, da die Konsultationsvereinbarung im Gegensatz zum dem Thema Überstunden hierzu keine Regelungen trifft.

Es kann jedoch festgehalten werden, dass gemäß Punkt VII.1. der Konsultationsvereinbarung andere Vergütungsbestandteile, die nur teilweise von der Einkommensteuer in Luxemburg befreit sind, wie Nacht-, Sonntags- und Feiertagszuschläge, von diesen neuen Bestimmungen nicht betroffen sein werden, da die Konsultationsvereinbarung klarstellt, dass diese Bestandteile vollständig in Luxemburg besteuert werden sollen.

Diese Problematik und die in der Praxis festgestellten Anwendungsschwierigkeiten sind derzeit Gegenstand zahlreicher Debatten und Initiativen seitens der luxemburgischen Gewerkschaften und Arbeitgeberverbänden.

In diesem Zusammenhang hat das luxemburgische Finanzministerium in einer Stellungnahme vom 4. April 2024 zum Verzicht auf die Anwendung eines im deutschen Steuerrecht vorgesehenen spezifischen Freibetrags klargestellt, dass die luxemburgischen und deutschen Behörden einen engen Austausch über die Anwendung des Abkommens zur Vermeidung der Doppelbesteuerung pflegen werden.

MOLITOR Avocats à la Cour celebrates its 25th anniversary

Since our creation just over 25 years ago (28 to be precise), we have focused on advising companies and their founders or shareholders, both locally and internationally.

What are the foundations of your firm, which has just celebrated its 25th anniversary?

To put it succinctly: we are a firm of entrepreneurs for entrepreneurs. On a day-to-day basis, we put this approach into practice by relying on our four values: integrity and trust, service excellence, teamwork and approachability.

Our aim was to establish a highly respected and sought-after practice by adopting an approach that is demanding of ourselves and tolerant of others, while preserving the independence intrinsic to the legal profession.

These solid foundations have enabled us to evolve and to be called upon for all matters relating to business law in Luxembourg – from employment law and real estate/construction law to insurance, corporate M&A and banking law – as regards both providing advice and/or assisting with litigation.

How have you grown over the past 28 years?

Our development has been and still is based on building an international network. These partnerships abroad are a considerable asset, both for advising foreigners investing in Luxembourg and for serving our clients with confidence when they are faced with issues abroad, whatever the jurisdiction.

At the same time, we have gradually diversified and expanded our teams in order to enhance our range of services, exclusively dedicated to the business world, to the point where we have become a ‘full service’ firm. In recent years, we have set up an IP/IT media department and a tax department.

Finally, an important guiding principle has been ongoing investment in technological solutions. Our constant concern is to provide all team members with relevant tools so that they can work efficiently while focusing on the quality of their work. We are currently testing a number of artificial intelligence-based solutions, some of which are aimed at knowledge management, while others focus on practical issues that make life easier for our team on a day-to-day basis.

A few words about the future?

We will certainly remain uncompromising about our values. We take pride in them every day in our interactions with our clients and within our team.

Having said that, what is our vision for the future? To continue our growth by keeping abreast of changes in legislation, our clients’ needs and the sometimes rapid changes taking place in our national and international environment.

So we are, and always will be, seeking to adapt, bearing in mind that the future must be inspired by our past.

Brand Voice 29th February 2024 – Paperjam & Delano Luxembourg