News  


Dr. Nikolaus Pitkowitz wird Vorsitzender der Real Estate Section der International Bar Association (IBA)
Die Jahreskonferenz 2015 findet in Wien statt.

Mit 1. Jänner 2015 übernimmt Dr. Nikolaus Pitkowitz, Partner von Graf & Pitkowitz Rechtsanwälte, den Vorsitz des Real Estate Section der International Bar Association (IBA). Er wird diese Funktion bis Ende 2016 inne haben und ist damit Vorsitzender einer der größten internationalen Vereinigung von Immobilienrechtsexperten.
Details
News  


Wenn der Schiri pfeift
Dr. Pitkowitz im Interview mit Trend Nr. 1/2015

Durch das geplante Freihandelsabkommen und seine Kritiker sind Schiedsgerichte derzeit in aller Munde. Was können sie? Und wer braucht sie?
Details
Publications  


Bank guarantees – abuse of rights when demanding payment?
Mag. Stephan Schmalzl und Mag. Norbert Amlacher, ILO Newsletter vom 5. Dezember 2014

The Supreme Court recently dealt with a case in which a claim secured by a bank guarantee became due after the guarantee period expired. It is crucial to have in-depth knowledge of the advantages and strategic use of abstract claims arising from bank guarantees, as well as an understanding of the pitfalls triggered by poorly drafted bank guarantees and underlying commercial agreements.
Details
Publications  


Can a successfully challenged arbitrator be held liable for frustrated costs?
Dr. Nikolaus Pitkowitz, ILO Newsletter vom 27. November 2014

A recent Supreme Court decision analysed whether parties to arbitral proceedings are still bound to pay for part of an arbitrator´s services where the arbitrator is successfully challenged because of his or her conduct. The court held that, unless the work is found to be worthless, the arbitrator is entitled to receive remuneration.
Details
Publications  


Let´s rock during sick leave
Mag. Jakob Widner, ILO Newsletter vom 12. November 2014

In a recent decision the Supreme Court had to consider whether activities performed during an employee´s sick leave that would not typically be regarded as adequate conduct were acceptable. The Supreme Court confirmed the lower courts´ decisions and opined that the plaintiff had only followed his doctor´s instructions and that he could rely on this advice.
Details
Blättern: < 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 |  33  | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | >