Library of Congress

Law Library of Congress

The Library of Congress > Law Library > News & Events > Global Legal Monitor

The Global Legal Monitor is an online publication from the Law Library of Congress covering legal news and developments worldwide. It is updated frequently and draws on information from official national legal publications and reliable press sources. You can find previous news by searching the Global Legal Monitor.

Israel: Knesset Freezes Salaries of Members Due to Impact of COVID-19 on Economy

(Dec. 18, 2020) On November 23, 2020, the Knesset (Israel’s parliament) adopted temporary legislation to freeze the salaries of Knesset members (KMs) for 2021. (Law for Cancelling Knesset Members’ Salaries for the Year 2021 (Temporary Order) 5781-2020, Sefer HaHukim [SH] (official gazette) 5781 No. 2869 p. 94.)

According to the Knesset Members’ Salary Decision, 5747-1987, KMs’ salaries are linked to the average wage in the Israeli economy as defined under section 1 of the National Insurance Law (Consolidated Version) 5755-1995 (this and other legal references below as amended), and are updated automatically every year.

Under the temporary order, the salaries of all Knesset members “who are not ministers or deputy ministers, including the speaker of the Knesset, the opposition leader, deputy speakers, and speakers of Knesset committees” will not be updated during 2021. For the purpose of calculating the KM’s updated salaries as of January 1, 2022, “the average wage published in 2020 will be taken into account, instead of the average wage published in 2021.” (Temporary Order §§ 2–3.)

According to the explanatory notes of the Temporary Order Knesset Draft Bill, a sharp increase in the average wage is expected in January 2021. Because of the coronavirus pandemic “many places of employment have been closed, and many workers, mostly low-wage earners, have been fired or placed on unpaid leave.” The bill’s drafters explained that this exceptional increase was not expected to occur again in 2021. The freeze on KMs’ salaries was also intended to affect the reference point for the wage update in January 2022, which will be the one published in 2020 rather than 2021.

Back to Top

Australia: New Legislative Framework for Federal Assessments of Arrangements between State or Territory Governments and Foreign Governments Receives Assent

(Dec. 17, 2020) On December 10, 2020, Australia’s Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020 (Cth) (the act) received assent, having been passed by the Commonwealth (i.e., federal) Parliament on December 3, 2020. A bill containing consequential amendments to other legislation was also passed on December 8 and received assent on December 10. According to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Marise Payne, the legislation aims to ensure “that arrangements entered into by States and Territories, local governments and Australian public universities with foreign governments are consistent with Australia’s foreign policy.”

The legislation establishes a new framework for the minister for foreign affairs to assess and approve relevant arrangements entered into by Australian subnational governments and public universities. The explanatory memorandum for the act outlines some of the key provisions as follows:

Part 2 of this Act prohibits core State/Territory entities from negotiating or entering an arrangement with a core foreign entity (a core foreign arrangement) if approval from the Minister is not in force (sections 15 and 22).

Core State/Territory entities are defined as the States and Territories themselves, their governments and related departments and agencies (section 10). Core foreign entities are defined as foreign countries, their national governments and related departments and agencies (section 10).

Under Part 2, core State/Territory entities are required to notify the Minister about proposed arrangements with core foreign entities prior to negotiating and prior to entering the arrangement (sections 16 and 23 respectively). After receiving notice from the relevant State/Territory entity, the Minister must make a decision as soon as practicable within 30 days (subsections 17(1) and 24(1) respectively). The Minister must give approval if he or she is satisfied that the arrangement would not adversely affect Australia’s foreign relations and would not be inconsistent with Australia’s foreign policy (subsections 17(2) and 24(2) respectively). If the Minister is not so satisfied, he or she must refuse to provide approval (subsections 17(3) and 24(3) respectively) and the State/Territory entity will not be able to commence negotiations or enter into the arrangement. If the Minister does not make a decision within the 30 day period, the Minister is taken to have approved the proposed negotiation or arrangement.

If a core State/Territory entity enters a core foreign arrangement in contravention of the prohibition in Part 2, the Act provides that the arrangement is invalid and unenforceable, not in operation or required to be terminated by operation of this Act, as relevant. The Minister may also enforce the prohibitions in this Part by seeking an injunction from the High Court or Federal Court.

Additional provisions, in part 3 of the act, relate to “non-core foreign arrangements,” which are arrangements between non-core entities, and between non-core and core entities. A state/territory entity must notify the minister before entering such arrangements, and the minister has “discretion to make a declaration that the State/Territory entity must not negotiate or enter the arrangement if the Minister is satisfied that the arrangement adversely affects Australia’s foreign relations or is inconsistent with Australia’s foreign policy (sections 35 and 36, respectively).”

Part 4 of the act applies to arrangements already in operation, allowing the minister to “declare that such arrangements are invalid and unenforceable, not in operation or required to be varied or terminated, as relevant, if the Minister is satisfied that the relevant arrangement adversely affects Australia’s foreign relations or is inconsistent with Australia’s foreign policy.”

The government will be required to report to Parliament annually on the decisions of the minister for foreign affairs made under the act (section 53A).

A new task force within the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has been established to implement the legislation, and a new website enables online notifications of arrangements and provides a public register of notified arrangements. The provisions regarding preexisting arrangements entered into force on December 10, with notifications of preexisting core arrangements required by March 10, 2021, and of non-core arrangements by June 10, 2021. The provisions regarding new core and non-core arrangements will come into force on March 10, 2021.

Currently a small number of relevant agreements have been signed by state governments and Australian universities, most involving China, which have reportedly “generated unease in Canberra.” This includes a memorandum of understanding between the government of Victoria and China, signed in 2018, regarding the Belt and Road Initiative. In addition, some universities have signed agreements with Chinese institutions and companies, “including those that have allowed Confucius Institutes to open on some Australian campuses.”

China has raised the new legislation “as one of 14 grievances damaging to relations with Australia.”

Back to Top

Israel: Knesset Establishes Consumer Opt-Out Register and Authorizes Issue of Temporary Protection Injunctions

(Dec. 16, 2020) On November 23, 2020, the Knesset (Israel’s parliament) passed an amendment to the Consumer Protection Law, 5741-1981, as amended, to enable consumers to opt out of phone and digital marketing communications and to authorize the issue of temporary injunctions for the protection of consumers, including persons “with special characteristics”—that is, those who may be especially vulnerable to suffering harm as consumers. (Consumer Protection Law (Amendment No. 61) 5781-2020. References below to the “law” are to the text of the law, including Amendment No. 61. For explanatory notes for the amendment, see Government Bill, 5744-2020.)

The law requires the head of the Consumer Protection Agency (CPA) to report to the Knesset Economic Affairs Committee on implementation of the arrangements included in Amendment No. 61 in accordance with specifically defined periods. (Law § 8.)

Establishment and Management of a Consumer Opt-Out Registry

The amended law requires the CPA to establish and manage an opt-out database that will contain contact information of consumers interested in restricting marketing communications. The restrictions would apply to marketing communications made by “dealers”—persons and manufacturers that engage in the sale of property or the provision of a service as an occupation in order to engage in transactions, including those involving gratuities, discounts, or the provision of a benefit. (§ 16B (a–b).)

A consumer may request that one or more telephone numbers be registered in the database, and may at any time request that numbers be changed or removed from the database. The CPA is required to take reasonable measures to prevent the registration, change, or removal of contact information from the database without the consumer’s consent. Before issuing any marketing communications dealers must check to ensure that the consumer’s contact information is not listed in the opt-out register. The database will be subject to requirements enumerated in the Privacy Protection Law, 5841-1981, as amended. (§ 16B (c–d) & 16C (c).)

The law authorizes the minister of industry, trade and tourism, with the approval of the Knesset Economic Affairs Committee, to adopt regulations regarding the establishment and management of the database, including procedures for the registration of consumer requests and identification of registered requests by both dealers and consumers. (§ 16B (e).)

Issue of Temporary Injunctions to Protect Consumers

The law authorizes the CPA head to issue temporary injunctions to prevent or correct, as relevant, “undue influence” as defined by the law, as well as any violation of the law’s legal requirements that may affect a large number of consumers, inflict significant harm on consumers, or impair the discretion of a consumer who is a person with “special characteristics.” Such persons include persons with disabilities, seniors, minors, and those not versed in the language in which a relevant transaction was made. (§§ 3(a) & 21C.)

Effectiveness

While the provisions regarding authorization for the issue of temporary injunctions takes effect immediately, the requirements for the establishment and management of a consumer opt-out register will take effect 18 months following November 24, 2020, the official date of Amendment No. 61’s publication. (§ 7.)

Back to Top

Italy: Supreme Court of Cassation Reviews Case on Time Limits to Challenge Arbitral Awards

(Dec. 15, 2020) On September 24, 2020, a panel of the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation (SCC) asked that a case involving the time limit for requesting nullification of an arbitral award be elevated to the SCC’s highest level (the Court’s United Sections) due to the complexity and importance of the issue. (Decision No. 20104 of September 24, 2020 (Decision).)

Background of the Case

Within the SCC, in cases of particular relevance and complexity, a panel may request the court’s first president, who is the chief officer of the court, to refer a case to a broader panel of nine judges known as the United Sections, which is responsible for ruling on matters of high importance.

The case concerns whether the one-year term to challenge an arbitral award, as established in article 828 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), starts to run not from the signing of the award by the arbitrators, but from the communication to the parties of the resolution enforcing such arbitral award.

The SCC panel reviewed a request for appeal filed against a decision of the Appellate Court of Bologna that on its own initiative had rejected as untimely a challenge to an arbitral award. (Decision, considerations of fact § 1, para. 3.)

The claimant before the SCC panel invoked articles 3, 24, and 111 of the Italian Constitution (English translation) on equality before the law, due process, and other procedural guarantees. (Considerations of fact § 2.1, para. 1.) The claimant noted that the current text of CPC article 828, as amended in 1994, provides that a party’s right to request nullification of an arbitral award ended one year from the last subscription of the award, while the original text of article 828 the one-year term expired from the date of the resolution enforcing the award. (Considerations of fact § 2.1, para. 2.) The claimant argued that starting the limitation period on the date of signature of the award rather than the date the award is communicated to the parties violates constitutional guarantees, including due process. (Considerations of fact § 2.1, paras. 3–4.)

Reasoning of the Court

The SCC panel noted the complex history of the statute. It observed that the underlying arbitral case was commenced in 2005, and that a transitory provision of Legislative Decree No. 40 of February 2, 2006, which had amended CPC article 828, provided that the amendment would apply to arbitral procedures “in which the request for arbitration was filed after the entry into force of this decree (March 20, 2006).” (Considerations of law § 2.) The SCC noted that in the original version of article 828, the limitation period for requesting nullification of an arbitral award was 30 days from the date of its notification, and in any case one year from the date of the resolution declaring the enforceability of the award. (Considerations of law § 2.1.) After a 1994 amendment , the period to file was raised to 90 days from its notification. (Considerations of law § 2.2, para. 1.)

The court thus observed that there are two periods within which to challenge an award: a short term of 30 days running from the date of notification of the award, and a longer term counted from the date of the last signature of the award by the arbitrators. (Considerations of law § 3.1, para. 2.)

The court noted the unreasonableness of requiring that a party challenge an award before the award is communicated to the party. (Considerations of law § 5.1 para. 1.) The court considered that the parties to an arbitral procedure have no possibility of knowing when an arbitral decision is issued or deposited absent a formal notification to them. (Considerations of law § 5.3.)

Holding of the Court 

The court recognized the complexity and relevance of the questions posited on this case, in particular whether the one-year term established to challenge an arbitral award starts from the date on which such award is communicated to the parties. (Considerations of law § 5.4.) In light of these considerations, the SCC declined to decide the case and instead referred it to the court’s first president to determine whether to elevate the case to the United Civil Sections of the SCC for final resolution.

Back to Top

China: Health QR Code Now Required for Foreigners Flying to China

(Dec. 14, 2020) On November 23, 2020, the Chinese Embassy in the United States published a notice requiring non-Chinese citizens to obtain a QR code marked “HDC” (Health Declaration Code) in order to board flights to China. The new requirement entered into effect on December 1, 2020.

According to the notice, foreign passengers can apply for the code by logging on to a designated website via computers or smart phones. To receive the code they need to submit personal information; make a declaration of their health status; and upload negative COVID-19 test certificates, passports, itinerary, and other required documents. “Foreign passengers must present the electronic or printed code, and follow the procedures for inspection by relevant airlines during boarding,” the notice said.

Both Chinese citizens and noncitizen travelers flying to China must take an IgM antibody test in addition to the previously required nucleic acid test within 48 hours of boarding their flights, according to another notice issued by the Chinese Embassy in the United States on October 29, 2020, which took effect on November 6, 2020. Travelers must test negative in both tests to receive the Health Declaration Code.

Chinese citizens have been required to obtain a green health code marked “HS” (he suan, nucleic acid) by submitting required information through a WeChat mini app to board flights returning to China. Foreign citizens were previously required to obtain a stamped Health Declaration Form (HDF) from Chinese embassies or consulates through emails. Effective December 1, 2020, the HDF will no longer be issued, although previously issued HDFs are still valid, according to the November 23 notice.

Chinese cities have used color-based health code apps to help combat the spread of COVID-19 since February 2020. The use of the apps has raised data privacy concerns because the apps reportedly rely on a combination of user-submitted information, including travel history and contact with infected persons, as well as data held by other sources, including airlines, railways, telecom carriers, and banks.

According to the November 23 notice, the announcement issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the National Immigration Administration on March 26, 2020, which prevented most foreigners from entering China, is still valid. Since September 28, 2020, foreigners holding valid Chinese residence permits for work, personal matters, and family reunification have been allowed to enter China.

Back to Top