The ICLG to: Corporate Tax Laws and Regulations

Luxembourg: Corporate Tax 2020

The ICLG to: Corporate Tax Laws and Regulations - Luxembourg covers common issues in corporate tax laws and regulations - including capital gain, overseas profits, real estate, anti-avoidance, BEPS and the digital economy - in 33 jurisdictions.

Published: 13/12/2019 > Practice Areas > Corporate Tax > Luxembourg Share in E-mail   Share on LinkedIn   Share on Twitter   Share on Facebook

1. Tax Treaties and Residence

1.1        How many income tax treaties are currently in force in your jurisdiction?

As of August 2019, Luxembourg has 83 tax treaties currently in force and an additional 20 under negotiation.

1.2        Do they generally follow the OECD Model Convention or another model?

Tax treaties concluded by Luxembourg are usually based on the OECD Model Tax Convention (the “OECD MC”).  Luxembourg has agreed with most of the treaty countries to implement a provision on the exchange of information in line with Article 26 of the OECD MC.  The new tax treaty, signed with France on 20 March 2018 and entering into force as of 1 January 2020, reflects all the post-BEPS changes and the 2017 version of the OECD MC; inter alia, the treaty changes the definition of a permanent establishment to include commissionaire arrangements, and restricts the scope of the “preparatory and auxiliary” activities.  It further changes the distributive rules for payments of dividends, interest and royalties in line with the 2017 OECD MC.

A few treaties signed by Luxembourg deviate from the OECD MC.  A notable example is the treaty concluded with the USA which follows the US Model Income Tax Convention.  A more recent example is the treaty signed with Senegal, which more closely resembles the UN model.

1.3        Do treaties have to be incorporated into domestic law before they take effect?

All tax treaties are incorporated into domestic law pursuant to the following procedure: the legislator adopts a consenting law (loi d’adaptation) that authorises the Grand Duke to ratify the tax treaty.  Before the treaty takes effect, it is submitted for approval by the parliament (Chambre des députés).  The parliament’s approval takes the form of a law (loi d’approbation).  After the aforementioned procedure is completed, the treaty will take effect once it is ratified by the Grand Duke.  The treaty must then be published in the Mémorial in order to be in force in Luxembourg.

Tax treaties signed by Luxembourg generally specify an exact date on which the treaty enters into force.

1.4        Do they generally incorporate anti-treaty shopping rules (or “limitation on benefits” articles)?

As a general rule, tax treaties concluded by Luxembourg do not include anti-treaty shopping rules.  However, a limitation on benefits (“LOB”) clause is used in the treaties signed with i.a. Hong Kong, Poland, Senegal, Singapore, Trinidad and Tobago, and the USA.  Interestingly, the new treaty signed with France contains a specific anti-treaty shopping rule in its new Article 28 (“Denial of benefits under the Convention”).

In addition, the MLI signed by Luxembourg contains a general anti-abuse provision in the preamble to all of its tax treaties, which includes the express statement to eliminate double taxation without creating opportunities for reduced taxation or non-taxation.  Such provision is a minimum standard and cannot be opted out by any of the signatories to the MLI.  In the context of Article 7 (prevention of treaty abuse), countries may choose to apply either the Principle Purpose Test (“PPT”) or the detailed LOB provisions.  Like most of the signatories to the MLI, Luxembourg chose to apply the PPT.

1.5        Are treaties overridden by any rules of domestic law (whether existing when the treaty takes effect or introduced subsequently)?

Luxembourg applies the hierarchy of norms.  The constitution is the highest source of law, followed by laws and regulations.  It is worth noting that the relationship between international law and domestic law is governed entirely by case law.  Such established case law states that tax treaties incorporated into internal legislation by a ratification law should constitute a superior law.  Therefore, if a conflict between the provisions of an international treaty and those of a national law occurs, international law should take precedence over the national law.

Further to the above and under the general principles of Luxembourg public law, treaties are considered a “lex specialis” and therefore take precedence over the national provisions.

1.6        What is the test in domestic law for determining the residence of a company?

According to Article 159 of the Luxembourg income tax law (“LITL”), an entity is treated as a resident of Luxembourg for direct tax purposes if it has: (i) its registered office (siège statutaire) in Luxembourg; or (ii) its central administration (administration centrale, i.e. the place of effective management) in Luxembourg.

2. Transaction Taxes

2.1        Are there any documentary taxes in your jurisdiction?

Under Luxembourg law, certain acts such as official acts, acts of estate agents and transfer of ownership of certain goods, are required to be registered with the Luxembourg Administration de l’Enregistrement, des Domaines et de la TVA.  Registration duties are fixed or proportional, depending on the nature of the acts and transfers that are subject to them.  A fixed fee of €12 is levied on all acts which do not contain a movement of securities, while a proportional duty (ranging from 0.01% to 14.4%, depending on the transaction and the nature of the underlying asset) is levied on acts and conventions involving a movement of securities.

For instance, payment obligations are subject to a proportional 0.24% registration duty (which tax is calculated on the principal or highest amount stated in the document), if stated in a loan agreement physically attached to a deed subject to mandatory registration (such as a notarial deed).

2.2        Do you have Value Added Tax (or a similar tax)? If so, at what rate or rates?

Luxembourg applies Value-Added Tax (“VAT”) pursuant to the law of 12 February 1979 as amended (the “VAT Law”).  Currently, four rates are applicable: 17% standard rate; an intermediary rate of 14%; a reduced rate of 8%; and a super-reduced rate of 3%.  Annexes A, B and C provide for a detailed list of services and goods that are subject to the reduced rates.  Such Annexes are to be interpreted strictly.

2.3        Is VAT (or any similar tax) charged on all transactions or are there any relevant exclusions?

Luxembourg as a Member State of the EU follows the partially harmonised VAT system and applies exemptions as prescribed for by the Council Directive 2006/112/EC, as amended (the “VAT Directive”).  Such exemptions are granted i.a. in the context of financial services, fund management or medical services.  An important point to highlight is that Luxembourg does not allow for an “opt in/opt out” mechanism for activities that are exempt – with the exception of rent, in which case the taxable person can choose whether to apply VAT or not.

2.4        Is it always fully recoverable by all businesses? If not, what are the relevant restrictions?

In accordance with EU VAT rules, companies registered for VAT can deduct input VAT to the extent it is linked with their output VATable economic activity.  In the past, a pro rata deduction was used based on the percentage of VATable and non-VATable activities.  However, after the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) in BLC Baumarkt GmbH & Co. KG (C-511/10), the VAT directive must be interpreted as allowing Member States to use a more accurate method than the one of the general pro rata.  In Circular n° 765 of 15 May 2013, the Luxembourg VAT authorities referred to a direct allocation or another key allocation method.  The general pro rata deduction should not be used if a more precise allocation method can be applied.

As per Circular n° 765-1 of 11 June 2018, the VAT tax administration extended the regime applicable in Circular n° 765 to persons carrying out both economic and non-economic activities for VAT purposes.  The former Circular referred only to persons carrying out an economic activity partially exempt for VAT purposes.

2.5        Does your jurisdiction permit VAT grouping and, if so, is it “establishment only” VAT grouping, such as that applied by Sweden in the Skandia case?

In its judgment of 4 May 2017, the CJEU ruled that the Luxembourg implementation of the VAT group regime was not compatible with the VAT Directive, as it extended the benefits of the exemption to taxable activities that were not directly necessary for the exempt or out-of-scope activities of the VAT group.  In light of the above decision, Luxembourg has repealed its old regime and implemented a new VAT group regime as per the law of 6 August 2018 (in line with the Skandia case (C-7/13)).

The new VAT group regime treats all of the transactions between its members as “out of the scope” of the VAT.  One of the major differences between the new and the former regime is that the VAT group regime is restricted to persons established in Luxembourg and Luxembourg branches of foreign companies, whereas the former regime allowed for grouping with other Member States of the EU.

Companies wishing to benefit from the VAT group regime must generally meet three requirements proving their bound.  There must be an: (i) economic; (ii) financial; and (iii) organisational link with the other company(-ies).

2.6        Are there any other transaction taxes payable by companies?

A fixed registration fee of €75 is due in some specific cases determined by law such as, but not limited to: upon incorporation or subsequent capital increase; and migration of a company to Luxembourg.

2.7        Are there any other indirect taxes of which we should be aware?

There are custom and excise duties applicable for certain goods.

3. Cross-border Payments

3.1        Is any withholding tax imposed on dividends paid by a locally resident company to a non-resident?

Dividends paid to residents as well as non-residents are subject in principle to a 15% withholding tax (“WHT”) in Luxembourg.  It is possible, however, to benefit from either a reduced rate, an exemption under a double tax treaty, or the domestic participation exemption regime.

Domestic participation exemption is granted if, at the time of the dividend distribution:

  • the parent company is a fully taxable Luxembourg company, or a resident company of a Member State of the EU as defined in Article 2 of the EU Parent-Subsidiary Directive 2011/96, as amended (the “PSD”), or a Swiss-resident capital company that is subject to income tax in Switzerland without being exempt from tax, or a foreign joint-stock company which is subject in its country of residence to an income tax regime corresponding to the Luxembourg corporate income tax (“CIT”);
  • said company holds or commits to hold a participation of at least 10% (or with an acquisition price of at least €1.2 million) in the nominal share capital of the distributing company; and
  • such qualifying participation has been held for an uninterrupted period of at least 12 months.
  • If the shareholder is an EU company within the scope of the PSD, the exemption applies subject to the additional general anti-abuse rule (“GAAR”) below:
  • the EU parent company is not used for the main purpose or as one of the main purposes of obtaining a tax advantage that defeats the object of the PSD.

Liquidation proceeds are not subject to dividend WHT.  If properly structured, a partial liquidation may additionally not be subject to the WHT.

In addition, dividend payments made by a certain type of vehicle, e.g. SPFs, SICAV, SICAR and securitisation vehicles, are not subject to WHT.

3.2        Would there be any withholding tax on royalties paid by a local company to a non-resident?

There has been no WHT on royalties in Luxembourg since 1 January 2004.

3.3        Would there be any withholding tax on interest paid by a local company to a non-resident?

There is no WHT on arm’s length interest payments in Luxembourg.  Interest paid under certain hybrid instruments, or not at arm’s length, may be subject to a 15% WHT if reclassified as dividend payments by the tax authorities.

3.4        Would relief for interest so paid be restricted by reference to “thin capitalisation” rules?

There is currently no legislation concerning the thin capitalisation ratio specifically but, in practice, the tax administration uses a debt-to-equity ratio of 85:15 for the intra-group financing of participations.  In case a taxpayer fails to comply with this ratio, the surplus of interest may be requalified as a hidden dividend distribution.  Such requalification would result in a lack of deductibility for those payments and possible application of a 15% WHT (subject to applicable tax treaty or participation exemption, if applicable).  Back-to-back financing is not subject to the abovementioned ratio.

As of 1 January 2019, however, due to the transposition into Luxembourg tax law of the interest deduction limitation rule (article 168bis of the Luxembourg Income Tax Law (“LITL”)), deduction of interest qualifying as “exceeding borrowing costs” is limited up to the higher of:

(i)   30% of the company’s EBITDA (defined as the total net income increased by the exceeding borrowing costs, depreciation and amortisation), or

(ii)  €3 million.

The €3 million threshold should also be calculated on the company level, not only on its compartment level.

Exceeding borrowing costs is defined as the amount by which the deductible borrowing costs of a taxpayer exceed taxable interest revenues and other economically equivalent taxable income of the taxpayer.

Interestingly, although borrowing costs are defined, there is no definition of “interest revenues and other equivalent taxable income”.  Based on the recommendation of the Luxembourg Chamber of Commerce, practitioners take the view that such term should be interpreted by analogy with the definition of borrowing costs and should encompass by symmetry the items listed under the latter definition (e.g., but not limited to: payments under profit participating loans; imputed interest on instruments such as convertible bonds and zero-coupon bonds; amounts paid under alternative financing arrangements, such as Islamic finance; the finance cost element of finance lease payments; capitalised interest included in the balance sheet value of a related asset, or the amortisation of capitalised interest; amounts measured by reference to a funding return under transfer pricing rules; notional interest under derivative instruments or hedging arrangements related to an entity’s borrowings; certain foreign exchange gains and losses on borrowings and instruments connected with the raising of finance; guarantee fees for financing arrangements; and arrangement fees and similar costs related to the borrowing of funds).

Exceeding borrowing costs not deductible in a tax period can be carried forward indefinitely.  The same applies to the excess interest capacity which cannot be used in a given tax period (however, for a maximum period of five years).

Exemptions to the interest deduction limitation rule have been introduced, as follows:

Grandfathering: debt instruments concluded before 17 June 2016 will not fall within the scope of the interest limitation rule to the extent that they have not been amended.  The amount of exceeding borrowing costs shall be computed as if no amendments have taken place.

Stand-alone entity: stand-alone entities are exempt from the scope of application of the interest deduction limitation rule.  A stand-alone entity is defined as a taxpayer that is not part of a consolidated group for financial accounting purposes and had no associated enterprise.  The definition of “associated enterprise” encompasses any entity – and not company – which holds, directly or indirectly, more than 25% of the taxpayer.  As a result, an orphan Luxembourg company held by a trust, a foundation or a stichting should not be considered as a stand-alone entity under the interest deduction limitation rule.

Financial undertaking: outside of the scope of the interest deduction limitation rule is any entity which falls within the definition of a financial undertaking (under article 168bis LITL).  Included in this definition are, inter alia: (i) alternative investment funds in the meaning of AIFM Directive 2011/61/EU; and (ii) EU securitisation vehicles that fall within the scope of Article 2(2) of EU Regulation 2017/2402.  With regard to the latter exemption, its current wording only covers STS securitisations.

3.5        If so, is there a “safe harbour” by reference to which tax relief is assured?

The only safe harbour rule is set out in the Circular n° 56/1-56bis/1 in relation to transfer pricing rules.  The rule stipulates that for entities providing financial services to group companies and acting as a simple intermediary, a minimum return of 2% after tax is considered as a transaction performed at arm’s length.  It should be noted that the safe harbour rule applies only at the level of the Luxembourg tax administration, and other tax administrations may consider the transaction not to be at arm’s length.

Also in the framework of the ATAD Law, the abovementioned limitation to deduct exceeding borrowing costs up to €3 million is considered as a de minimis rule.

3.6        Would any such rules extend to debt advanced by a third party but guaranteed by a parent company?

Debts guaranteed by a parent company (other than pledging the shares of the Luxembourg debtor to the creditor) are treated as a shareholder loan and as a result, in the absence of a transfer pricing report, the 85:15 debt-to-equity ratio will most likely be used.

3.7        Are there any other restrictions on tax relief for interest payments by a local company to a non-resident, for example pursuant to BEPS Action 4?

If the interest payments are not made at arm’s length or are paid under a profit-participating debt instrument, there is a risk of re-classification of the interest payments as dividend payments, with the tax consequences set out above under question 3.4.

See also question 3.4 for further developments with regard to the interest deduction limitation rule as introduced under Luxembourg law since 1 January 2019.

3.8        Is there any withholding tax on property rental payments made to non-residents?

Luxembourg does not levy any WHT on property rental payments, whether they are made to non-residents or residents.

3.9        Does your jurisdiction have transfer pricing rules?

Luxembourg transfer pricing rules are embedded in the revised Article 56 and Article 56bis LITL, which incorporate the concept of the arm’s length principle based on Article 9 OECD MC.  The amended provision, however, goes further and reflects the spirit set out in BEPS actions 8–10, such as the concept of comparability analysis, and a GAAR that allows a transaction that has been made without any valid commercial or business justification to be disregarded.

On 27 December 2016, the Luxembourg tax authorities issued the Circular n° 56/1-56bis/1, which has reshaped the transfer pricing framework for companies carrying out intra-group financing activities in Luxembourg.  The Circular provided additional guidance in terms of substance and transfer pricing requirements, in line with the OECD Guidelines.  In particular, it provided substantial details on how to conduct the comparability and functional analyses in a way consistent with the OECD principles.  Furthermore, the Circular requires the performance of a comprehensive risk analysis in order to determine the adequate level of equity capital.

4. Tax on Business Operations: General

4.1        What is the headline rate of tax on corporate profits?

As from the tax year 2019, income exceeding €200,000 is taxed at a rate of 17%.  In addition, a 7% solidarity surcharge for the employment fund, and a 6.75% municipal business tax (“MBT”) for companies registered in Luxembourg City, are levied.  For companies located outside of Luxembourg City, a different rate of MBT may apply.

The above amounts to an aggregate tax rate for Luxembourg-City domiciled companies of 24.94%.

Since 1 January 2019, two intermediary CIT rates have been introduced:

  • 15% for taxable income up to €175,000, and
  • €26,250 plus 31% of the tax base above €175,000, for taxable income between €175,000 and €200,000.

It is worth noting that in the past (from 1 January 2011 up until 31 December 2015) companies were subject to a minimum CIT in the amount of €3,210.  However, since that provision was rendered as incompatible with the EU PSD, Luxembourg abolished minimum CIT and introduced a minimum net wealth tax as of 1 January 2016 which amounts to €4,815.

4.2        Is the tax base accounting profit subject to adjustments, or something else?

As a general rule, companies in Luxembourg follow Luxembourg general accounting principles (“LuxGAAP”) under which both upward and downward adjustments are allowed.

4.3        If the tax base is accounting profit subject to adjustments, what are the main adjustments?

Profits in commercial accounts differ from taxable profits mainly for the following reasons:

  • tax-exempt profits (e.g. as per the participation exemption regime applicable for dividends and capital gains);
  • add-back expenses (e.g. interest expenses on assets generating tax-exempt income);
  • adjustment to the tax results from transactions that were not at arm’s length (e.g. the interest rate set was not at market conditions, or interest payments were reclassified as hidden dividend distribution and hence no longer tax-deductible); and
  • discrepancies between the application of different valuation rules in accounting and tax (e.g. amortisation, rollover relief).

Under certain conditions, a tax balance sheet may be prepared in a way which deviates from the statutory accounts.

4.4        Are there any tax grouping rules?  Do these allow for relief in your jurisdiction for losses of overseas subsidiaries?

Luxembourg allows a group of companies to apply a fiscal unity (or tax consolidation).  Under such regime, the respective taxable profits of each company in the consolidated group are pooled or offset to be taxed on the aggregate amount, which means that the group is effectively treated as a single taxpayer.

Generally, the conditions to qualify for a fiscal unity are as follows:

  • each company that is part of the tax unity is a Luxembourg-resident, fully taxable company (the top entity may be a Luxembourg permanent establishment of a fully taxable non-resident company) (the “Eligible Company”);
  • at least 95% of each subsidiary’s capital is directly or indirectly held by an Eligible Company;
  • each company’s fiscal year starts and ends on the same date; and
  • the fiscal unity is applied for at least five financial years.

The taxable income/loss of the fiscal unity is calculated as the sum of the taxable income/loss of each constitutive entity.  The vertical fiscal unity regime has been extended since 1 January 2016 in accordance with the CJEU case law, in particular, to allow horizontal integrations.  Eligible Companies (at least two Luxembourg companies) that are held by a common parent established in any EEA country and subject to tax comparable to Luxembourg’s CIT in its country of residence are now also permitted to form a fiscal unity.  Companies consolidated for CIT are also automatically consolidated for MBT.  However, there is no tax consolidation for net wealth tax (“NWT”) purposes.

Securitisation entities and venture capital companies are excluded from the possibility to form a fiscal unity in order to prevent tax evasion schemes.

4.5        Do tax losses survive a change of ownership?

Companies resident in Luxembourg can carry forward their losses for 17 years if they are realised from the financial year closing after 31 December 2016 (before that, tax losses could be carried forward indefinitely; losses incurred between 1 January 1991 and 31 December 2016 are, however, grandfathered in) and offset them against any future profits if the following conditions are met cumulatively:

  • the losses have not already been offset;
  • the company has maintained proper accounting in the loss-making period; and
  • the losses are offset by the company that incurred them.

Based on Luxembourg case law, companies should have a right to carry forward tax losses in case of change of ownership, unless an abuse of law has been established.  Such condition should be interpreted in the meaning of corporate law and not solely on economic rationale.  The right to offset the losses based on the hereinabove conditions should only be interpreted in light of the definition of a company based on corporate law.  As a consequence, amendments to articles of association relating to sale of shares of the company do not lead to the creation of a new legal entity and hence do not prohibit that entity from the carrying-forward of losses.

However, application of the tax carry-forward may be denied if the transaction occurred purely for tax reasons; the so-called “Mantelkauf” theory.

It should be noted that the tax losses may be offset against CIT and MBT but not against NWT.

4.6        Is tax imposed at a different rate upon distributed, as opposed to retained, profits?

Luxembourg taxes retain and distribute profits in the same manner.  However, distributed profits may be subject to withholding tax unless a domestic or treaty exemption applies.  It should also be noted that undistributed profits may also be subject to NWT.

4.7        Are companies subject to any significant taxes not covered elsewhere in this chapter – e.g. tax on the occupation of property?

Yes, Luxembourg levies NWT on Luxembourg corporate tax residents.  NWT is assessed on 1 January of each year on the basis of the estimated realisable value of the company’s net operating assets (total assets minus total liabilities, the so-called unitary value).  There is a possibility of reduction of the NWT up to the CIT paid for the previous fiscal year.  NWT of 0.5% is levied on the unitary value of up to €500 million (inclusive) and 0.05% for the unitary value exceeding this threshold.

A minimum NWT of €4,815 is due by Luxembourg corporate taxpayers holding financial assets representing at least 90% of their total assets and having a balance sheet exceeding €350,000.

Exemptions are available for securitisation vehicles, SICARs, SEPCAVs, ASSEPs, and RAIFs that invest exclusively into risk capital-related securities – which only pay the minimum flat NWT of €4,815.  A Luxembourg resident company can also benefit from a NWT exemption on qualifying participations under the same conditions applicable for the participation exemption on dividend income, except that no minimum holding period is required.

5. Capital Gains

5.1        Is there a special set of rules for taxing capital gains and losses?

In principle, capital gains arising from the sale of assets are treated as ordinary income and taxed as such, unless the participation exemption (as specified in question 5.2 below) applies.

5.2        Is there a participation exemption for capital gains?

Capital gains exemption is available under the following conditions.

At the time the capital gains are realised:

  • the Luxembourg company has held a direct participation representing at least 10% of the nominal paid-up share capital of its subsidiary (or if below 10%, a direct participation having an acquisition price of at least €6 million);
  • it has held such qualifying participation for an uninterrupted period of at least 12 months; and
  • the subsidiary entity is: (i) a Luxembourg-resident entity fully subject to Luxembourg income taxes; (ii) a non-resident capital company liable for an income tax in its country of residence comparable to the Luxembourg CIT; or (iii) an entity resident in a Member State of the European Union (as defined in Article 2 of the PSD).

It is important to note that the GAAR does not apply to capital gains deriving from qualifying subsidiaries benefiting from the Luxembourg participation exemption, regardless of their location.

5.3        Is there any special relief for reinvestment?

Yes, Article 54 LITL provides for a reinvestment relief if fixed assets consisting of a building or non-depreciable assets are disposed of during the course of operations, provided that certain conditions are met.  The purpose of this article is that the profit on the disposal of assets should not be taxed if the funds released are retained in the business and will be used to invest in other capital assets.

5.4        Does your jurisdiction impose withholding tax on the proceeds of selling a direct or indirect interest in local assets/shares?

Luxembourg does not impose WHT on the sale of a direct or indirect interest in local assets/shares, as such profits are taxed as capital gains.

6. Local Branch or Subsidiary?

6.1        What taxes (e.g. capital duty) would be imposed upon the formation of a subsidiary?

A €75 registration duty is due upon formation of a subsidiary; the same duty is paid in case its articles of association are amended.

6.2        Is there a difference between the taxation of a local subsidiary and a local branch of a non-resident company (for example, a branch profits tax)?

Branch is a corporate law term; therefore the classification of an entity/activities as a branch is not imperative for the determination of its tax treatment.  Instead tax law uses the term permanent establishment to determine whether an entity is taxable in Luxembourg.

Branches and subsidiaries fall under the same tax regime.  In addition, all transactions between the head office and the branch are disregarded for tax purposes, e.g. there is no WHT on any payments.

6.3        How would the taxable profits of a local branch be determined in its jurisdiction?

In principle, Luxembourg branches of foreign companies should be taxed the same way as resident companies (subject to the provisions of a relevant tax treaty), with the exception that transactions between a branch and a head office are disregarded.

6.4        Would a branch benefit from double tax relief in its jurisdiction?

It depends on the domestic law of the jurisdiction where the head office is located and the applicable double tax treaty.  However, as a general rule, a permanent establishment is not considered as a resident under a tax treaty and cannot claim the benefits of such treaty on its own.

6.5        Would any withholding tax or other similar tax be imposed as the result of a remittance of profits by the branch?

No, transactions between the branch and the head office are not subject to WHT or any similar tax.

7. Overseas Profits

7.1        Does your jurisdiction tax profits earned in overseas branches?

As a general rule, in the absence of a double tax treaty, profits realised by an overseas branch would be included in the taxable basis of the Luxembourg head office (as it is taxed on its worldwide income).  However, within the framework of double tax treaties, Luxembourg generally exempts profits of a permanent establishment which are taxed in the other Contracting State.

It should be noted that profits of an overseas branch would not be subject to MBT, as this tax is applicable only to commercial activities carried on in Luxembourg.

7.2        Is tax imposed on the receipt of dividends by a local company from a non-resident company?

Yes, all dividends received from abroad are calculated in the taxable profits of a company.

Such income might be exempt under the applicable tax treaty or the domestic participation exemption.

Under the domestic participation exemption, dividend income (and liquidation proceeds) is exempt if, at the time the income is put at the disposal of the taxpayer:

  • the subsidiary entity is (i) a Luxembourg-resident entity fully subject to Luxembourg income taxes, (ii) an entity resident in a Member State of the European Union (as defined in Article 2 of the PSD), or (iii) a non-resident capital company liable to an income tax in its country of residence comparable to the Luxembourg CIT;
  • the Luxembourg company holds a direct participation representing at least 10% of the nominal paid-up share capital of its subsidiary (or if below 10%, a direct participation having an acquisition price of at least €1.2 million); and
  • it has held (or commits itself to hold) such qualifying participation for an uninterrupted period of at least 12 months.

If the dividends are distributed by an EU subsidiary which is listed in Article 2 of the PSD, the exemption applies subject to the two additional conditions below:

  • the EU subsidiary is not used for the main purpose or as one of the main purposes of obtaining a tax advantage that defeats the object of the PSD (GAAR); and
  • the dividend/profit distribution from the EU subsidiary have not been deducted from its taxable base (anti-hybrid rule).

7.3        Does your jurisdiction have “controlled foreign company” rules and, if so, when do these apply?

CFC rules have been introduced into Luxembourg law as of January 2019 upon the implementation of the ATAD 1 with the above-mentioned ATAD law.  The ATAD 1 CFC rules are the mere implementation of BEPS Action 3.  In short, the CFC rule distributes to Luxembourg (i.e. under the jurisdiction of the controlling company) the income of a foreign subsidiary or permanent establishment 50% owned directly or indirectly by a foreign subsidiary or permanent establishment, if the effective corporation tax on the profits of that subsidiary or permanent establishment are less than half the CIT that would have been paid in Luxembourg.   However, the rule excludes Luxembourg MBT from the scope of the CFC provisions.

8. Taxation of Commercial Real Estate

8.1        Are non-residents taxed on the disposal of commercial real estate in your jurisdiction?

Yes, non-residents are subject to capital gains tax upon disposal of a real estate located in Luxembourg, as per domestic law.  Such position might be overruled under double tax treaties signed with Luxembourg.

8.2        Does your jurisdiction impose tax on the transfer of an indirect interest in commercial real estate in your jurisdiction?

Luxembourg does not impose such tax unless the sale is done by a tax-transparent entity from a Luxembourg point of view; then the non-resident company directly above the tax-transparent entity is taxable on capital gains realised on the sale of the real estate in question.

8.3        Does your jurisdiction have a special tax regime for Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) or their equivalent?

No, Luxembourg does not have any special tax regime for REITs.

9. Anti-avoidance and Compliance

9.1        Does your jurisdiction have a general anti-avoidance or anti-abuse rule?

Luxembourg has GAAR embedded in its legislative framework (Article 6 Steueranpassungsgesetz, “StAnpG”), which applies to any Luxembourg taxpayer (capital companies, individuals and partnerships).

Specific GAAR were also introduced to implement the provisions of the Directive 2014/86/EC of 8 July 2014 amending the Parent-Subsidiary Directive introducing a GAAR on the participation exemption regime.

More recently, Luxembourg modified its existing GAAR under Article 6 StAnpG to align it with the GAAR provided for by the ATAD 1.  According to the amended rule, a misuse of forms and institutions of law (i.e., an “arrangement”) which has been effected for the main purpose, or one of the main purposes, of achieving a tax advantage, and which is not commercially genuine, should be ignored.  An arrangement is considered not to be genuine if it has not been put into place for valid commercial reasons which reflect economic reality.

However, one should remember that the GAAR are still subject to EU law and its interpretation by the CJEU.  In this context, the CJEU Cadbury Schweppes case-law and the notion of wholly artificial arrangements should be taken into account when applying the GAAR.

9.2        Is there a requirement to make special disclosure of avoidance schemes?

In accordance with DAC 6 (the fifth amendment to the Directive 2011/16/EU as regards mandatory automatic exchange of information in the field of taxation in relation to reportable cross-border arrangements), cross-border arrangements indicating a potential risk of tax avoidance should be disclosed to the tax authorities.  The directive entered into force on 25 June 2018, and must be introduced into national law by 31 December 2019.  It is expected that this directive will be soon transposed by the Luxembourg legislator, as a draft bill was introduced on 8 August 2019 to the Parliament.

9.3        Does your jurisdiction have rules which target not only taxpayers engaging in tax avoidance but also anyone who promotes, enables or facilitates the tax avoidance?

According to DAC 6, intermediaries, i.e. persons who design, market, organise or make the arrangement available for implementation, are responsible for filing the information on reportable cross-border arrangements to the tax authorities.  National law may give the intermediary the right to a waiver from filing information if the reporting obligation would breach the legal professional privilege.  For example, lawyers have a legal obligation to maintain professional secrecy under the Luxembourg Criminal Code.  As per the draft bill, Luxembourg lawyers would be covered by the professional secrecy.  However, in that event, they have to inform the other intermediaries adequately and concurrently therewith to provide the Luxembourg tax administration with certain information relating to the transaction to be disclosed, on an anonymous basis.

9.4        Does your jurisdiction encourage “co-operative compliance” and, if so, does this provide procedural benefits only or result in a reduction of tax?

A corporate entity may approach the tax administration and request an advance tax ruling, which constitutes a binding agreement with the tax authorities and a confirmation of the tax treatment.

10. BEPS and Tax Competition

10.1      Has your jurisdiction introduced any legislation in response to the OECD’s project targeting BEPS?

Luxembourg has implemented many changes to align its law with the BEPS Action Plan:

  • Action 1: Implementation of the EU VAT directive addressing VAT on business to customers’ digital services.
  • Actions 2–4: Implementation of ATAD 1, which deals with CFCs and interest-limitation rules, which have been implemented into Luxembourg law as of 1 January 2019  (hybrid rules under ATAD 2 are to be transposed into Luxembourg national law by the end of 2019, aiming to neutralise the effects of hybrid mismatch arrangements).
  • Action 5: Luxembourg introduced a BEPS-compliant new IP box regime as of the fiscal year starting 2018.
  • Action 6: On preventing the granting of treaty benefits in inappropriate circumstances.  Action 6 will include minimum standards to combat contractual abuse.
  • Action 7: Prevention of the artificial avoidance of permanent establishment status.
  • Actions 8–10: Introduction of the new Article 56bis to the LITL (please refer to question 3.9 above).
  • Action 12: As per the introduction into domestic law of DAC 6 (please refer to question 9.2 above).
  • Action 13: Transfer pricing documentation as requested by the new transfer pricing rules (please refer to question 3.9 above); country-by-country reporting (“CbCR”) which is applicable in Luxembourg for financial years starting on or after 1 January 2016.
  • Action 14: Luxembourg chose to opt for mandatory arbitration under the MLI, which will be improved due to the new BEPS-MLI.
  • Action 15: Luxembourg signed the MLI.

10.2      Has your jurisdiction signed the tax treaty MLI and deposited its instrument of ratification with the OECD?

Luxembourg has signed and ratified MLI.  For Luxembourg purposes, the MLI entered into force on 1 August 2019.  Hence and as of now, each tax treaty signed with Luxembourg will have to be interpreted in line with the MLI, and the application of the MLI will have to be checked on a case-by-case basis.

10.3      Does your jurisdiction intend to adopt any legislation to tackle BEPS which goes beyond the OECD’s recommendations?

No, Luxembourg is implementing all the mandatory measures which derive from the EU Parliament initiative.  However, as a competitive jurisdiction, it does not plan to impose measures that would go beyond other recommendations of the BEPS report.  The interesting exception to that is the introduction of the mandatory binding arbitration, which is not required under the MLI instrument.  Also, it is worth noting that the Luxembourg law on transfer pricing expressly makes reference to the OECD transfer pricing guidelines when interpreting the national law.

10.4      Does your jurisdiction support information obtained under Country-by-Country Reporting (CBCR) being made available to the public?

Yes, Luxembourg has transposed the EU Directive 2016/881 concerning automatic and mandatory exchange of tax information by the law of 23 December 2016 concerning the CbCR.  The law requires the annual filing of a CbCR declaration by every ultimate parent company residing in Luxembourg for tax purposes (or a designated reporting entity).  The CbCR must be filed within 12 months from the last day of the fiscal year in question.  There is also an obligation to submit a notification stating whether the entity is either the ultimate parent of the group, a substitute parent or the designated reporting entity, and if it performs none of these functions, the notification shall clearly state the identity and fiscal residence of the reporting group entity no later than on the last day of the fiscal year of the group.  The notification is submitted electronically.

Information obtained under CbCR is not public.  In this respect, Luxembourg implemented measures to ensure the appropriate use of information.

10.5      Does your jurisdiction maintain any preferential tax regimes such as a patent box?

Yes, the law dated 22 March 2018 replaced the IP box regime that was abolished in 2016.  In addition, the Luxembourg tax authorities published a circular on 28 June 2019, L.I.R. n° 50ter/1, clarifying the IP box.  The Law introduced a new Article 50ter LITL that provides for an 80% exemption on income derived from the commercialisation of certain intellectual property (“IP”) rights, as well as a full exemption from NWT.  The new rules are applicable as from the fiscal year 2018.  Qualifying assets include the following IP rights:

  • patents (broadly defined) and functionally equivalent rights that are legally protected by utility models, extensions of patent protection for certain drugs and phyto-pharmaceutical products, plant breeders’ rights, and orphan drug designations; and
  • copyrighted software.

In line with the BEPS – Action 5 recommendations, marketing-related IPs can no longer benefit from the IP box regime.

Qualifying income includes the following:

  • income derived from the use of, or a concession to use, qualifying IP rights (i.e. royalty income);
  • IP income embedded in the sales price of products or services directly related to the eligible IP asset.  The principles of Article 56bis ITL must be used to separate income unrelated to the IP (e.g. marketing and manufacturing returns);
  • capital gains derived from the sale of the qualifying IP rights; and
  • indemnities based on an arbitration ruling or a court decision directly linked to a breach of a qualifying IP right.

The regime applies on a net income basis, meaning that expenses relating to the qualifying IP assets need to be deducted from the gross qualifying income.  The proportion of qualifying net income entitled to the benefits will be determined based on the ratio of qualifying expenditures and overall expenditures (nexus ratio).  The previously-qualifying IP assets can continue to benefit from the old regime during the grandfathering period, running until 30 June 2021.

11. Taxing the Digital Economy

11.1      Has your jurisdiction taken any unilateral action to tax digital activities or to expand the tax base to capture digital presence?

No, as any digital service tax would be detrimental to the fiscal politics of Luxembourg.

Although France has now introduced a digital tax, such actions are not to be expected in Luxembourg.

It is worth noting that the Luxembourg VAT Authorities issued Circular n° 787 of 11 June 2018 to extend the VAT exemption applicable to financial transactions to virtual currencies (which follows the CJEU’s position in the Hedqvist case (C-264/14)).

Concurrently therewith, the Luxembourg direct tax administration issued Circular n° 14/5-99/3-99bis/3 of 26 July 2018 which classifies virtual currencies as intangible assets for CIT, MBT and NTW rather than a currency.  It is an interesting point to note that the French and Luxembourg tax administrations have a diverging interpretation on the assessment of cryptocurrencies.

11.2      Does your jurisdiction favour any of the G20/OECD’s “Pillar One” options (user participation, marketing intangibles or significant economic presence)?

Given the short period of time that has elapsed since the proposal in June 2019, Luxembourg has not particularly commented on any of the options.  In general, Luxembourg was in favour of the taxation of digital giants.  However, Luxembourg finance minister Pierre Gramegna said that the initiatives should be taken with the consensus of the OECD countries (or G20), so it is to be expected that Luxembourg might be in favour of the “Pillar One” options.

Follow us on LinkedInFollow us on LinkedIn


Sajal Kumar Chakravorty, Jharkhand’s Tourism Principal Secretary has taken the initiative to make Dassam Falls accident free, something that no one has done in the past.

This natural cascade, 44 km from Ranchi across the Kanchi River, a tributary of the Subarnarekha River is a picturesque tourist spot.

At Dassam, water falls from a height of 44 metres (144 ft). There are some death traps where a number of people have died due to drowning. In fact,every year whenever a casualty was reported ,the media highlighted it and the concerned state government officials promised to do away with these death traps.But nothing happened.

Chakravorty, an IAS officer, has mobilized the Army and the Central Coalfields Ltd to identify the death traps, suck out the water and fill them up with concrete so that no body drowns there.Now,he plans to develop the Dassam Falls as a water park. “We are very happy”,said Nagina Manjhi, a fisherman,who resides near Dassam.

must read


Mental Health Awareness Workshop

Mental ill health in the UK is high with one in four individuals currently experiencing at least one episode throughout their lives.

8% of the population is currently in a state of depression and antidepressant prescriptions had risen to 57 million in 2016.

People suffering from mental ill-health often have the stigma from society to deal with as well as the daily negative physical and psychological effects of what can be a debilitating condition. This can have a profound and ongoing negative impact on the individual, co-workers, family and friends.

The cost to the workforce must also be considered with mental health being the highest cause of sickness in the UK.

On average 70 million working days per annum are lost at a cost of £1,035 per employed.

Feeling embarrassed, scared and unable to discuss this with bosses or even friends and family counts for 67% of employees, 33% of which feel unvalued by their employer and consider leaving.

Reduced productivity and lack of motivation (presenteeism and ‘surfing workers’) count for 21%.

This workshop allows the delegates to:

*Explore and question people’s perceptions and attitudes towards mental health

*Understand and recognise the impact of the above

*Discuss what mental health means to the individual person

*Explore the signs, symptoms and types of clinical mental ill health

*Consider how and who this impacts in the work environment

*Gain understanding of people’s experiences of mental ill health

*Explore what is and is not in place to support good mental health at work

This 3-hour interactive workshop will allow the delegates to work in groups to explore the following:

Unhelpful Myths

Young People

Complex Disorders

Depression | Anxiety | Panic Attacks

The groups will then reconvene to discuss ways to improve not only mental health awareness in the workplace but what measures can be put in place that offer real positive, impactful change for everyone.

Any delegate who finds the workshop difficult for any reason will be sensitively supported.

Following the workshop delegates will have had the opportunity to discuss, discover, learn and action better mental health support for themselves and others in the workplace.

One to one support is also available from Kate. Please ask for further details.

“I learnt so much today, thank you so much.” “Kate was very good at explaining.” “It was a very good course, I felt comfortable being able to speak up.” The learning materials were very useful, relevant and interesting.”  Lyndridge Care


Create a block of rooms

Hampton Inn - Memphis / Southwind 3579 Hacks Cross Road
Memphis, TN 38125

Ungrouped Amenities

Please refer to your hotel's individual cancellation policy.

This Property is currently sold out or it is after the cutoff date. Please contact the MRSC administrator listed above if you still need accommodations.


The Hundred Years War

4 April 2015
A discussion of the political events that led to the Hundred Year War between the kings of England and France and the events which perpetuated after its closing.

A paper which examines the years before, during and after one of the longest running conflicts between England and France – the Hundred Year War which ran between the years 1337 and 1453. The paper examines the political ramifications of the war for both parties during the length of the war and after its closing.
“The Hundred Years War is a rather misleading name for the war between England and France in the fourteenth century. The war between the kings of England and France lasted between 1337 and 1453, which is certainly not hundred years. The war didn’t last 116 years either. The number of actual warfare were much less one hundred, since in the course of this 116 year period there were numerous long truces and two treaties of peace intended to put a stop to hostilities entirely. One must also add that at the time accepted as the end of the war there was no peace treaty. Also, the actual war started in 1337, while bad relations existed between the two kings ever since the Norman take over of the English throne years before the actual starting of the war. The war was affected by the values that the kings of the two countries possessed and the events of the outside world. The war made no important change in the relations of the two lands until its close, when England lost its possessions on the Continent and turned to up-building of sea power.”

How to cite The Hundred Years War essay

Choose cite format:
The Hundred Years War. (2015, Apr 23). Retrieved January 21, 2020, from
A limited
time offer!


赵云为了蜀国的江山鞠躬尽瘁 真实的赵云究竟是怎么死的-看世界

I still don't know how to die. The following editor will give you a detailed introduction. Let's go on~

In the romance, we are deeply impressed by countless heroes. No matter how treacherous or resourceful we are, we are shocked. Among many generals, Zhao Yun is probably the most beloved one.

He once led his subordinates to fight countless battles, and also saved the life of his later Master Liu Chan many times. It can be said that Zhao Yun devoted himself to the mountains and rivers of Shu. But in the real history, how did Zhao Yun die?

In fact, after Liu Bei captured Xichuan, he did not reuse Zhao Yun again. After that, Zhao Yun never took the lead again. Originally, when the Street Pavilion was lost, the state of Shu was gone. At that time, Zhao Yun, who had no merit, was also inexplicably demoted by Zhuge Liang, and he had never been a marquis in his life.

One of the reasons why Zhao Yun didn't get the important position is that he was originally a civilian, not a famous family in the legend. Although it was in the period of chaos in the Three Kingdoms, the patriarchal system was still very important. In the early days, Liu Bei had no one to use, so he regarded Zhao Yun as a general. But later, Shu Han paid the most attention to the middle class level. In countless battles, Zhuge Liang's appointment was also cronyism. Later, in the later period of administration, there were no generals in Shuhan, but Zhugeliang failed to use them.

When Liu Bei became emperor at the beginning, all the ministers played congratulatory watches. Add "wait 180" after the names of more than 50 people in the table. It's on this watch. The first place is,. It's not because of anything else, but because the most prominent name is Meng Qi's generation of princes. Zhuge Liang is only ranked eighth, while Zhao Yun is not even on the list, but in the other 180.

Zhao Yun, who has never been able to die in battle, is probably the biggest regret in his life. But at least, Zhao Yun died naturally in the second half of his life. In the romance of the Three Kingdoms, Mr. Luo Guanzhong wrote a description like this. When Liu Chan heard the news of Zhao Yun's death, he cried loudly. In fact, this is Mr. Luo, who appreciates Zhao Yun. In the real history, Liu Chan had already forgotten his benefactor Zhao Yun. It was only later when I was sealing someone else that I suddenly thought of Zhao Yun, so I also followed him by the way.

Disclaimer: the above content comes from the Internet, and the copyright belongs to the original author. If you violate your original copyright, please let us know, and we will delete the relevant content as soon as possible.

本文由 看世界 作者：小小 发表，其版权均为 看世界 所有，文章内容系作者个人观点，不代表 看世界 对观点赞同或支持。如需转载，请注明文章来源。


Intimate and critical, the healthcare industry has come a long way since its inception. Technological breakthroughs have infiltrated the healthcare industry like no other.  From small developments like adhesive bandages to more complex technologies like MRI machines, artificial organs, and robotic limbs, modern technology has changed the structure and organization of the entire medical field. It has embraced a plethora of medical technology aids and corresponding delivery mechanisms- electronic medical records, bio-medical technology, modern healthcare and more.

The healthcare industry is highly driven by trust and emotions and hence, personalization is a key element to this industry. The consummate marriage between Healthcare Software Development services and technology has led to improvisation and saving of countless lives all around the world. Areas like biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, equipment development and more have all made significant contributions to improving the health of people all around the world.

Advantages of Medical Technology/ Healthcare Software Development Services

Technological advancements in healthcare industry has helped medical practitioners improve their practice leading to better diagnosis, surgical procedures, and improved patient care. Amongst the many benefits which information technology has brought to the field of healthcare, a few are as under:

  • Better Diagnosis and Treatment: Advanced medical gadgets, reduction in size of medical sensors, efficient data sourcing and analysis tools and several similar developments have led to development of better diagnosis and treatment methods.
  • Enhanced communication between doctors and patients: Effective translation algorithms, user friendly systems, mobile apps, telepathy and tailored solutions help doctors communicate clear and easy with patients.
  • Foster knowledge sharing within community: Networking applications and tools of technology have opened the doors of learning and experience sharing, helping doctors connect to fellow specialists in any corner of the world for consulting and learning from their experience. This helps in serving patients and curing cases better and faster.
  • Instant connect between doctors and patients: Telepathy and related technology has helped patients connect doctors on the go- with anywhere, anytime access to doctors through online medium or using phone calls.
  • Staying healthy: Advancements in technology has led to development of health apps and gadgets which monitor your health and recommends diets, exercises and tips for keeping healthy.

By making processes more “patient-centric” , information technology has changed the healthcare industry by leaps and bound.  On one hand we have an explosively growing body of knowledge in the health sciences, on other we have limited memory and experience constraints in making clinical decision manually. Automation using advanced medical technology is set to eliminate the constraint. The proliferation of Internet-accessible sources of health-related information will change the way healthcare services are provided to end consumers.

Changing Medical Technology Landscape

As medical technology becomes more advanced and more effective, it also becomes costly at times. An ever increasing demand for modern hi-tech diagnostic and therapeutic health care facilities calls for timely availability. At times, owing to unavailability and high demand, there may be issues with medical necessity, social justice and cost effectiveness.  Increased complexity of this modern technology and its high marginal cost calls for a review in decision making- a transition from a rationale based on resources and opinion to that based on research.  This should take into account factors like incidence and prevalence of the disease, the cost and success of treatment, the cost and success of diagnosis, and the cost and success of preventive treatment. A cost benefit analysis should be performed prior to adoption of this technology.

At Aalpha, we provide expert healthcare Healthcare Software Development services/ solutions based on in-depth research and deep industry knowledge. Our team of experts have years of experience in developing solutions for the betterment of the mankind. Serving this sector with the best solutions is of paramount importance to our company. Our solutions not only use cutting edge technology, they also provide excellent return on investments.

Not only do we provide Healthcare Software Development services, we partner with our clients and consult them on the latest developments in the industry and deliver “future ready” solutions which address healthcare needs and eliminate redundancy. In addition, new billing methods and tracking procedures make it easier to identify a patient’s past treatments Overall our solution reduces the amount of paperwork, increases the rate of successful treatments and allows practitioners to look at the entire population when treating an epidemic. Streamlining processes, our solutions cut through the clutter of operations heavy business to help serve the patients better. Advanced communication modules connect the doctors, patient and hospitals to ensure smooth delivery and timely exchange of messages.

Overall, our solutions are a cost effective, technologically proven, one stop destination for all Healthcare Software Development services. Come, partner with us and experience the change!

request For a Free Quote


Language as a Means of Identity Essay

2572 WordsFeb 12, 200911 Pages
Language has the power to do many things, one such thing is to in fact, create an identity. It can be used to create or destroy. In Black Boy, Richard Wright discovers this fact through life experience and through his reading into inspirational works, notably by H.L Mencken. Often in society, language is used to express individuality and make or break a person when it comes to their social acceptance. In Black Boy Richard Wright cleverly discovers and qualifies the importance of language at a young age. He passes his wisdom on to us, the readers, to make the decision for ourselves. Early on, the reader understands that Wright is “describing a universal black childhood, since the privilege of being able to express himself implied the responsibility of speaking for others who could not”(Fabre 251). Wright took on the responsibility of language, for everyone in his race who was prevented from taking language into his or her own hands. A stunning realization for Richard Wright in his autobiography was the multifaceted uses of language. His words could offend, soothe, incense, or even attack. Black Boy launches, a “serious indictment of the South- not in any direct accusations by Mr. Wright, but by the strength of his narrative” (Paulus 118). In Wright’s perpetual quest for knowledge, he discovers a strange world that makes him feel that he had missed something important in life. He conveys his amazement at the literary realm through his metaphorical language and curiosity depicting his point of view. Black Boy is not only a story about one man's struggle to find freedom and intellectual happiness, but it is also the story of Wright’s journey as a writer, and his discoveries of language’s inherent power. He also explores the way in which its power can separate one person from another, and more specifically draw a line between the races and classes. From the very

More about Language as a Means of Identity Essay

Open Document


Thirteen Innovative Ways Humans Use Drones

October 17, 2017

From the bottom of acid lakes to up in the sky, autonomous vehicles are changing the way scientists view and study Earth.

Humans are limited. We can’t fly, breathe underwater, or survive in high temperatures. So we’ve left much of our scientific endeavors to instruments that extend and collect information beyond our senses, like seismometers that detect waves moving through Earth, lidar instruments that can measure elevation, and sensors that can determine the salinity of the oceans.

Increasingly, a new technology is furthering scientists’ ability to capture Earth’s vast, unreachable spaces: drones. These remote-controlled vehicles—sometimes called unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) or autonomous underwater vehicles (AUV)—can travel to hazardous places humans try to avoid, like up close to a volcanic eruption or underneath meters of sea ice. Now more than ever, robots are scattered across the planet, engaged in some heavy science.

This week marks the 20th annual Earth Science Week, founded by the American Geosciences Institute. This year’s theme, “Earth and Human Activity,” emphasizes the ways in which humans affect Earth and the ways Earth affects humans. In celebration of Earth Science Week, we want to highlight some of the many ways drones help us understand our planet and the changes we make to it.

1. To Find Sources of Pollution

Scientists have invented an instrument that when affixed to a drone, can help them detect and find the source of air pollution at ultrafine scales. The instrument uses spectroscopy to pinpoint the composition of a gas in a given area and precisely measure its concentration. Applications range from understanding dynamics at the boundaries of atmospheric layers to detecting chemical weapons.

2. To Study Why Climate Change Affects the Arctic So Severely

Scientists working on Alaska’s North Slope are using drones to monitor gas concentrations in three dimensions over the Arctic. Some drones have even dropped buoys into the surface ocean. Combined, these instruments help researchers study the physics of the transition region between frozen sea and open water. This transition is a crucial element of climate models in the Arctic.

3. To Peer into Volcanoes

Researchers used drones to peer down the throat of one of the world’s most active volcanoes: Stromboli, in Italy. The drone flew through clouds of ash plumes above the erupting volcano and snapped high-resolution pictures and videos of Stromboli’s active and nonactive vents.

4. To Show that Typical Ground Truths Overestimate Earth’s Albedo

Researchers use satellites to study how Earth reflects and absorbs light. They rely on on-the-ground weather stations to calibrate their measurements. However, some drone-operating scientists recently found that these weather stations may be overestimating how much light gets reflected because they don’t take into account certain surrounding topography. The drones helped to show that in some cases, albedo in certain places can be overestimated by up to 10%.

5. To Explore the Expanse of Sea Ice Beyond the Decks of Their Icebreaker Ships

Researchers working in the Arctic and Antarctic have piloted drones to altitudes of 500 meters over the ice. Images collected helped scientists study the distribution of ice floes, mechanisms of pancake ice formation, and ocean wave–sea ice interactions. Drones in these environments can provide crucial information on how sea ice recovers in autumn, a time when harsh conditions hinder many research expeditions.

6. To Study Propagating Cracks in Glaciers

In 2015, researchers used a drone to monitor a crack that had sprouted in Greenland’s Bowdoin Glacier. Over several days, the drone captured thousands of images, allowing researchers to model the crack’s propagation. Someday, these kinds of data may allow scientists to predict when an iceberg might calve from a glacier.

7. To See an Entire Floodplain from the Sky

Scientists are employing drones to help them study the geologic remnants of the Lake Missoula floods, in which more than 2000 cubic kilometers of water burst from a glacial dam and flowed across the Pacific Northwest as many as 100 times between 18,000 and 13,000 years ago. The drones survey wide swaths of land, searching for large-scale ripple marks and flow scars—features too vast to see from the ground.

8. To Help Detect Gas Leaks Underwater

Researchers have tested a method that can help AUVs pinpoint dangerous gas emissions from underwater sources, such as from oil wells or stored natural gas. The idea goes like this: When broad surveys detect some form of underwater leak, researchers deploy a drone to find it. Then, each location where the drone fails to detect the origin of the leak will update a map so that it shows regions where the drone has the next highest probability of finding the leak.

9. To Map the Bottom of Highly Acidic Lakes

Across Earth, there are 35 volcanic lakes that can build up gas to the point where waters sometimes explode. In 2016, scientists traveled to Laguna Caliente in Coast Rica to test out an autonomous underwater vehicle—basically, a drone that can swim.

The rugged AUV survived in 55°C water that was 3 times more acidic than battery acid. Unfortunately, on its second venture into the lake, the AUV succumbed to an explosion that sent acidic waves over its hull. The team has since built a new drone.

10. To Visit Under-Ice Ecosystems

In 2014, some scientists tested an AUV in the ocean near Greenland, sending it to examine the under-ice ecosystem. The drone revealed a world that surprised the researchers—high amounts of algae and other biology that likely supports a diverse food web under the ice. Researchers hope that a better understanding of the existing ecosystems will help them understand how climate change may alter those ecosystems.

11. To Help Track Underwater Avalanches

In 2015, researchers deployed AUVs to help them place beach ball–shaped benthic event detectors on the seafloor in Monterey, Calif. The balls are engineered to roll with material that slides down continental slopes. Through these sensors, scientists hope to understand how quickly and how far sediment flows during underwater avalanches.

12. To Find Shipwrecks
In 2014, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists sent an AUV equipped with sonar capabilities to investigate an ancient shipwreck about 5 kilometers off the coast of Southeast Farallon Island. Five years prior, a routine sonar survey of that patch of ocean floor revealed a previously overlooked shipwreck. The drone, along with another remotely operated vehicle that took pictures and videos, discovered that the shipwreck was the long-missing USS Conestoga, which researchers had been searching for since it vanished 95 years ago.
13. To Detect Ever-So-Slight Changes in Earth’s Elevation

Drones in the Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s Uninhabited Aerial Vehicle Synthetic Aperture Radarprogram help researchers study Earth’s surface. The autopiloted crafts are programmed to fly the same path again and again, using radar signals to gather information about the surface. When these signals are compared to one other, scientists can see how the land has changed between flights. These craft can detect land subsidence or even tiny changes in elevation after an earthquake.

This post has been adapted to publication and redirected by Cédric Giboulot for the readers of blog is a selection of all the best articles regarding aerial, submarines, and terrestrian drones in the web.

Please reload

Course de drones : qui de l'IA ou de l'Homme a gagné ?

December 19, 2019

Please reload

Recent Posts
Please reload

Get the best by the best

Fuel your drone's passion...


I am filmmaker of  events, weddings  in Mallorca,

  with availability to travel inside and outside Spain

Everything started at a very young age,

the desire to take the camera   was inevitable,

knowing that I could create stories through it opened a door to a new world.

Through years of experience in weddings, events and commercials,

 I have forged my own vision,  without fear breaking the barriers in the audiovisual field

 uniting the diverse virtues and ideas of each field.

 I like to bring a different and wider vision with which there are always infinite ways to narrate and reimagine a video, creating a more enriching experience of them.

The passion to create the piece that awakens emotions, sensations ...
... that is the magic that I seek,
and that magic is and will be without doubt always
my motivation.

Daniel Mota


Nasa has announced the discovery of traces of "briny flows" on the surface of Mars in a revelation that could point to life on the Red Planet. The US space agency put out a statement titled Nasa to announce Mars mystery solved on 24 September, stating that it will announce a "major science finding from the agency's ongoing exploration of Mars" at a news briefing on 28 September.

Thoughts had arisen that it would claim to have discovered water on Mars and space enthusiasts will be excited by the news, which comes after years of research. The research team, headed by Lujendra Ojha, analysed high resolution images of mountainous structures on Mars and found surface features called recurring slope lineae which are consistent with being formed by flowing salt water.

Dark narrow streaks called recurring slope lineae on the walls of Garni crater on Mars. The streaks are up to few hundred metres in length, and thought to be formed by flow of briny liquid water Nasa/JPL/University of Arizona

The recurring slope lineae are narrow – usually less than five metres in width and appear during the warmer months, according to a study published in Nature Geoscience, while they contract in Mars' winter. A statement read: "The range of surface temperatures over which the recurring slope lineae are active suggests that salty liquid water may be involved in their formation."

Ojha and colleagues analysed spectral data from the CRISM instrument on-board Nasa's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter to look at where recurring slope lineae are on the planet. The team was able to identify spectral information from single pixels and found that "all locations examined are consistent with the presence of hydrated salt minerals that precipitate from water", while there was no evidence of salt in the surrounding terrains, suggesting that the water follows a flowing path.

The image shows dark narrow streaks called recurring slope lineae flowing down the west facing slopes of Coprates Chasma in the equatorial region of Mars Nasa/JPL/University of Arizona

It has long been theorised that there are briny flows on Mars. Back in 2011, Ojha, admittedly serendipitously, discovered the possibility that salt water may flow on the surface of the Red Planet in the warmer months.

Recently, planetary scientists detected hydrated salts on these slopes at Horowitz crater, corroborating their original hypothesis that the streaks are indeed formed by liquid water Nasa/JPL/University of Arizona

Ojha was studying Mars when he noticed apparent gullies – which are the result of flowing water – on the planet. By using a computer algorithm to examine images of craters and the seasonal changes, he was able to identify irregular features within a crater that were not the result of gullies, and could have been recent water tracks.

He told CNN in 2011: "When I first saw them, I had no idea what it was. I just thought it was a streak made by dust or something similar. It was a lucky accident. There's going to be years of research put into this to even prove that this is definitely a proof of water. And from that, we can move on: OK if this is water, what are the chances that life could be in these kinds of surroundings?"

You can watch the press conference, which kicks off at 4PM on 28 September, here.


(6) Law

  Torts (or delicts, as they are called in Continental legal systems) are civil wrongs; they include injuries to my person, property, reputation, privacy, even my peace of mind. Like the law of contract, the law of tort provides victims (or ‘plaintiffs’) with the right to obtain compensation for their loss. Unlike contract, however, which has as its principal goal the keeping of promises, tort law protects a wide range of interests. The law provides remedies, pre-emptive and compensatory, for conduct that causes harm either intentionally or negligently.

The latter have become the principal focus of modern tort law. Accidents will happen, but where they are the consequence of your negligence, I may be able to recover damages to recompense my loss. So, for example, should you run me over in your car, and I can prove that you were driving negligently, I may be awarded damages to cover the cost of my hospital treatment, the money I lost through being away from work, and my pain and suffering.

To succeed, the plaintiff normally has to prove that the wrong was done intentionally or negligently. Most torts are actionable only when they have caused actual injury or damage, though certain torts whose principal purpose is to protect rights rather than to compensate for damage (such as trespass) are actionable without proof of damage. The defendant (known also as the tortfeasor in common law systems) is normally the person who is primarily liable, though according to the rules of vicarious liability, one

person (e.g., an employer) may be held liable for a tort committed by another person (e.g., an employee).

Torts are sometimes also breaches of contract. For example, the negligent driver of a bus who causes injury to his passengers has committed both the tort of negligence and a breach of the contract to carry the passengers safely to their destinations. They may recover damages either in tort or for breach of contract, or both.

The bus driver may also have committed a crime (e.g., dangerous driving). While the protection of the interests in property and bodily security are reasonably straightforward, the courts of many jurisdictions have encountered difficulties when it comes to compensating victims whose loss is not physical, but either purely economic or emotional. Suppose, as occurred in an English case, the defendants negligently damage an electrical cable while carrying out construction work near the plaintiff’s factory. As a result, the production is severely harmed and the plaintiff suffers financial loss. The physical loss (the damage to the materials) was clearly recoverable, but since the cable was not the plaintiff’s property the loss was ‘purely economic’. Can he recoup it? The common law, after some twists and turns by English courts, answers in the negative. The fear seems to be that allowing recovery will open the floodgates of litigation, a frequent concern expressed by judges, especially in England. In France, on the other hand, no distinction is drawn between physical and economic loss.

Comparable judicial trepidation attends the question of emotional distress. Where the injury consists of psychiatric illness as a result of physical harm, the courts look for some degree of ‘proximity’ between the plaintiff and the victim. The complexity of this calculation is tragically illustrated by a House of Lords decision in 1992. A crush in a sports stadium resulted in the death of 95 football fans, and more than 400 were injured. The police acknowledged their negligence in allowing too many spectators into an already overcrowded ground. The match was to have been televised live. In the event, vivid images of the disaster were broadcast. The disturbing pictures were seen by some of the plaintiffs who knew that their friends or family were present in the stadium. Two of the plaintiffs were spectators in the ground, but not in the stands where the disaster occurred; the other plaintiffs learned of the disaster through radio or television broadcasts.

All the plaintiffs lost, or feared they might have lost, a relative or friend in the calamity. They failed in their claim for compensation for emotional distress because they did not satisfy one or other of the control mechanisms used by the law when damages for psychiatric injury are claimed by plaintiffs who were not directly threatened by the accident but learned of it through sight or hearing. These limiting factors are:

1. There must be a close tie of love and affection between the plaintiff and the victim.

2. The plaintiff must have been present at the accident or its immediate aftermath.

3. The psychiatric injury must have been caused by direct perception of the accident or its immediate aftermath and not by hearing about it from somebody else.

This requirement of ‘proximity’, as well as the other tests, have attracted considerable criticism, and calls for reform of the law in some jurisdictions. Problems also arise in circumstances where the injury falls short of a recognized mental affliction, and consists of the grief and distress that normally attends the loss of or injury to a loved one.

The law of tort not only attempts to recompense victims, it seeks also to deter persons from engaging in conduct that may injure others. Furthermore, it is said to ‘shift’ or ‘distribute’ the losses incurred in the case of negligent injury. To put the matter simply, where you are at fault in causing my injury, the law shifts the loss to you. Why should I have to bear the loss that you have negligently caused? You will see at once that this apparently facile question conceals a host of difficult issues about the nature of negligence: what is ‘fault’, what constitutes a ‘cause’, and so on. In the modern world dominated by insurance, the issue tends to alter from blame to burden: instead of asking ‘who is at fault?’ the question becomes ‘who can best bear the cost?’ And the answer is often the insurance company, with whom there is normally a compulsory liability insurance policy.

The common law of torts is a veritable cornucopia of wrongs, including trespass to land, trespass to person (which includes assault and battery), nuisance, defamation, breach of statutory duty, and strict liability. But, as mentioned, in practice they are eclipsed by the tort of negligence, which is based on the fault principle. The plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed him a duty of care which was breached by his failure to live up to the standard of ‘the reasonable man’, thereby causing the plaintiff injury or damage.

Each of these three elements requires brief elaboration. The duty of care was vividly encapsulated in one of the most celebrated judicial pronouncements in all of the common law. In the landmark case of Donoghue v Stevenson, Mrs. Donoghue complained of finding a snail in a ginger beer bottle, but the judgment was considerably more portentous. The precise facts of the case have never been clearly established, but it appears that Mrs. Donoghue accompanied her friend to a café in the Scottish town of Paisley. Her friend ordered drinks. The café owner poured some of the contents of a bottle of ginger beer into a glass containing ice cream. Mrs. Donoghue drank some of the contents and her friend lifted the bottle to pour the remainder of the ginger beer into the glass. Allegedly, a decomposed snail floated out of the bottle into the glass. Mrs. Donoghue subsequently complained of stomach pain, and her doctor diagnosed her as having gastro-enteritis. She also claimed to have suffered emotional distress as a result of the incident. The law of tort did not then permit her to sue the café owner. Nevertheless, the House of Lords held that a plaintiff in the position of Mrs. Donoghue was owed a duty of care by a manufacturer like Stevenson who had made the ginger beer. Drawing on the biblical injunction that one has a duty to love one’s neighbor, Lord Atkin famously declared: The rule that you are to love your neighbor becomes in law you must not injure your neighbor; and the lawyer’s question: Who is my neighbor? Receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be – persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions that are called in question.

In other words, you owe a duty to persons whom it is foreseeable are likely to be harmed by your conduct. The standard of care is therefore an objective one: you are judged by reference to the reasonable man. Thus, for example, an English court held that the standard of care expected of a learner driver was the same as any other driver of a motor vehicle. Finally, as a matter of fact the defendant must cause the plaintiff’s loss. The question of causation has exercised the mind of many a common law judge; concepts such as ‘remoteness of damage’ and ‘proximate cause’ seem frequently to obscure what is ultimately a policy decision by the court as to what it considers to be fair or in the best interests of society.

The reasonable man – the hypothetical person against whom a defendant’s conduct is measured – is often described as ‘the manon the Clapham omnibus’, though in an examination, one of students preferred ‘the man on the clapped-out omnibus’.

The reasonable man

[He is] devoid of any human weakness, with not one single saving vice, sans prejudice, procrastination, ill-nature, avarice, and absence of mind, as careful for his own safety as he is for that of others, this excellent but odious character stands like a monument in our courts of justice, vainly appealing to his fellow citizens to order their lives after his own example.

A. P. Herbert, Uncommon Law (Methuen, 1969), p. 4

A similar approach is evident in the equally legendary American case of Macpherson v Buick Motor Co. in which Justice Cardozo held that where a manufacturer negligently produces a defective car that injures the person who purchased it from the dealer, the manufacturer is liable to that person despite the absence of a contract between them and the person injured.

The plaintiff in a negligence action is required to prove that the defendant’s conduct actually caused his injury or damage. It is often the case, however, that the relationship between cause and effect is too remote. This question has proved remarkably complex and has generated a vast body of case law, especially in England. It is not always clear whether in order to be held liable the defendant must reasonably foresee the precise type of damage that results from his negligence. Nor is it certain that he will be held responsible for damage that is more extensive or that occurs in an atypical manner. The courts tend, on the whole, to decide these intractable cases on policy grounds.

The Learned Hand negligence formula

In 1947, Judge Learned Hand of the US Court of Appeals expounded the following algebraic solution to the question of how far a defendant needs to go to avoid an accident:

B < p × L

B = the burden of precautions required to avoid the accident.

p = the probability that the accident will occur unless the precautions are taken.

L = the magnitude of the loss that will result if the accident occurs.

There is negligence when the actor’s burden (B) is less than the probability (p) of harm, multiplied by the degree of loss (L). In other words, if the cost of the precautions is lower than the cost of the accident, the defendant is negligent.

To the plaintiff’s claim that the defendant negligently caused his loss, the defendant may raise a number of defences, including that the plaintiff voluntarily accepted the risk by, say, accepting a lift from a seriously drunk driver. Or the defendant might argue that the plaintiff was himself negligent and therefore contributed to his injury by failing to notice that the driver was dangerously inebriated.

Certain special circumstances may, however, dictate that a defendant be held responsible regardless of whether he or she is at fault. This is known as ‘strict liability’. The protection of public health or safety militates against the fault principle, especially where the defendant is engaged in an inherently dangerous activity such as the use of explosives. Liability is often perceived as the price to be paid in return for the profits made by large corporations that indulge in potentially harmful activities.

The French Civil Code is fairly sweeping in this respect. It imposes strict liability for the things ‘which one has under one’s control’. A ‘thing’ includes any corporeal object whether it consists of a gas, a fluid, electric cables, or radioactive materials. Motor vehicles are things. Italian law renders the driver of a vehicle strictly liable, unless he did everything possible to avoid the accident. The German law imposes strict liability on the driver of a vehicle who causes bodily injury or property damage, as well as on railway, gas, and electricity companies. The Anglo-American law finds the concept of strict liability less congenial, though under the so-called ‘rule in Rylands v Fletcher’ a defendant who brings onto his land a source of danger is strictly liable should it ‘escape’ and cause damage. The rule has been applied, amongst other hazards, to fi re, gas, water, chemicals, fumes, electricity, and explosions. Strict liability may also arise under statute for harm caused by animals. An employer may also be held strictly liable for the acts of an employee in the course of his employment (‘vicarious liability’).

The difficulty of proving negligence by manufacturers has led to the considerable growth, especially in the United States, of a form of strict liability known as ‘products liability’. The consumer is rarely able to check whether the car he buys is free of defects. The law therefore provides that if a product is defective at the time the defendant put it into circulation, the plaintiff need not prove negligence.

Product liabilty: the ‘McDonald’s Coffee Case’

This decision is frequently derided as an example of frivolous litigation that demeans the law of negligence. The facts may suggest otherwise.

A 79-year-old woman, Stella Liebeck, ordered a cup of coffee from a ‘drive-through’ McDonald’s restaurant. She was in the passenger’s seat. Her grandson parked the car in order that she could add cream and sugar to her coffee. She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid towards her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap, causing her third-degree burns that required a skin graft and two years of follow-up treatment.

She sued McDonald’s for gross negligence, claiming that they had sold coffee that was ‘unreasonably dangerous’ and ‘defectively manufactured’. She adduced evidence

that McDonald’s required its restaurants to serve coffee at 82–88 degrees Celsius (which would cause a third-degree burn in 2 to 7 seconds), and argued that that the maximum temperature at which coffee should be served is 60 degrees Celsius. McDonald’s very hot coffee, it was claimed, could cause third-degree burns requiring a skin graft, in 12 to 15 seconds. McDonald’s argued that it dispensed very hot coffee

from its drive-through windows, because customers normally wanted to drive away with the coffee; the high temperature would ensure it stayed hot.

The evidence demonstrated that between 1982 and 1992 the company had received more than 700 complaints of customers being burned by hot coffee. It had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000, or one complaint per 24 million cups of coffee bought. The jury found McDonald’s 80% liable for the incident and Mrs. Liebeck, 20% liable. The coffee cup contained a warning, but the jury decided that it was inadequate. It awarded her damages of US$200,000, which was subsequently reduced by 20% to $160,000. In addition, the jury awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages (to punish McDonald’s). This latter sum was reduced by the judge to $480,000. She thus received a total of $640,000. The decision was appealed by both parties, but the case was eventually settled out of court for an undisclosed amount under $600,000.

Another recent, predominantly American, development is the emergence of so-called ‘mass torts’. These are lawsuits launched by a large number of plaintiffs (‘class actions’) associated with a single product. They include product liability claims against, for example, tobacco companies, for lung cancer caused by smoking, injuries caused by breast implants, and large-scale, ‘man-made’ disasters, such as aero plane crashes and explosions at chemical plants.

The cost, delays, and injustices of the fault principle have generated deep dissatisfaction with the tort system of compensating accident victims. This has become so widespread and pervasive that cynicism greets the attempts by the rapidly declining number of fault-based stalwarts who attempt to defend its continuation. The only members of society who profit from the system, it is charged, are the lawyers. Some jurisdictions (notably New Zealand and Quebec) have introduced comprehensive systems of no-fault insurance under which the law of tort is abolished for personal injury caused by accident. Victims of accidents are compensated from special funds created for this purpose. Detractors question the consequence of this munificence on the deterrent effect of a fault-based system, though it is widely acknowledged that, especially in the case of traffic accidents, compulsory insurance policies are the death knell of tort law.

In addition to wrongs committed negligently, the law recognizes a number of intentional torts or delicts. Among them is the civil wrong of defamation. The classic (rather technical) definition of the common law tort of defamation is that the wrong consists in publishing a false statement about the plaintiff which tends to lower him or her in the estimation of right-thinking members of the community generally, or which tends to cause him or her to be shunned or avoided, or which bring him or her into hatred, ridicule, or contempt, or which tend to discredit him or her in his or her trade or profession.

The test is an objective one; the fact that the defendant did not intend to defame the plaintiff is not a relevant consideration. Nor does it matter that he was unaware of the circumstances which rendered an apparently innocuous statement defamatory, or that the statement is not believed to be true by anyone who reads it. The defendant may be held liable for the repetition of defamatory statements where he authorizes or intends such repetition, but, as a general rule, he is not liable for unauthorized repetition unless the person to whom it was published was under a duty to repeat it. Therefore in the case of a book, several publications normally occur: the author to the publisher; the author and publisher jointly to the printer; by the author, publisher, and printer jointly to the distributor; and so on. Each repetition is a new publication which gives rise to a new course of action. The law does, however, distinguish between those who are mere distributors, on the one hand, and those who take an active part in the production of the work, on the other. Similar questions may arise in respect of the publishing of a libel on the Internet.

There are four main defences to an action for defamation. First is the defence of justification (or ‘truth’). Acknowledging the significance of free speech, the law provides that it is a complete answer to an action for defamation for the defendant to prove that the statement he published is substantially true. Second, the defence of absolute privilege protects defamatory statements when made in the course of legislative, judicial, and other official proceedings. Third, the defence of qualified

privilege obtains in circumstances where the defendant has a duty (legal, social, or moral) to make a statement to a person who has a corresponding interest or duty to receive it, i.e., where the publisher and those to whom the publication is made have a common interest in the data concerned. The defence extends to fair and accurate reports of legislative and judicial proceedings.

Fourth, there is the defence of fair comment which, in practice, tends to be the most important. This defence protects honest expressions of opinion on matters of public interest and is particularly relevant to the protection of free speech – a fact recognized by the courts. The comment must be on a matter of public interest. Matters of public interest have been held to include the public conduct of persons who hold or seek a public office or position of public trust, the administration of justice, political and state matters, the management of public institutions, works of art, public performances, and anything that invites comment or challenges public attention. But the statement must be one of opinion not fact. This is a distinction that is easier to draw in theory than in practice. It must be ‘fair’, that is, it must be based on facts, and supported by those facts; there must be a basis of fact sufficient to warrant the comment made. The facts upon which the comment is based must be true. If they are true and the defendant is honestly expressing his genuine opinion on a subject of public interest, then it does not matter whether a reasonable person would hold such an opinion.

The plaintiff may defeat the defence by proving that the defendant was actuated by malice. It is for the plaintiff to prove malice. Malice defeats also the defence of qualified privilege. In respect of fair comment, malice denotes any improper motive which may have caused the defendant to make his comment. In this sense, then, his comment is not an honest expression of his view. As a general rule, the test is ‘Did the defendant believe the statement to be true?’

Rather than recognizing a separate tort of defamation, civil law systems protect reputation under the wing of personality rights. In several respects, the approach in Germany, France, and other European countries is more stringent than the common law. For example, the defences such as fair comment and justification are often not available. The free speech provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, however, have tempered the harshness of the law. Most European countries protect the plaintiff also against ‘insults’, a potentially unlimited area of liability that has been criticized by the European Court of Human Rights. On the other hand, while awards of damages tend in common law courts to be high (sometimes exceptionally so), the fines imposed by European courts are relatively trifling.

Azulejos de Coimbra


Private residence, France II

Private residence, France II

Tea Architecture Studio
Serge Brison

Beautiful residential project located in France by architecture office, Tea Architecture Studio. The combination of wood and glass creates a modern but cozy atmosphere. kreon tools of light was implemented throughout the entire house.

A combination of downlights and prologe 80 luminaries illuminate the living area. kreon dolma 80 is used in the partition walls. A black dolma 80 profile is used in the basement area where you can find an exclusive wine cellar. kreon erubo and kreon holon were chosen as directional spotlights.

Refine by

Used products