ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. Note that. from 6 April 2025, the regime for protection from unfair trading under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTR 2008), SI 2008/1277 has been revoke and replaced by the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA 2024). CPUTR 2008 will continue to apply to conduct occurring prior to 6 April 2025. For information on the regime under DMCCA 2024, see Practice Note: Unfair commercial practices offences under DMCCA 2024. For information on enforcement powers, see Practice Note: Enforcement of consumer protection

Part XII of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA 2000) requires controllers and proposed controllers to seek approval from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) or the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) before acquiring or increasing control in a UK authorised firm, and to notify the relevant regulator when decreasing or ceasing control in a firm. The FCA and PRA also require UK authorised firms to notify them when a person reduces or ceases to have control in the firm. This Practice Note looks at the criminal and regulatory consequences of failing to comply with the change of control regime set out in FSMA 2000, Part XII and the related FCA and PRA rules. It also provides an overview of the powers that the FCA and PRA have under the controllers regime to: • object to a person having control over a UK authorised person • impose restrictions on shares or voting power which have been acquired improperly, and • order the sale of shares or disposition of voting power In addition,

Who enforces the food safety and hygiene regulations? Under the Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013 (FSH(E)R 2013), SI 2013/2996, the nature of the food business will determine the enforcement body. The Food Standards Agency (FSA) is responsible for enforcement in approved or conditionally approved slaughterhouses, cutting plants and game-handling establishments. Food authorities, eg local authorities, are responsible for enforcement in approved stand-alone cold stores, re-wrapping establishments and establishments that produce meat products, minced meat, meat preparation and fishery products. Additional product types are also specified in the regulations and so reference is always needed to FSH(E)R 2013, SI 2013/2996 to confirm whether the FSA or a local authority is the relevant enforcement body. The principal enforcement measures FSH(E)R 2013, SI 2013/2996 give extensive powers to an officer authorised by the FSA or by food authorities (local authorities) to enforce what are collectively known as the Hygiene Regulations. The Hygiene Regulations comprise FSH(E)R 2013, SI 2013/2996 and what are collectively known as the ‘EU Hygiene Regulations’ which are specified

This Practice Note explains the enforcement of the General Product Safety Regulations 2005 (GPSR 2005), SI 2005/1803 in England and Wales. It explains the measures available to enforcement authorities in the generic set of enforcement powers contained within the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015) as well as those powers specified by GPSR 2005, SI 2005/1803. These include imposing notification requirements, issuing safety notices, forfeiture and destruction, and penalties imposed for non-compliance. It also explains how to appeal safety notices, such as suspension notices, requirements to mark or warn, and recall notices and touches on the future reform of the product safety framework. For information on the obligations imposed on producers and distributors under the GPSR 2005, SI 2005/1803, see Practice Note: General Product Safety Regulations 2005—Offences. For information on the prosecution of offences under GPSR 2005, SI 2005/1803, including the maximum sentencing which may be imposed on conviction, see Practice Note: Prosecution of product safety offences under the General Product Safety Regulations 2005. Notification requirements In England and Wales, producers or

Arbitration analysis: On 14 July 2022, the enforcement of the Micula International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) award was rejected by the Luxembourg Court of Cassation (Supreme Court). The court overturned the decision of the Appeal Court upholding the enforcement of the award rendered by the arbitral tribunal on 11 December 2013 in Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula, SC European Food SA, SC Starmill SRL and SC Multipack SRL v Romania. According to the Supreme Court, when Romania joined the EU, the arbitration agreement provided for in the Sweden-Romania bilateral investment treaty (BIT) became incompatible with EU law. Accordingly, the arbitration agreement lacked any force from that date and Romania never waived its jurisdictional immunity. Anne-Sophie Partaix, associate at Aceris Law analyses the recent development.

This Practice Note contains practical guidance on the enforcement provisions of OSA 2023, including practical examples of how the regulator, Ofcom, approaches potential breaches of the legislation, exercises its powers to investigate, and where appropriate, issues penalties for non-compliance. OSA 2023 sets out the UK’s regulatory framework for Ofcom’s regulation of internet content. For general guidance on the legislation, see Practice Notes: The Online Safety Act 2023 and The Online Safety Act 2023—a quick guide. This Practice Note does not address the criminal offences that may be committed under OSA 2023 in relation to individual pieces of content (ie the communications offences under OSA 2023, Pt 10)—see instead, Practice Note: Offences under the Online Safety Act 2023. This Practice Note focuses on the enforcement powers Ofcom has in relation to services which it suspects are not complying with OSA 2023 requirements, the procedure it follows to consider breach, and the sanctions which may be imposed as a consequence. Ofcom has published the following guidance relating to enforcement: • Statement: Online Safety Information Powers

Introduction to the medicines advertising enforcement landscape Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (Pharmaceutical Code) establishes the rules on the advertising and promotion of medicinal products in the EU. It requires Member States to ensure that there are adequate and effective methods to monitor the advertising of medicinal products. Such methods must include legal provisions which allow persons or organisations regarded as having a legitimate interest in prohibiting any advertisement inconsistent with the Pharmaceutical Code to: • take legal action against such advertisement, or • bring such advertisement before an administrative authority competent either to decide on complaints or to initiate appropriate legal proceedings In the UK, Part 14 of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (HMR 2012), SI 2012/1916 implements the Pharmaceutical Code’s rules on advertising of medicinal products. In particular, HMR 2012, Pt 14, Chapter 3 contains the provisions for enforcing the requirements on the advertising of medicinal products contained within HMR 2012, Chapter 2. These include both criminal and civil sanctions.

The enforcement of road traffic regulation orders is more complex than for some other offences because the initial evidence that an offence has taken place is often merely a report that a particular motor vehicle was, for example, speeding, driving the wrong way along a one-way road, or parked in the wrong place or parked for too long. The vehicle never commits an offence; its driver commits the offence and the driver is often hard to identify, especially for parking offences, because they are often not in the vehicle. Road traffic—criminal offences Normal criminal law procedures can be used if the driver who is alleged to have committed an offence can be identified by a witness. In other cases, where the identity of the driver is not known, secondary offences have been created, as in section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988), where it is an offence for the keeper of a vehicle not to reveal the identity of the driver of that vehicle as at the time of an alleged

This Practice Note provides guidance on the enforcement of an undertaking either for the payment of money, or to do or abstain from doing any act other than the payment of money. It also considers the requirements in contempt proceedings in the event of the breach of an undertaking. The key provisions on the enforcement of undertakings are set out in Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, Pts 33 and 37, together with FPR 2010, PD 33A and FPR 2010, PD 37A. With effect from 1 October 2020, FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, Pt 37, together with FPR 2010, PD 37A, were substituted. Amendments were also made to FPR 2010, PD 33A from 1 October 2020 to reflect the amendments to FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, Pt 37 and to FPR 2010, PD 37A. The substituted Part 37 does not alter the scope and extent of the jurisdiction of courts determining contempt proceedings (whether inherent, statutory or at common law) and has effect subject to, and to the extent that it is consistent with, the substantive law

A lender will typically have a number of enforcement options available to it in a particular real estate finance (REF) transaction. The lender will need to evaluate and assess: • the economic realities of the transaction at the time it goes into distress • the security package • the legal framework pertaining to the loan, and • the jurisdiction of the borrower and the property in order to determine which enforcement route is the most viable to maximise recoveries. Restructure or enforce? In most distressed REF transactions, a lender will try to exhaust restructuring options before enforcement. A lender will have broad powers to do what it deems necessary or desirable in connection with the restructuring of a REF loan. For example, it may grant standstills, extend the term of the loan and agree to other amendments to the loan agreement. It may also look to block bank accounts and restrict payments from them (given most REF transactions will have structured bank account mechanics—see Practice Note: Real estate finance—bank account provisions in facility

Arbitration analysis: This judgment concerns the enforcement in the Netherlands of an award rendered in an arbitration between Cardno Middle East Ltd (‘Cardno’) and the Central Bank of Iraq (‘CBI’). The arbitral tribunal had refused to review the merits of CBI’s corruption allegations because the proceedings had been closed and CBI only started participating the arbitration after the closure of the proceedings and raised its corruption allegations at this late stage. In the Dutch enforcement proceedings, the Court of Appeal of Amsterdam decided in line with the recent setting aside case law of the Dutch Supreme Court in Russian Federation v HYV, according to which corruption allegations must be reviewed with restraint and must be raised in the arbitration without delay so that the arbitral tribunal can review those allegations. The fact that the arbitral tribunal had not reviewed the corruption allegations in Cardno v CBI was not a ground to refuse enforcement of the award in the Netherlands. This case raised the question as to when would a Dutch enforcement court intervene in cases of alleged corruption. Written by Hetty de Rooij, lecturer and external PhD candidate at Leiden University.

Appointment of Receivers The Crown Court may appoint a receiver in respect of realisable property of a defendant who is subject to a confiscation order on the application of the prosecutor if a confiscation order is not satisfied and is not subject to appeal. The receiver may be given the following powers in relation to the realisable property: • power to take possession of the property • power to manage or otherwise deal with the property, subject to hearing representations from those holding it • power to realise the property, in such a manner as the court may specify, subject to hearing representations from those holding it • power to start, carry on or defend any legal proceedings in respect of the property Where the defendant’s realisable interest in the property is disputed It is not necessary for the property to be the proven realisable property of the defendant (see eg Re Smith). Where there is a contested claim as to who holds the beneficial interest in the property between the prosecutor (seeking to establish