MLex has reported that the Greek Data Protection Authority (DPA) has fined Alphabank, Eurobank, National Bank and Piraeus Bank €20,000 each, for violating the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (EU GDPR). The four banks were found to have retained the details of Mastercard users’ last ten transactions on each card’s chip, without providing specific information to the data subjects about such data processing, the regulator said. The DPA said the banks had breached the principle of information obligation, lawfulness, fairness and transparency.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 23 July 2026; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Commission Digital Markets Act investigation into: (i) Alphabet's rules on steering in Google Play, and (ii) self-preferencing on Google Search. Latest development On 23 July 2026, the Commission issued two decisions fining Google a total of €890 million after finding that it breached the Digital Markets Act by favouring its own services in Google Search and restricting app developers from directing users to alternative purchasing channels through Google Play. It has ordered Google to comply with the DMA within 60 days or face periodic penalty payments. Parties • Alphabet Background On 5 September 2023, Alphabet was designated as a gatekeeper for the Google search service and the Google Play app store for Android under the Digital Markets Act (DMA).On 25 March 2024, the Commission opened non-compliance investigations into (i) Alphabet's rules on steering in Google Play, and (ii) self-preferencing on Google Search.On

Law360: There has been much debate in recent years about the difficulties of proving corruption in international arbitration. How should corruption be defined in an international context? What is the correct standard of proof to be applied in circumstances where tribunals lack some of the powers of national courts to compel evidence? Who should bear the burden of proving corruption and can the existence of red flags justify a reversal of that burden?

This Practice Note examines the issues surrounding alterations and improvements to property in Scotland subject to a commercial lease. Consent and withholding consent When granting a lease of commercial property, a landlord will often wish to ensure that certain alterations are not undertaken to the property by the tenant without landlord consent. A landlord will seek to maintain control over its property, particularly in respect of external appearance and structural integrity, often seeking to include an absolute prohibition on such work in the lease or requiring that landlord consent is obtained to such alterations by the tenant prior to such works being carried out. Internal and non-structural alterations are often permitted without consent, however, for this to be applicable there must be express provision to this effect in the lease and such provisions usually still require the tenant to give the landlord notification of such alterations in order that it can consider the effect which any such permitted alteration may have on its insurance, see Practice Notes: Alteration provisions in commercial leases in Scotland

Property analysis: Edward Hellier, barrister at 11 New Square, whose colleague acted for the successful respondent valuer, discusses the outcome of Merlin Entertainments Group Ltd v Cox (Valuation Officer), including its implications for the rules concerning an alteration of the rating list due to a ‘material change of circumstances’ and transparency around the funding arrangements for expert evidence.

Common law on making alterations At common law, there is an implied obligation that a property can only be used for the purpose for which it was let, in other words the tenant is not permitted to invert possession. A tenant is prohibited by the above principle from making material structural alterations to a property which has been leased to it without the landlord's consent. If it does make unauthorised material structural alterations, then unless there has been acquiescence on the part of the landlord, the landlord can require reinstatement by the tenant. See: Leck v Fulton and Thomson (1854) 17 D 408 (not reported by LexisNexis®) and Muir v Wilson. Note, however, that a landlord by its conduct may be barred by acquiescence from objecting to the tenant's inversion of the possession. In Moore v Munro (1896) 4 SLT 172 (not reported by LexisNexis®), the tenant was let a shop 'for carrying on the business of a grocer and provision merchant'. The tenant then divided the property,

Alteration of the register is the change of information on the Register of Title.

This Checklist outlines the key questions that both commercial landlords and tenants in Scotland should consider when landlord (and superior landlord) consent and licence for tenant works or alteration is being sought and negotiated. Is landlord consent required? In most commercial leases, the landlord will include express provisions restricting, (to some extent) the tenant’s ability to carrying out alterations. The extent of those restrictions will depend upon: • the nature of the proposed alterations • the nature of the property (eg a landlord of a shopping centre will seek to control alterations which might affect the appearance of the shopping centre, eg shop fronts and fascia of any shops, while a landlord of an industrial unit might not be as concerned with appearance), and • the relative commercial bargaining strength of the landlord and tenant The starting point therefore is to check the provisions of the lease to ascertain whether landlord consent is required to the proposed alterations. The Property Standardisation Group (PSG) leases contain provision for certain works

In the absence of an express provision in the lease (which is rare), a landlord has an absolute right to refuse consent to alterations that the tenant wishes to make outside the demise. Definition of demised premises When defining the demise, to avoid uncertainty, specify any areas (eg airspace or structural parts) that are excluded. Case law on airspace In H Waites, the High Court summarised the case law on demised premises and airspace. Clearly, however, best practice is to be as definitive as possible in the lease as to what is within or outside the demise so as to avoid future argument and litigation. In Kelsen, the landlord demised a single storey shop for a term of 7 years. The parcels clause in the lease described the demised premises as ‘All that shop with the rooms and cellars (if any) attached’. The tenant claimed the demise included the airspace above the single storey shop so that they could then assert that an advertising hoarding placed in that airspace was a trespass. The claim succeeded.

Parties must deal expressly in a licence for alterations with any inconsistency between the tenant's covenants in a lease and the nature of works that the landlord is consenting to. This Practice Note looks at both the statutory position and the position in common law and the potential risks if a landlord grants consent to alterations that are prohibited under the lease. For general guidance on landlord’s consent to alterations, see Practice Note: Landlord’s consent to alterations. See also Repairs and alterations—overview. Statutory provisions Section 143 of the Law of Property Act 1925 provides that where a licence is granted to a tenant to do any act, the licence, unless otherwise expressed, extends only: • to the permission actually given, or • to the specific breach of any provision or covenant referred to, or • to any other matter specifically authorised to be done The licence does not prevent any proceeding for any subsequent breach unless otherwise specified in the licence. Notwithstanding the licence: • all rights under covenants and powers of re-entry contained

View or print a full-size PDF versio

This Checklist sets out a non-exhaustive list of issues to consider when a landlord serves notice under section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 (HA 1988), to alter the rent payable under an assured periodic tenancy in the private rental sector from 1 May 2026 onwards. Initial considerations • Check that the tenancy is an assured tenancy (AT) under HA 1988. Confirm that the criteria for an AT are satisfied and none of the exceptions apply (eg tenancies granted by local authorities, business tenancies or holiday lets). See Practice Note: Private sector assured tenancies—granting—Criteria for an AT • Check that more than 52 weeks have passed since the date on which the first period of the AT began or since any previous rent determination took effect. The landlord cannot start the process to change the rent until after this period • Check whether the landlord served a notice pursuant to HA 1988, s 13 to change the rent prior to 1 May 2026. If so, transitional provisions under the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 (RRA