The European Parliament has announced that MEPs are urging the European Commission to regularly assess the adequacy of existing rules and legal instruments in relation to virtual worlds and to present new legislation as needed. They have called on the Commission to prepare guidelines to clarify legal obligations and responsibilities of stakeholders in virtual worlds and have stressed that liability rules should apply to virtual worlds, measures to fight fake identities and ensure transparent advertising should be considered and that IP right protection in virtual worlds must be considered among other considerations.

MEPs have adopted a Recommendation from the Industry, Research, Energy, and International Trade committees to withdraw the EU from the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). The European Parliament's approval now required so the Council of the EU can adopt the decision by a qualified majority.

The European Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee has approved a draft legislation, which lays down the conditions for the EU compulsory licence and to help prepare the EU for possible cross-border crises by ensuring supply of relevant patented products in emergencies. The compulsory licence will ensure all EU Member States get the necessary supply of essential products protected by national and EU patents and certificates. The new legislation aims to provide an efficient EU-wide solution to cross-border emergencies without affecting current national regimes. This can be launched during EU crises such as single market emergency, cross-border health crises or gas supply crises, and should only be issued in cases where no voluntary agreement has been made between the rights-holder and the licensee within one month. The draft legislation will also place a requirement on the European Commission to identify all related intellectual property rights before launching compulsory licensing procedure and issuing fines for non-compliance.

The Employment and Social Affairs Committee have endorsed a political deal on the Platform Work Directive, which will enhance the working conditions of platform workers. The new rules will ensure that platform workers have their employment status correctly classified and will regulate the use of algorithmic management and artificial intelligence (AI) in the workplace. The European Parliament will now have to formally endorse the agreed text during the 22-25 April 2024 plenary session, which will be formally adopted by the Council of the EU after. It will be published in the Official Journal of the EU following its adoption and EU Member States will have two years to transpose the provisions of the directive into their national legislation.

The European Parliament’s Transport and Tourism Committee has voted to maintain and strengthen EU air passenger rights, rejecting Council of the European Union’s proposals to weaken compensation rules. MEPs insist on keeping the existing three-hour delay threshold and compensation levels of €300–€600 and oppose reducing these amounts or extending delay thresholds to four–six hours. They also call for free cabin luggage, clearer baggage rules and scrapping extra fees for name corrections and check-in. The committee suggests that vulnerable passengers, including those with reduced mobility and children, should have priority boarding and free adjacent seating for accompanying persons. Additionally, airlines would be required to provide pre-filled compensation forms within 48 hours of cancellations or delays, with passengers given one year to claim.

The European Parliament has announced that MEPs from the Employment and Social Affairs (EMPL) Committee have launched a monitoring group on Directive (EU) 2022/2041, the Adequate Minimum Wages Directive. The group will scrutinise the implementation and enforcement of the Directive by facilitating debates with the European Commission, national authorities, social partners and other stakeholders. It will also follow up on the outcome of the Court of Justice of the European Union ruling in Denmark v Parliament and Council, Case C-19/23, and may report on its findings to the full committee. Dennis Radtke and Marit Maij will serve as co-chairs of the group.

Originally called 'Model Form A', 'MF/1' comprises Conditions of Contract for the design, supply and installation of electrical, electronic and mechanical plant. First published in 1903 by the Institution of Electrical Engineers (IEE), further editions followed throughout the twentieth century. In 1926 the Institution of Mechanical Engineers joined the IEE as publisher, widening the scope to cover mechanical works. The 1988 edition was renamed and combined with the export version—MF/1. This Practice Note looks at the 2014 Revision 6 version of the form (now published on behalf of the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) and the Institution of Mechanical Engineers). Other contracts in the Model Form suite include conditions for supply only (MF/2 and MF/3) and for professional services (MF/4). See Practice Notes: MF/2 Rev 2 (1999), MF/3 Rev 1 (2001) and MF/4 (2003). MF/1 is suitable for projects with a large element of mechanical, electrical and electronic plant—ranging from electricity generation, waste incineration, amphibious boats, fire safety equipment to automated manufacturing systems. Although not a part of MF/1, it would be common for

Originally called 'Model Form A', 'MF/1' comprises Conditions of Contract for the design, supply and installation of electrical, electronic and mechanical plant. First published by the Institution of Electrical Engineers (IEE), the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE) later joined the IEE as publisher, widening the scope to cover mechanical works. The 1988 edition was renamed and combined with the export version—MF/1. This Practice Note looks at the 2024 Revision 7 version of the form (now published on behalf of the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) and the IMechE). Other contracts in the Model Form suite include conditions for supply only (MF/2 and MF/3) and for professional services (MF/4). See Practice Notes: MF/2 Rev 2 (1999), MF/3 Rev 1 (2001) and MF/4 (2003). MF/1 is prepared for projects with a large element of mechanical, electrical and electronic plant—it has been used on projects ranging from electricity generation, waste incineration, and fire safety equipment to automated manufacturing systems. Although not a part of MF/1, it would be common for the Contractor to also enter into a maintenance agreement

‘MF/2’ is one of the suite of Model Forms published on behalf of the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) and the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. It is for use in connection with home (ie UK) or overseas contracts for the supply only of electrical, electronic or mechanical plant (its full title is MF/2 Model Form of General Conditions of Contract for use in connection with home or overseas contracts for the supply of electrical, electronic or mechanical plant). The main conditions have not been updated since 1999 although there are amendment slips to cover the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (C(RTP)A 1999) and suggested amendments to bring it in line with MF/1 revision 5. Depending on the extent of the contractor’s obligations and the nature of the site, MF/2 may be a contract for ‘construction operations’ and be subject to the requirements of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA 1996). There is no clause on adjudication and the payment clauses do not comply with these statutory requirements—these clauses would need to

'MF/3' is one of the suite of Model Forms published on behalf of the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) and the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. It is for use in connection with home (ie UK, not overseas) contracts for the supply only of electrical and mechanical goods, without erection (its full title is MF/3 (rev 1) Model Forms of General Conditions of Contract for the Supply of Electrical and Mechanical Goods (Home without Erection)). The main conditions have not been updated since 2001. As MF/3 is a supply only contract for goods, it is unlikely to be a 'construction contract' under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA 1996). The conditions of MF/3 does therefore not reflect the statutory requirements in relation to payment terms, nor does it provide for the adjudication of disputes. Comparison to MF/1 MF/1 is the related design and build contract. See Practice Note: MF/1 Rev 6 (2014) for more on the differences between engineering and construction standard forms. The main differences between MF/1 and MF/3 are that, under MF/3:

'MF/4' is one of the suite of Model Forms published on behalf of the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) and the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. It is for use as a home (ie UK) or overseas agreement for the provision of consultancy service by engineering consultants. The commentary published by IET to accompany MF/4 states that the contract is intended largely for investigative or advisory services and is not intended to be used where a consultant is being engaged to: • lead, project manage or perform other services in relation to a complex project • provide design services to a contractor As a contract for the supply of services in relation to a construction or engineering project, MF/4 may be a 'construction contract' for the purposes of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA 1996). However, the conditions do not reflect the relevant statutory requirements in respect of the payment terms or by providing for the adjudication of disputes. See Practice Notes: What is a construction contract under the HGCRA 1996? and Interim payments in

Medicines for Europe (MFE) and Medicines for Ireland (MFI) have welcomed a decision by the Irish High Court to refer questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on whether the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme under Directive (EU) 2024/3019 (Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (UWWTD)) complies with EU law and the polluter-pays principle. The UWWTD requires medicines and cosmetics companies to fund at least 80% of the cost of new wastewater treatment measures. MFE and MFI state that the scheme places a disproportionate burden on the pharmaceutical sector and excludes other contributors to wastewater pollution. They also say additional costs could affect the supply of generic medicines because medicine prices and margins are tightly regulated across Europe.