Publications Archives - Page 4 of 9 - Epstein Rosenblum Maoz (ERM)

The AI Act is coming – Why Israeli businesses should care and start preparing for it

Lengthy and fierce discussions about the European Act on Artificial Intelligence (AI Act) look like they have come to an end – the Council of the European Union recently approved the AI Act, it has passed the European Parliament’s Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and is expected to be approved by the European Parliament in April 2024. The AI Act is the worldwide first comprehensive AI regulation, which sets out harmonised rules for the placing on the market, putting into service and use of artificial intelligence systems (AI Systems) in the EU.

Why is the AI Act relevant for Israeli businesses?

There are a few reasons why the AI Act may be relevant for businesses in Israel:

Compliance with the AI Act may be required for companies that either operate an AI system in the EU or that provide AI systems to customers in the EU. The law further applies to providers or deployers of AI systems outside the EU where the output produced by the AI system is used within the EU – a provision which broadens the possible scope of the AI Act significantly, but which is expressly intended to prevent circumvention of the law.
In addition, the AI Act may influence the development of AI regulations in other jurisdictions. Other lawmakers may look to the EU’s regulatory approach as a model for their own AI regulations, or might align their regulations with the EU’s standards in order to enable cross-border trade and cooperation.

Striking a Balance Between Risk and Innovation

The AI Act follows a risk-based approach and classifies AI systems into different categories:

Prohibited AI: Guarding against Manipulation and Privacy Invasion

The legislation takes a firm stance against malicious practices by prohibiting AI systems such as purposefully manipulative or deceptive techniques, biometric categorisation systems that individually categorise a person based on sensitive information, social scoring, or real-time remote biometric identification systems in the public for law enforcement purposes.

High-Risk AI Systems: Balancing Power and Responsibility

A large part of the AI Act is dedicated to strict and extensive regulations for high-risk AI systems. Companies involved in AI must identify if their AI system is “high-risk” to comply with the law. The AI Act recognizes two types of high-risk AI systems:

1) AI as a product covered by specific EU legislation in industries such as civil aviation, vehicle security, and personal protective equipment, and

2) AI listed in Annex III, which includes remote biometric identification, AI used in education, employment, law enforcement, migration, and more.

General-Purpose AI Models: Illuminating the Algorithms

General-purpose AI (GPAI) models, being the building blocks of AI systems, play a pivotal role in shaping our technological future. They are defined as AI models that display “significant generality” and are “capable to competently perform a wide range of distinct tasks regardless of the way the model is placed on the market and that can be integrated into a variety of downstream systems or applications.” Recognizing their significance, the AI Act sets out specific requirements for the development and deployment of such AI systems, ensuring that users understand their underlying algorithms and functionality.

Requirements for High-risk AI Systems:

Providers of high-risk AI systems must meet strict requirements to ensure that their AI systems are trustworthy, transparent and accountable. This includes, among other things, conducting risk assessments, using reliable data, documenting technical and ethical choices, maintaining performance records, informing users about the nature and purpose of their systems, enabling human oversight, ensuring accuracy and resilience, addressing cybersecurity concerns, testing for compliance, and registering systems in a publicly accessible EU database.

In addition, the AI Act imposes strict obligations across the value chain of a high-risk AI system. Not only on the ‘provider’ of a high-risk AI system needs to be compliant, but also on the ‘importer’, ‘distributor’ and ‘deployer’ of such systems. Broadly speaking, the importer needs to verify the system’s conformity by reviewing various documentation, whereas the distributor is required to verify the CE (conformité européenne) conformity.

The deployer (in previous drafts also called the user of the AI system), also has various obligations when it utilizes a high-risk AI system, one being the obligation to use the high-risk AI system in accordance with the provider’s instructions of use. This will be important in any potential liability discussion with the provider.

Transparency Obligations for AI Systems and GPAIs

The AI Act puts transparency in the foreground. If a person interacts with an AI system, they need to be informed that they are interacting with an AI system instead of with another person. Exceptions apply if the AI interaction is obvious or if the AI system is used for criminal prosecution.

Similarly, outputs of generative AI systems, including General Purpose AI models (e.g. audio, image, video or text content) need to be marked as artificially generated or manipulated.

In case of AI systems used for emotion recognition or biometric categorization, the people exposed to such system have to be informed of the operation.

In case of deep fakes, the content must be labelled as having been artificially created or manipulated.

Sanctions

The penalties under the AI Act can be very high. Engaging in a prohibited AI practice can lead to a penalty of up to EUR 35 million or 7% of the total worldwide annual turnover for companies, depending on the severity of the infringement. For high-risk AI systems, the penalty may be as high as EUR 15 million or 3%, whichever is higher.

Next steps

We expect that the AI Act will be published in its final form in mid-2024. The AI Act will enter into force 20 days after publication in the Official Journal of the EU. Most of its provisions will apply after 24 months. The rules on prohibited AI systems will apply after 6 months, provisions for GPAI models after 12 months, and the provisions regulating high-risk AI systems after 36 months.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The review was written by Rotem Perelman – Farhi, Partner and Heads of the firm’s Technology, IP & Data Department and Dr. Laura Jelinek, Associate in the the firm’s Technology, IP & Data Department.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

* This newsletter is provided for informational purposes only, is general in nature, does not constitute a legal opinion or legal advice and should not be relied on as such. If you are seeking legal advice, it is essential to review the specific facts of each case in detail with a qualified lawyer.

Starting February 17, 2024, the Digital Services Act (“DSA”) will apply to providers of digital intermediary services that have a substantial connection to the EU (see in more detail here).

This bulletin focuses on the providers of hosting services, which will have a large array of new obligations. “Hosting services” under the DSA include all services that store content, regardless of whether that content is disseminated to the public or to individual third parties. This is the case when any information provided by users is stored on their behalf.

The following is a brief compliance checklist outlining key tasks that hosting service providers may need to implement:

Updating the contact section on the website with the designated single points of contact for authorities and recipients of the service;
Reviewing and, where necessary, revising terms and conditions: These should explain how the organisation controls illegal content and content that is incompatible with their terms and conditions. They should also explain what content is prohibited or unwanted in the service, and how prohibited or unwanted content will be dealt with (blocking, deletion, suspension of accounts etc.);
Annual publication of transparency reports on “any content moderation that they engaged in during the relevant period” on their website;
Putting mechanisms in place to allow any person or entity to notify the hosting service provider of illegal content in an easily accessible and user-friendly manner, exclusively by electronic means;
Establishing a process that permits proactive notifications of crimes that involve a threat to the life or safety of a person or persons;
Establishing a “Statement of Reasons” process, for example by creating templates which enable the provider to provide clear and specific reasons for any restrictions imposed on service recipients or suspensions or terminations of a user account due to illegal content or violation of the terms and conditions.

It should be noted that the specific obligations for each hosting service provider can vary slightly depending on the circumstances.

For more information and assistance related to compliance with the Digital Services Act, please reach out to us at ERM.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The EU Digital Services Act (“DSA”) brings some of the most important changes to the regulatory framework for offering online content, services and products to consumers in the European Union. It will start applying from February 17, 2024 to a diverse range of intermediary services offered in the EU, including online marketplaces, web-hosting services, cloud services, search engines, and social media platforms.

What is new?

The DSA addresses a wide range of issues related to online platforms, including illegal content, hate speech, counterfeit products, and unfair competition. Its key points are:

Enhanced Accountability: The DSA introduces new obligations for online platforms, making them more accountable for the content shared on their platforms. Platforms must provide predefined notice-and-action mechanisms for reporting alleged illegal content and follow up on such notices, including taking the necessary measures. Whether or not content qualifies as illegal is not determined by the DSA itself, but by the applicable law of the affected EU Member State.
Transparency and Fairness: The DSA aims to promote transparency in online platforms’ policies and algorithms that influence the visibility and ranking of content. There will also be stricter rules for online advertising, for example a ban on targeted advertisements to minors on online platforms.
Safeguarding User Rights: The DSA prioritizes user rights and empowerment. It requires online platforms to provide effective means for users to exercise their rights and introduces measures to tackle harassment and abusive behavior online.
Strengthened Market Oversight: The DSA grants new powers to regulators to monitor and enforce compliance with the regulations. It establishes a single point of contact for cross-border issues, facilitates cooperation between EU member states, and enhances coordination with law enforcement authorities.

Who is affected?

The DSA applies to both B2B and B2C providers of digital intermediary services (intermediaries), who provide recipients with access to goods, services and content via the internet. This includes providers of:

mere conduit services (e.g. internet exchange points or wireless access points)
caching services (e.g. content delivery networks)
hosting services (e.g. cloud computing and web hosting)
online platforms (e.g. social networks and online marketplaces)
online search engines

The DSA applies to intermediary services that have a substantial connection to the EU, regardless whether the intermediary service in question has an establishment in the EU. Such substantial connection can exist where an intermediary service provides its services to a significant number of recipients or targets its activities towards one or more EU Member States.

It should be noted that providers of intermediary services that do not have an establishment in the EU but fall under the scope of the DSA must appoint a legal representative in one of the affected EU Member States, a principle familiar from the EU GDPR. The legal representative must have sufficient power of representation and resources, and has to act as a contact for authorities and service recipients, among other responsibilities.

Penalties for Non-Compliance

Organisations that fail to comply with the requirements of the DSA may face a fine of up to 6% of the worldwide annual turnover, or periodic penalties of up to 5% of the average daily worldwide turnover for each day of delay in complying with certain remedies, interim measures or commitments. As a last resort, the EU Commission can request the temporary suspension of the service.

For more information and assistance related to compliance with the Digital Services Act, please reach out to us at ERM.

__________________________________________________________________

In its decision from January 15^th, 2024 (“Decision”), the European Commission (“Commission”) re-affirmed Israel’s adequacy status, meaning that transferring personal data related to European data subjects to Israel will continue to be seamless.

The free data flow from the European Economic Erea (“EEA”) to Israel will remain in place, and as a result business between Israel and the EEA can be conducted in an easier, more convenient manner compared to other non-EEA countries.

Background

The adequacy status can be given to a country which is not a member of the European Union after an in-depth examination by the Commission to assure that such country offers adequate safeguards to the personal data related to European data subjects. Adequacy status was granted by the Commission only to a limited number of countries.

The renewal of the adequacy status of Israel is a relief for Israel-based companies, after the re-examination procedure of the adequacy status ( originally given in 2011) that began following the Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation) – GDPR which entered into effect in 2018.

The Israeli government had taken several steps in order to ensure that the adequacy status is renewed. The Commission mentioned in the Decision some of them , including “specific safeguards to reinforce the protection of personal data transferred from the European Economic Area by adopting Privacy Protection Regulations (Instructions for Data that was Transferred to Israel from the European Economic Area), 5783-2023. Israel also strengthened the requirements for data security by adopting Privacy Protection (Data Security) Regulations, 5777-2017 and consolidated the independence of its data protection supervisory authority in a binding government resolution.”

The Acknowledgment

In the Decision, the Commission acknowledges that European data subjects’ personal data transferred to Israel enjoys adequate data protection safeguards. Therefore, the adequacy decision from 2011 remains in power and personal data can continue to flow freely from the EEA to Israel without any special data transfer regime or special arrangement (like the Standard Contractual Clauses – SCC or Binding Corporate Rules – BCR).

In practice, the renewal of the adequacy status means that the transfer of personal data from Europe to Israel will remain materially the same as the transfer of personal data within the EEA.

Why is it important?

The adequacy status is important for the Israeli economy, especially with regards to trade or research relations with Europe. The convenient and simple flow of data to Israel makes it easier, from a legal and regulatory standpoint, for entities in Israel (including Israeli companies, businesses, hospitals, research institutions and public authorities) that receive personal data to do business in the EEA or with EEA based entities.

The adequacy status prevents the need for individual and resource-intensive mechanisms, for example detailed contractual arrangements, thereby reducing costs for businesses and organizations in Israel, reducing legal risks, and creating a competitive advantage for Israeli entities.

The Decision can be read here. The publication of the Privacy Protection Authority in the Ministry of Justice can be read here (in Hebrew).

The authors are Adv. Rotem Perelman-Farhi, head of the Technology, IP and Data Protection Department and Adv. Einat Goldstein, associate in the Department.

The French Data Protection Authority (CNIL) has published a draft guide on Transfer Impact Assessment (TIA). The draft guide outlines the procedures and considerations for conducting a TIA. This draft serves as a guideline for organisations that transfer personal data outside of the European Economic Area (EEA) and therefore must assess the level of data protection in the countries of destination.

Background

Under the Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (GDPR), personal data transferred outside of the EEA (for example to a cloud service provider or when shared with a parent company or subsidiary) must receive the same protection as within the EEA. This is the case when personal data is transferred to countries with adequacy decisions (for example to Israel). In the absence of adequacy, data exporters (acting as controllers or processors) must adopt measures like Binding Corporate Rules (BCR) or Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs) to compensate for deficiencies in the data protection laws of the third country (to which the personal data is being transferred).

In its “Schrems II” ruling from July 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) emphasized that both data exporters and data importers are responsible to guarantee that personal data, when transferred outside of the EEA, is granted the same level of protection as set by the GDPR.

Requirement for Transfer Impact Assessment

Consequently, data exporters must verify whether the third-country legislation is essentially equivalent to EU protection levels, and implement additional measures where needed. If the transfer relies on a transfer tool under Art. 46 GDPR (as BCRs or SCCs), a TIA is required, conducted by the data exporter and importer together. Until now, organizations have mainly relied on the recommendations of the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) on additional measures supplementing the transfer instruments, published in June 2021, to carry out their TIAs.

In this context, the CNIL decided to draft a practical guide to “help data exporters carry out their TIAs.” The CNIL has released a draft of this guide for public consultation until February 12, 2024, with the final version expected to be published later in 2024.

The CNIL Guidelines

The CNIL guide constitutes a methodology which identifies the various elements to be considered when carrying out a TIA. The CNIL points out that the use of this guide is not obligatory; other elements can be considered, and other methodologies can be applied.

The guide provides a TIA template based on the six steps recommended by the EDPB for carrying out a TIA, which are as follows:

Know your transfer;
Document the transfer tool used;
Evaluate the legislation and practices in the country of destination of the personal data and the effectiveness of the transfer tool;
Identify and adopt supplementary measures
Implement the supplementary measures and the necessary procedural steps;
Re-evaluate at appropriate interval the level of data protection and monitor potential developments that may affect it.

It is worth noting that the CNIL specifies that in the case of onward transfers, a separate TIA should be carried out for each type of onward transfer.

Compared to the EDBP’s recommendations, the CNIL also increases the responsibilities of the data importer. The CNIL finds the data importer’s cooperation “essential for the TIA to be carried out” and goes on to state that if the data importer is a data processor, its cooperation obligation is part of the obligations under Art. 28 of the GDPR. Essentially, while the main burden of conducting the TIA is on the data exporter, in the CNIL’s opinion the data importer has significant information obligations.

Differences to the ICO’s Transfer Risk Assessment

The CNIL’s guideline follows the EDPB’s recommendations and as such differs from the United Kingdom’s Information Commissioner’s (ICO) transfer risk assessment tool, which may be used for transfers of personal data outside of the UK. The purpose of such transfer risk assessment (TRA) is to asses if a transfer increases privacy and rights risks compared to keeping data in the UK. If no significant extra risk is found, the transfer is permitted. The ICO’s TRA tool offers a more risk-based (and possibly more business-friendly) approach compared to the EDBP. The TRA tool focuses mainly on general human rights risks in the destination country, which include (i) risks associated with third-party access to data, especially by government and public bodies, and (ii) risks stemming from challenges in enforcing the Article 46 transfer mechanism.

For more information related to the transfer of personal data and on any other matters relating to privacy and data protection laws, please reach out to us at ERM.

Our partner, Adv. Rotem Perelman-Farhi, head of the Technology, IP and Data Protection Department and Adv. Einat Goldstein, LL.M, associate in the Department, share the essential information.

The Ministry of Finance’s November 2023 outline, as amended and approved to date:

The Israeli Ministry of Finance has published a revised compensation plan to support businesses affected by the Sword of Iron war commenced following the 7 October 2023 terror attacks against Israel. The outline includes a business continuity grant for businesses all over the country, as well as certain reimbursement of expenses in particularly badly affected areas of the country.

Business Continuation Grant: Pursuant to the outline, the property tax compensation fund will compensate businesses all over the country whose turnover is NIS 12k to NIS 400m and which incurred a decrease in turnover of over 25% for a one-month report or 12.5% for a bi-monthly report in the months of October and / or November 2023.

Businesses that began operating after 2 September, 2022, will have their eligibility examined according to a monthly average of turnover over the period of the business’ activity up until the end of August 2023. Certain businesses that report on a cash basis with delayed payment terms, will be given the option to receive compensation based on their reports for the months of November and/or December 2023.

The compensation is calculated and granted based on the business’ maximum yearly turnover and the amount of the decrease in the turnover, except in certain exceptional cases.

Businesses with a maximum yearly turnover of NIS 12k and up to NIS 300k will be entitled to receive a compensation grant in accordance with the following table (the “Compensation Table”):

Amount of the decrease in the turnover
Maximum business yearly turnover	25-40%	40 – 60 %	60 -80 %	Above 80%
NIS 50,000	NIS 1,750	NIS 1,750	NIS 1,750	NIS 1,750
NIS 90,000	NIS 3,150	NIS 3,150	NIS 3,150	NIS 3,150
NIS 107,000	NIS 4,200	NIS 4,200	NIS 4,200	NIS 4,200
NIS 200,000	NIS 3,125	NIS 4687.5	NIS 7,500	NIS 9,375
NIS 250,000	NIS 4,000	NIS 6,000	NIS 9,600	NIS 12,000
NIS 300,000	NIS 4,675	NIS 7,013	NIS 11,220	NIS 14,025

VAT exempt businesses will be granted a fixed amount of compensation as follows: (i) businesses with a turnover of up to NIS 49,800 will receive NIS 1,750; (ii) businesses with a turnover of up to NIS 90,000 will receive NIS 3,150; and (iii) businesses with a turnover of up to NIS 107,000 will receive NIS 4,200.

Businesses with a yearly turnover of NIS 300k and up to NIS 400m will be entitled to receive a business continuity grant which will consist of reimbursement of expenses of between 7%-22%, depending on the degree of damage to the business turnover, with the exception of certain sectors with different arrangements (including the agricultural sector for which additional support is being given through various schemes), as well as a reimbursement of a portion of up to 75% of salary expenses based on a formula which contemplates the level of impact on the business. Moreover, the outline stipulates a minimum compensation amount for such businesses, which is equal to the compensation amount granted to businesses with a NIS 300k turnover as described in the Compensation Table.

The outline stipulates the cap amounts of such compensation grants, being set at: (i) for businesses with a turnover of NIS 300k and up to NIS 100m – an amount of NIS 600k; (ii) for businesses with a turnover of NIS 100m and up to NIS 300m, the cap is NIS 600k with a top-up based on revenue above NIS 100m up to an aggregate maximum of NIS 1.2m; and (iii) for businesses with a turnover of NIS 300m and up to NIS 400m a cap of NIS 1.2m.

See our prior update on this in Hebrew –

ERM Advised our client, Azorim, on the signing of a significant agreement with the majority of property rights holders of a property in the city of Ramat Gan.

The deal is another example of the growing recognition of the importance of new and speedier construction starts, needed to meet market demand and safe building development.

Partners Aharon Shimon and Yoav Zahavi from ERM’s Real Estate and Urban Renewal Department advised Azorim.

For the full article in Hebrew click here.

In light of the ongoing Swords of Iron war, the Israeli court have issued regulations amending typical filing timelines and court operations. These regulations are updated regularly and as such changes should be tracked.

Law on Postponement of Deadlines (Order of Time – Iron Swords) (Contract, Judgment or Payment to the Authority), 2023 (the “Law”)

The Law grants a 30-day extension for any deadline set forth in a contract, a judgment, or for payment to a Governmental Authority, to the extent such deadline falls at any time between 7 October and 7 December 2023 (the “Defined Period”). The extension applies, inter alia, to the following persons: (1) IDF soldiers, (including soldiers drafted on reserve duty); (2) police officers; (3) prison guards as defined under the Israeli Police Ordinance; (4) firefighters; (5) missing persons, abductees, or persons being held captive; (6) those who resided prior to the enactment of the Law in towns which were forcibly evacuated as set out in the Law; (7) persons hospitalized, for more than 7 days, due to a terror-related injury; (8) estates of eligible persons set out above (except evacuees); (9) spouses of eligible persons set out above who bear the legal liability jointly with them; (10) certain employees or volunteers in rescue organizations working on a full-time basis.

The Defense Minister, with the consent of the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Finance, in consultation with the Ministry of the Interior and the approval of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, are authorized to extend the Defined Period until 31 December 2023, and may also prolong the extension itself.

The extension does not allow for the delay of alimony payments or payments owed pursuant to employment contracts.

Ministry of Justice and the Courts Administration

On October 8, 2023, the Minister of Justice declared a special state of emergency, since which time the Israeli court system has been operating on an emergency schedule. During such period, hearings are limited to urgent matters, such as hearings on arrests and releases on bail, requests for urgent remedies in civil cases, urgent petitions for judicial review to the Supreme Court and hearings on offences relating to the state of emergency. Matters that are not defined as urgent are automatically postponed until the end of the emergency period.

On October 18, 2023, in a special announcement by the Director of the Courts and the President of the National Labor Court, additional types of matters were added to the list of hearings that may proceed during this period, as well as authorizing court presidents to allow for additional hearings at their discretion. Notwithstanding the suspension of most hearings, secretaries of most courts continue to remain operative thus allowing for the submission of new pleadings (both physically and through the court’s online system).

On November 10, 2023, the Minister of Justice extended the notification of the state of emergency until November 30, 2023, and signed an amendment to the Regulations of the Courts and Enforcement Agencies (Temporary Order) (Judicial Procedures in a Special State of Emergency), 2023, which set a goal of a gradual return to an “emergency routine”.

This amendment further expanded the list of matters which the courts would deal with during the emergency period, including, for example, pre-trial hearings in civil cases which may be held via videoconference (the amendment also allows for such hearings to be held in person, subject to the parties’ consent).

The state of emergency also imposed an automatic extension for all deadlines, inter alia, for fulfilling court orders and submitting court documents, so that the period during which the state of emergency is in place shall not be counted for the purpose of meeting such deadlines, and shall therefor be extended accordingly.

With effect from 1 December 2023, the state of “emergency routine” for the Israeli court system was suspended in most cases, but remains in effect for parties to a case (or their counsel) who remain in active duty relating to (or other specific categories of people directly affected by) the Swords of Iron war.

A party affected by this decree may apply to the president of the pertinent court with a request to deviate from them in specific circumstances.

For up to date information or if you are affected by these matters, our disputes team stands ready to assist.

Many of our friends will have seen the overwhelming community spirit and large number of civil and business initiatives established in the wake of the 7 October 2023 terror attacks on Israel. There is no shortage of extremely worth causes (many philanthropic causes can be seen here). In addition, many of Israel’s leading law firms have come together to create Lawyers for Israel STAND WITH HUMANITY to provide updates and legal commentary on ongoing events.

One project we have decided to highlight is ReGrow Israel, an emergency – a farmers’ fund, coordinated by the Volcani International Partnerships, and focused on post-war agricultural support for Israeli farming communities devastated in the 7 October 2023 attacks. The fund is targeting US $100m and was launched at the request of and in partnership with all the communities (kibbutzim and moshavim) in Israel. ReGrow has adopted a strategic, forward-looking approach, focused primarily on medium to long-term agricultural projects. The fund’s key objective is to rebuild back better. It will not only look at rebuilding, but the integration of key new innovations. For this purpose, an innovation taskforce has been established comprising Israel’s leading agricultural scientists, agronomists and agri-tech companies. The fund’s direction will be managed by a tier-one team of renowned Israeli agricultural experts and local leaders, and will be advised by former US Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman. The fund will also collaborate with Israeli agency ‘Tkuma’ to ensure maximum impact.

Please contact us for more information on initiatives in Israel, or if you or your contacts might consider making impactful donations to ReGrow Israel.

The Ministry of Finance’s November 2023 outline, as amended and approved to date:

The Israeli Employment Service has outlines certain concessions (summarized at the bottom of the Ministry of Finance’s circular) regarding the ability for businesses to put staff on unpaid leave, and the corresponding rights of those on whom unpaid leave is imposed.

These concessions include:

reducing the requirement to first offset accrued vacation days before putting staff on unpaid leave;
Extending unemployment benefits for those who would otherwise have used up 180% of their eligibility days within the last 4 years;
reducing the minimum period of employment to qualify for unemployment benefits (to 14 days down from 30);
reducing the period of paid employment required to just 6 of the last 18 months, so as to qualify for benefits;
providing special grants to people who have been displaced as a result of the Swords of Iron war;
providing special grants to people aged 67 or above who have become unemployed during the war; and
suspending the lapse of the 60-day protection period (in which those returning from parental leave cannot be rendered unemployed).

In matters relating to employment, even more so than in other areas, the law and practice changes frequently in accordance with official circulars. As such, we recommend consulting with our employment law department in case of any queries, to ensure the most up to date information is available to you.