Search
Search Results
-
Differences and similarities between security measures in judicial and tax enforcement proceedings
157-184Views:11The security measure is a long-established legal instrument, which has a special place in the institutional system of enforcement proceedings. In particular, it is a restrictive measure, which can be used and applied in advance, in order to protect the interests of the obligee, to ensure the fulfilment of the obligation in question before the classical enforcement for satisfaction, and to conduct the proceedings as efficiently, uniformly and effectively as possible. The security measure restricts the property in the debtor’s (taxpayer’s) disposal to facilitate the satisfaction of a claim, but since the right to property is a constitutional fundamental right, it cannot be restricted unfoundedly, the law limits the possibility of ordering the legal institution to strict, cunjuctive conditions.
The legal institution of security measure is enforcement’s own, regarding to that, it can be found in judicial and tax enforcement proceedings as well. Situations may arise where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the debtor (taxpayer) would, through bad faith or other transactions, withdraw his assets from his disposal, in order to prevent judicial or tax enforcement proceedings. The court ordering enforcement or the state tax authority may then use the legal instrument of security measure to limit the debtor's (taxpayer's) assets and thus ensure the fulfilment of the claim, by preventing the debtor's (taxpayer's) questionable behaviour before enforcement of satisfaction.
This study examines the legal institution of security measures available in judicial enforcement and tax enforcement, examining and presenting these two areas of enforcement in detail using a comparative analytical method, highlighting the specificities and differences of them.
-
Criminal offences that infringe on individual freedom versus restrictions imposed during the pandemic to guarantee access to education
12-22.Views:257In the study we propose as follows, we will look at differences in perception between the pandemic constraints imposed by the governmenst of countries affected by the pandemic in view of managing the pandemic and society’s perception that governments have deprived citizens of their freedom by restricting their mobility and imposing restrictions with regard to travel, including in order to attend educational activities. In some cases, the communities affected by the restrictive measures have gone further, accusing governments of the crime of “Illegal Deprivation of Freedom”, which is included by the legislator in the criminal codes of countries. We consider that the accusations brought against the authorities are unfounded, exaggerated, and thoroughly wrong. We believe that they are due to communication gaps in the public domain, the differences in perception of community members in the context of changing paradigms and the insufficient legal education, which leads to confusion between illegal deprivation of freedom and limitations or restrictions. Although, in the legislation, the articles that provide for the criminal offences relevant to the matter are included in the criminal (penal) codes, for example, in the Romanian legislation in Article 205 of the Criminal Code, with the marginal name “Offences against Individual Freedom” of Title I, which bears the marginal name “Offences against the Person”, and falls within the area of interest of legal sciences, we will analyze the effects in relation to the limitations and restrictions imposed by the authorities for the management of the pandemic. To this end, on the one hand we will highlight the aspects of material criminal law necessary for the legal classification of a deed as offence of illegal deprivation of freedom, in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Codes of Romania, Hungary, Republic of Italy, Greece, and on the other hand, we will present some aspects regarding the management of the coronavirus crisis in the area of education.
-
- Alternatives to imprisonment in the light of sentencing
54-65.Views:336In most criminal cases, the judges and the society also think the same, imprisonment is the best option,because the criminal have to suffer. I think there can be a different way of thinking. There area lot of theretical and practical view,which we can choose from. In my study I want to take a step, to open well-known doors in this well-known question. In my study i want to figure it out, how to find the balance, between the expectation from the society, and special preventation. It is a really hard question, because it has not any golden rule. In every case we have to look for it. I choosed verdicts from last 5 years from hungarian courts, to figure out what was the reason behind the judgement. What was the key phrase, or factor, which convinced the judge to choose the alternative sanction. As is said , there is no golden rule, it is just some theoretical study. In the future i want to make a bigger step, to search the answer.
But in this study I have some little answers, which will help me to build up the in the future. I figured out, in the hungarian prison system there is one problem, which is recidivism. In the prison more than 50% of the detainees are repeat offender, or habitual criminal. I think That can be a warning sign about imprisonment. I think imprisonment is like penicilin in the 20th century. It has the purpose, and can be used in some cases, but not every time. The prisons are overpopulated, which hard for enforcement, and the criminals to. Lot of aggression and physical abuse can accumulate in one cell. I mention a case, which happened in a hungarian prison, where the offender have been killed by his cellmates, because he was weaker then them.
In my study I am trying to step forward to find the previously mentioned golden rule.