Keresés

Keresési eredmények

• A monista felfogás érvényesülése a szerzői jogi törvényben

  Petkó Mihály

  Megtekintések száma:

  72

  Examining the history of copyright law, we can distinct two significant theories. The distinction is based upon the position of entitled parties. Two separated fields can be found among the rights of the author: personal and financial rights. It is no doubt that personal rights are inseparable from the author itself, these rights cannot become objects of commercial businesses. If we look at these rights a little bit closer, we can realize that personal rights of the author do not play significant role in earning money from an intellectual product. These rights ensure the integrity and originality of works. Separating the two theories we have to focus on financial rights. Trying to describe these rights we can see that no exact definition can be given to them because of the permanent development of printing and publishing technology. Due to the monist theory it can be said that financial rights are close to personal ones, they are inseparable from personality of the author. Transcribing this opinion to the language of law it means that the decent regulation should prohibit the transfer of these rights among living persons. In the Anglo-Saxon legal system experts think that financial rights have to take part in commercial trade if we want to acknowledge the achievement of authors.

  In Hungary copyright law is on the point of the monist theory. The Act refers that financial rights of the author cannot be transferred and the author has no right to abandon them. If we get a closer look at the structure of the valid Act, we can say that monist theory is not consistent. It is possible to inherit financial rights. We need this rule if we would like to harmonize the system to the time of protection. The other relevant fact of crossing the prohibition is in connection with works created under labour frames. In this case the employer gets financial rights ex lege. To find the reason of this regulation we have to examine the nature and aim of labour relations. The employer gives payment to his employee, the author to establish and create works. In this situation it is natural that the author looses his financial rights. The problem is that in Hungary differences can be found between civil and labour law. If we try to give meaning to labour relations, misunderstandings and different point of views can reveal. The other problematic factor is that the Act does not bother with the question of succession.   

  In my study I present the pros and cons of both theories and gather those significant practical and theoretical fields of copyright law that can be limits of monist theory. I examine special rules for special works, rules of civil and labour law in connection with authors and give a short historical overview to see what can be the main directions of future developments.

• A személyiségi jogok védelme a reklámtörvény tükrében

  Kiss Tibor

  Megtekintések száma:

  117

  There is a significant inconsistency within the domain of enforcement of inherent rights in the Hungarian regulation. The protection of the inherent rights is based on the section 75 of Act IV of 1959 (hereinafter: „Civil Code”), which provides that inherent rights shall be observed by everyone and inherent rights are protected by law.

  The lack of consistency can be led back to the difference between the provisions of the Civil Code and Act LVIII of 1997 on Business Advertising Activity. Under Section 85 of the Civil Code inherent rights may only be enforced in person.

  There are two exceptions to the above rule laid down in the Civil Code:

  • The legal representative of an incompetent person, or the relative or conservator of a missing person whose whereabouts are unknown shall be entitled to proceed in the protection of that person's inherent rights.
  • In the case of impairment to the memory of a deceased person, the relative and/or the person having been named as the heir apparent in the will of the deceased shall be entitled to file a court action. If conduct causing defamation to a deceased person (former legal person) infringes upon the public interest, the public prosecutor shall also be entitled to enforce this inherent right.

  The Act on Business Advertising Activity provides for several general advertising prohibitions and restrictions. Under Section 4 of this act advertising may not be published if it infringes personal rights, respect for the deceased or rights related to the protection of personal data. Under Section 16 of this act advertising control proceedings may be initiated upon request or ex officio. Based on the regulation of the Act on Business Advertising Activity advertising control proceedings may be requested by any person whose rights or rightful interests, or legal status is injured by violation of any provisions relating to commercial advertising activity. If the aggrieved consumer cannot be identified, or if enforcement of the claims is inappropriate considering the number of consumers injured, administrative agencies or non-governmental organizations providing for consumer interests shall also be entitled to initiate proceedings.

  When the regulations of the Civil Code on enforcement of inherent rights are compared with that of the Act on Business Advertising Activity, it can be established that provisions of the latter act are not in compliance with the provisions of the Civil Code. On the basis of the decision No. 1270/B/1997 of the Hungarian Constitutional Court, the inconsistency is not significant, the different regulatory of the mentioned acts is not unconstitutional. I take the view that in order to achieve consistent regulation the Act on Business Advertising Activity should be modified by prohibiting the advertising control proceedings initiated ex officio in relation to the advertisings which infringe personal rights.

• A vagyoni értékű jogok apportálhatósága és az egységes szabályozás hiányának problematikája

  114-120

  Lehoczki Zóra Zsófia

  Megtekintések száma:

  364

  According to the new Hungarian Civil Code, the funders of the legal entities have to make contributions to the authorised capital and the two forms of these contributions are the contribution is cash and the contribution in kind. The regulation states that proprietary rights can also be transferred to the capital of businness accociations, by those funders, who are entitled to demise them.

  The judicial practice unanimously defined the rules in those cases, when the object of contribution in kind is a certain proprietary right, especially when the right is connected to the real estate. On the other hand, the Civil Code does not contain a list of those proprietary rights, which can be transferred to the authorised capital and unfortunately, different acts contain different lists of these rights.

  The three mentioned acts are the following: the personal income tax act, the act about the fees and the accounting act. All of them contain a list of proprietary rights and some of the items are regulated by all the three of them but most of the items are different, which means it is impossible to create an accurate list of these rights. For example, the list in the personal income tax act contains only five items, on the other hand, the accounting act contains two lists and both of them are unfinised.

  Because of the lack of unified rules, it is impossible to define which proprietary rights can become the objects of contribution in kind and this misfortunate situation causes a lot of unwanted indefinability and states a lot of questions.

  In my essay I introduce this problem and I use a chart to illustrate the differences between the mentioned lists. In my opinion, this problem could be solved with an unified list, which is normative for every regulation in connection with the proprietary rights or the Civil Code should contain a list of those proprietary rights, which can be the objects of contribution in kind.

• Néhány gondolat a szoftverek szabadalmazhatóságáról

  Petkó Mihály

  Megtekintések száma:

  57

  I’m presenting in my study the Hungarian software’s legal system. The Hungarian law system is protecting the software in the copyright law, like a literary property. This resolution given more latitude for the author, but it has many problems of the evidence, because not registred the property – like the patent – cause the author’s being can prove difficultly.

  In the patent law has not problem with the evidence thanks for the state register, but the legal process longer and costly more money. Primarily the Hungarian patent law is protecting the industrial, technical property. The software not an exclusively industrial, technical produce, there is closer the literary property about the author’s intellectual work.

  The protection of the Hungarian copyright is cheaper and faster than the protection in the area of patent law, and it covers more contract liberty for the partners. The Hungarian civil law is based upon the monist conception in the field of intellectual property. This means that pecuniary and personality rights are indivisible. In spite of this competition on the market prefers contracts that ensure exclusive, unambiguous rights. This area of law claims contracts suit to these conditions.

  The personal rights in the Hungarian copyright are remaining for the author, also the pecuniary rights. But - thanks for the successful software’s lobby - in this question the regulation diverged: the pecuniary rights may be transferring for the users, costumers. This regulation is better (cheaper, an easier) for the buyers under the Hungarian regulations of patent law.

  In Hungary a lot of software contract was established under the British legal system. The Hungarian legal culture accepted and using these contract forms. The Hungarian regulation concerning to the software questions is dualist like the British one. The pecuniary rights can be transferred free, just the personality rights belong to the author.

  The users can buy the rights need for using and it gives enough defense as a shield. The author’s interests are not sweating because of the personality rights stay under his domain.

  In my opinion the question is whether the Hungarian legal defense equally serves the author’s and the users’ interests. The process in patent law is longer, needs more money for supporting the protection and there are some conceptual problems between the software and the patent ideas. The new regulation is not reasonable.

• Az elítéltek vagy egyéb jogcímen fogvatartottak alapvető jogai sértő elhelyezési körülmények miatti sérelemdíj iránti igények joggyakorlata

  49-62

  Nagy Botond

  Megtekintések száma:

  316

  A dolgozat vizsgálódásának fókuszába eső kérdéskör az elítéltek vagy egyéb jogcímen fogvatartottak alapvető jogait sértő elhelyezési körülmények miatti sérelemdíj iránti igények joggyakorlata. Ezzel összefüggésben a taglalt téma jellegéből fakadóan kettős kutatási kérdés került megfogalmazásra. Az első polgári jogi jellegű, s arra irányul, hogy a joggyakorlatban milyen felperesi, alperesi és bírósági attitűdök, tendenciák jelennek meg az elhelyezési körülményekkel összefüggő sérelemdíj kapcsán. A második a büntetés-végrehajtás tárgykörét érinti, s elválaszthatatlanul következik az elsőből: a bírói gyakorlatból milyen, a magyar büntetés-végrehajtási körülményeket jellemző sajátosságok tárhatóak fel. Ezek megválaszolása empirikus kutatásmódszertant igényel. Ennek megfelelően 91 darab 2014 és 2020 közötti ítéletet dolgoztam fel átfogó jelleggel. Ez nem jelent mást, minthogy a dolgozat bemutatja a sérelemdíj jogintézménye szempontjából releváns teljes időszakot, azaz a felperesi, alperesi és bírósági karakterisztikák nemcsak pontszerűen, hanem fejlődési ívükben kerülnek ismertetésre. Dolgozatomban először a felperesi kereseteket taglalom: részletezem, hogy mire irányul a kereseti kérelmük, melyik személyiségi jogaikat vélik sérülni, illetve milyen létbeli jelenségekre alapozzák a jogsértést. Második pontként vizsgálom az alperesi ellenkérelmeket illetően, hogy a büntetés-végrehajtási intézetek milyen jogi érvekkel kívánják alátámasztani, hogy nem követtek el jogsértést, vagy hogy velük szemben sérelemdíj kiszabására nincs lehetőség. Ezek után térek rá a bírói gyakorlat vizsgálatára. Először azt részletezem, hogy a bíróságok miként kezelik a megállapítási kereseteket, vagyis a jogsértés meg- vagy meg nem történtének kérdését. Majd bemutatom a marasztalási kereseteket, amelyek kapcsán a bíróságok szerint releváns felelősségi rezsimet, illetve az annak megfelelő részkövetelményeket taglalom. Ezek után kitérek a sérelemdíj és az elhelyezési körülményekkel összefüggő kártalanítás mátrixára, bemutatom a két jogintézmény viszonyrendszerét és az egyes elhatárolási pontokat. Végül sor kerül a kutatási kérdések megválaszolására. A polgári jogi kérdés kapcsán egy ideális modellt vázolok fel, amelyben az egyes eljárási szereplők megfelelő hivatkozásokat tesznek és döntéseket hoznak. Ezek révén a felperes biztosítani tudja, hogy a sérelmei miatt a jogsértést megállapítsák, valamint számára sérelemdíjat ítéljenek meg. Az alperes a modell követésével elérheti, hogy a megítélt sérelemdíj összege minél kisebb legyen, a bíróság pedig helyes dogmatikai alapokra helyezkedhet. A büntetés-végrehajtási kérdés kapcsán pedig megoldási javaslatokkal élek, amik mentén felszámolhatóak lennének az alapvető jogokat sértő elhelyezési körülmények.

• A beteg kapcsolattartási jogáról

  Petkó Mihály

  Megtekintések száma:

  153

  Man is a social animal, it is important for colleagues to meet, create a relationship with them, to communicate, ideas, exchanging information. Human relationships are determined by the identity of a specific person, place in society, so it should be a fundamental right for all people in contact with the law. However, in certain life situations exercising these rights is necessarily limited, undermined, need frameworks. One of those situations in life with participation in health care in which the patient has to adapt in health care provider operating schedule, however, the Trustee is required to ensure the exercise of the right contacts.

  The most prominent of patients' rights to human dignity, which is inferred from a mother right, from which a number of other important rights. One of these is the right to self-determination, which guarantees freedom of action of the human as an individual incapacity depending autonomous. For patient care recipients should be subject to the fundamental distinction that whether it is inpatient or outpatient care. In the latter case, it also suffers from significant limitations on the patient's right to self-determination , including personal freedom, opportunities for contact with other people. The right to self-determination in a specific part of the realization of rights is thus involved in the regulation of the contact, as during inpatient care plays an important role.

  In today's modern society, the means of communication, networks of past explosive development, get more involved in the exercise of the right to life, human relations than before, with the elimination of the technical obstacles the spatial and temporal obstacles easily can be prevented. Life situation of the theme chosen exercise of the right of communication is of particular importance, because the patient's recovery depends not only on only physical but also mental condition, recovery can define what social relations, quality, intensity. The correspondence law of the health care law more the privileges include such other persons entitled to take the patient's inpatient sanitation place either in writing or orally to maintain contact, to receive visitors, the people he set out to exclude the visit , prohibit the fact of his treatment or the other information related to medical treatment reveals other.

  The context of the law of correspondence can be said that relatively little addressed by legislators and by expanding the scope of the practice of law in the content, but would consider appropriate where more attention is added. It would be good detailed arrangements for the exercise of creating the right framework for the so - to clarify the scope of everyday objects, to establish rules for their use of health services that are appropriate for the task to allow the exercise of these rights - the first line telecommunications.

• Ítélkezési állandók és vitás kérdések az erkölcsi kártérítés újabb magyar joggyakorlatában

  Fézer Tamás

  Megtekintések száma:

  66

  Since 1992, date of Constitutional Court’s decision No. 34/1992, certain rules cannot be found in Hungarian Civil Code. There is only a part of a sentence that gives right to any injured person to claim damages in case of personal injuries. More than 10 years after the cassation we are able to look through the legal practice in connection with damages for non-pecuniary loss. The recent re-codifying process plans a brand new institution to substitute and follow damages for non pecuniary loss: pain award. To establish a decent regulation of pain award, jurisdiction of the last decade cannot be neglected. This essay aims to gather typical and crystallized methods of judgements in certain cases, which could be seen as essential and accepted unwritten rules of jurisdiction concerning this field of damages.

  One of the most difficult problems to solve is the question of amount. This field of damages for non-pecuniary loss is always problematic, because all of the cases are different. Although there are similarities between cases if we examine just damages themselves, but due to the difference of human personality it is almost impossible to give exact phrases and rules to help our judges. We can say that highest amounts are generated by assaults against physical integrity and life. Examination during a legal procedure concentrates on the stress caused by the injury, number of injured rights, age of the injured person and the durability of the harm. If the injured person contributed to the injury, it generates reduced amount of damages.

  Method of compensation is really simple for the first time. Hungarian legal system knows two different types for the method of damages: in kind or in money. Former one is inapplicable for non-pecuniary losses. If we compensate in money, there are two solutions: injured person can get the whole sum immediately or we can choose allowance as well. The adaptation of allowance is rather small in Hungary, in spite of the advantages this legal institution could offer. It does not mean res iudicata, so it is flexible and offers opportunity to adjust to changed circumstances in the future: both duration and amount of allowance could be changed.

  It is an interesting question whether personal circumstances of the misdoer could be examined when calculating the amount of allowance. The answer is not unambiguous. Civil law focuses on compensation for the injured party, not the punishment of the misdoer. In spite of this essential lemma, it is necessary to take into account the solvency of the defendant, if we want the plaintiff to get the adjudged amount really.

  Youth is not the only reason of allowance, sometimes old age could be a well-based legal ground for application of this method of compensation as well. It is really important to examine the personal circumstances of the injured party to choose between these two methods: which one serves the aim of compensation, moderation of lost joy of life the most.

  Civil Code precludes the possibility to apply both methods together for the same plaintiff. In my opinion the solution of German Civil Code (BGB) should be considered. BGB allows both methods together. It means that possibilities could be wider and fit better to the actual case and its circumstances.

   Although obligation of damages has two parties traditionally, in a legal procedure of damages for non-pecuniary loss this bipolar situation can be proven false. On the part of the misdoer it is an interesting question what kind of damages can be blamed the state. In Hungary we can meet rules order the responsibility of the state in the field of medical damages or damages for unlawful arrest and illegal imprisonment. Amounts of damages are the highest in these situations.

  On the part of the injured person an often argued problem the position of secondary victims’ claims. These claims are always problematic, because personality rights belong closely to the person himself and there is no possibility to inherit them. Hungarian Civil Code admits compensation for relatives only in case of injuring reputation of a dead person. There are several decisions in which courts admit these claims on the ground of their sui generis base. It is a decent solution, but because of the uneven jurisdiction it needs codifying.

  We can say that there are a lot of jurisdictional constants in Hungary in connection with damages for non-pecuniary loss. These are easy to collect and most of them are able to be codified in a strictly non-taxative style. But this examination showed that doubtful questions can also be found in Hungary especially the application of allowance, claims of secondary victims. To arrange these problems, starting point should be jurisdiction itself.

• Gondolatok az erkölcsi károkhoz kapcsolódó hozzátartozói igények megengedhetőségéről

  Fézer Tamás

  Megtekintések száma:

  62

  On the very swampy field of damages for non-pecuniary loss there is a special problem called claims of relatives. These claims are also known as claims of secondary victims or third parties. In this legal situation the injury itself hurts not the claimer himself. The claimer has non-pecuniary or moral loss because of his connection with the injured person. He is not the direct and suffering subject but the one who has a loss in his personal rights.

  In Hungary the question is whether these claims can be permitted or not. During the changing structure of damages for non-pecuniary loss in the second half of the 20th century, this problem fitted to the actual judgement of moral damages. Now days the question is a little bit easier: in almost every decision courts admit the right of relatives to claim damages for an injury against there beloved relative, but in most of the cases they demand that plaintiffs has to demonstrate manifested losses not only the infringement of their personality rights.

  In this essay beside the Hungarian jurisdiction I examine German, French, English, Belgian and Dutch legal points of view too. The most interesting and – in my opinion – the one that can be useful for the upcoming new Hungarian Civil Code is the Dutch system.

  Dutch Civil Code limits the possibility of ‘third parties’ to claim damages for non-pecuniary loss as a result of the injury or death of another person. In typical cases the plaintiff would like to claim compensation because he suffered mental illness from witnessing the death of another person, namely a relative. This claim is not awarded by Dutch courts because of the prohibition of Civil Code, but the interpretation of the mentioned provision lives restrictively in jurisdiction. We can find two situations when the claim of third parties can be awarded. First of all, the claimant can only claim for damages, caused by a mental trauma because of being witness of an injury against another person, if he can establish that the aggressor (defendant) also committed an unlawful act vis-à-vis the claimant himself, which resulted in the trauma. It is really difficult to be demonstrated because of the causation required by BW. The process to verify that the aggressor, who committed an unlawful act against another person, causes the trauma is almost impossible in some cases. The second chance of the secondary victim to claim for compensation is if he verifies that the trauma amounts to physical or non-physical injury. If this is the case, the claimant can get compensation of his pecuniary loss (such as cost of medical treatment) and non-pecuniary loss on the basis of his non-physical personal injury.

  A famous case in Dutch case law is ‘Taxi bus case’. A 5-year old little girl was riding her bike close to her home, when a taxi bus overruns her. The bus actually rides over the girl’s head. The mother was immediately warned by one of the neighbours and found her daughter with her face turned to the ground. First, the mother called the ambulance hoping that the girl was still alive. When the mother tried to turn her daughter’s head to look her in the face, she experienced that her hand disappeared into the skull of the girl. The mother noticed that the substance next to her girl’s head was not, as she considered, her vomit, but appeared to be the girl’s brain itself. The mother suffered severe mental illness because of the shock of this sight and the realization. Dutch law is consequent in the question that there is no claim for non-pecuniary damages subsequent to death of a relative.  Taxi bus case was the first when Dutch Supreme Court awarded the right to compensation of non-pecuniary damages to somebody who lost his relative. The decision contained that the act committed towards the child, must also be regarded as tortuous towards the mother. The Court emphasized that there was a distinction between the consequences of the child’s death, for which no non-pecuniary damages may be awarded, and the consequences of the confrontation with the accident, for which damages may indeed be awarded. The mother received 14,000 Euros for non-pecuniary damages. This case shows that although in principle the plaintiff has a right to claim compensation for the exact damages he suffered, the courts are free to assess the damage in a more abstract way, if that corresponds better to its nature.

  Examining this case it is obvious that extra conditions are demanded to claim for non-pecuniary damages because of the loss of a relative. Only the fact of losing a close relative is not enough for a successful action. There have to be special circumstances, which demonstrate that the unlawful act made a direct effect to the plaintiff, who became the primary victim.

  The English solution is interesting because not only the relatives have right to claim but almost anybody who can verify a close relationship with the injured person. In my opinion this system ensures a more coherent and logical jurisdiction, because during the examination of authorization not only a legal fact – being a relative of the injured person – establishes the right to claim but a real emotional relationship.

• A GDPR-ról – különös tekintettel a könyvtárakra és levéltárakra

  63-75

  Tóth Fanni

  Megtekintések száma:

  90

  Nowadays data has become one of the most important value which raises the question of protecting personal data. The European Union responds to the challenge by legal instruments: since 25 May 2018 it has been obligatory for the member states to apply GDPR. In the article, first I study the novelties of GDPR. Then I examine to what extent the provisions apply to libraries and archives.

  The novelties can be divided into several larger groups. Some of them belong to the data subjects (data portability, right to be forgotten, pseudonymisation), the other parts are principles like data protection by design and by default or the closely related accountability principle. The Regulation also introduces a new legal institution, the data-protection impact assessment and requires the notification of personal data breach. Concerning the expected impacts, it is clear that the Regulation strengthens the rights of the data subjects but imposes new obligations on data controllers and strengthens the role of control. GDPR is a determinative law for the undertakings and business life, and it must also be applied by libraries and archives. For archiving purposes in the public interest, however, the Regulation allows for exemptions concerning libraries and archives. The provisions require libraries and archives to identify the risks that may occur while processing personal data as well as to examine their regulations.

• A szellemi alkotások jogának szabályozási kérdései

  27-33.

  Csécsy György

  Megtekintések száma:

  166

  A tanulmány megállapítja, hogy a szellemi alkotásokra vonatkozó szabályozásban a polgári jogi szabályok dominanciája érvényesül. A régi Polgári Törvénykönyv kifejezte a kapcsolódást a szellemi alkotások jogával és szabályozta a know-how jogvédelmét, a joganyag ugyanakkor az ahhoz szervesen kapcsolódó külön jogszabályokban volt fellelhető. Az új Polgári Törvénykönyv, a 2013. évi. V. törvény már nem a szellemi alkotásokhoz fűződő jogok, hanem a „szerzői jog és iparjogvédelem” címet viseli, a know-how pedig az üzleti titok egyik fajtájaként részesült védelemben. A szerzői jog homogén jellegét megtöri a 2016. évi XCIII. törvény, amely a közös jogkezelésről rendelkezik. Az iparjogvédelem területén a legproblematikusabb jogintézmény a know-how volt. Az új Polgári Törvénykönyv szabályai után megszületett 2018. évi LIV. törvény új fejezetet nyit a know-how szabályozása terén. Ezzel kapcsolatban a törvény a 2016/943/EU Irányelvet ülteti át a magyar jogba. A jogalkotó tehát azt a megoldást választotta, hogy az üzleti titok védelmére vonatkozó új fogalmi megközelítést, jogintézményeket és eljárási szabályokat nem a Polgári Törvénykönyvben, hanem egy új jogszabály megalkotása útján tette azokat a nemzeti jog részévé. Ezzel a természetes és jogi személyek magántitkai változatlanul személyiségi jogi védelmet, míg az üzleti titok és a know-how a szellemi tulajdonjogi védelem logikájára és szankciórendszeré épülő védelmet élveznek majd.

• A terhelt vallomásának szerepe a büntetőeljárásban

  111-117

  Mező Annamária

  Megtekintések száma:

  84

  According to our criminal procedure rights which are in force at persent we have to keep in mind the equality of the tools of argumentation and tehir parity. In the sense of this thesis all the proofs must be measured with the same weight excluding the fact that we make distinction between their values, „straingths” from any aspects.

  Examining the practise of criminal produred law we can see that they are in total contrast, namely in the balance of argumentative tools there is still an argumentative tool of personal nature, which breaks this order, this parity. This is nothing else but the statement of the accused person.

  When I chose this topic I thought of the above mentioned ambivalent consideration of the ambivalent statement of the accused person.

  First I would like to outline briefly the connection between the confessions of the accused person and the other argumentative tools, then I want to examine the fact that the accused person must be warned to their right to silence in connection with the „Miranda – decision”.

  After that I would like to describe the right to statement and to silence of the accused as well as the special procedural froms which are in force concerning my topic.

• A sérelemdíj funkció-analízise

  97-117.

  Mátyus András

  Megtekintések száma:

  237

  A 2013. évi V. törvény (Ptk.) – felválta a korábbi, elméleti és gyakorlati ellentmondásoktól terhes nem vagyoni kártérítés jogintézményét – a személyiségi jogok megsértésének önálló szankciójaként vezeti be a sérelemdíjat, mely kettős funkcióval bír: egyrészt célja az, hogy akit személyiségi jogában megsértenek, olyan pénzbeli juttatásban részesüljön, amely az elszenvedett nem vagyoni sérelmeket hozzávetőlegesen kiegyensúlyozza, kompenzálja. Másrészt magánjogi büntetésnek is tekinthető a hasonló jogsértések megelőzése érdekében, preventív jelleggel.

  A cél szerinti értelmezés szerint a sérelemdíj csak akkor kerülhet alkalmazásra, ha az képes betölteni a funkcióját, vagyis ha nem mutatható ki olyan nem vagyoni sérelem, amely arányos jóvátételére (elsődlegesen) hivatott lenne a sérelemdíj, akkor egyáltalán nincs helye megítélésének, hiszen a személyiséget érintetlenül hagyó jogsértések esetében kizárólag a büntető funkció érvényesülne, ami teljesen összeegyeztethetetlen a magánjog eredendően helyreállító, kiigazító jellegével.

  A jogirodalom egyöntetű véleménye szerint az elsőbbség a kompenzációs funkcióé kell, hogy legyen és csak másodlagos helyet foglalhat el a magánjogi büntetés jelleg. Munkám alapján elmondható, hogy sérelemdíjra a bírák is elsősorban az elszenvedett immateriális sérelmeket orvosló, az elveszett életörömök pótlására szolgáló jogintézményként tekintenek és azt kizárólag preventív céllal nem ítélik meg, hanem az esetek döntő részében a prevenciós funkció a marasztalás összegét emelő tényezőként kerül értékelésre.

  Tanulmányomban több szempontból kívánom elemezni, hogy a sérelemdíj kettős funkcióját a bíróságok hogyan értékelik az előttük fekvő ügyekben, melyik jelleg domborodik ki az összegszerűség és melyik a jogalap kapcsán. Lévén a kutatás alapvetően empirikus jellegű, ezért minél több ítélet feldolgozásán keresztül vizsgálom, hogy, milyen szempontokat értékel a judikatúra a kompenzációs (pl.: elszenvedett testi sérülések, lelki változások, életkor, a sértett családi élete, életvitel megváltozása stb…) és milyen szempontokat a prevenciós funkció (pl.: jogsértés súlya, elhúzódó jellege stb…) keretében. Végül meg kívánom válaszolni dolgozatom központi kérdését, vagyis: milyen funkciót tulajdonít a gyakorlat a sérelemdíjnak.

• A drónrepüléssel összefüggő magánjogi igények

  Zsurzsa Zsolt

  Megtekintések száma:

  191

  The technology of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which are most commonly known as ‘drones’, is one of the most rapidly developing field of modern science. That is largely owing to the fact that drones are used in more and more fields of economy, from architecture and media to agriculture and logistics, etc. According to predictions of the European Union, the drone industry may have an income of € 10 billion annually, by 2035, and could create about 100,000 workplaces as well.[2] In addition, the number of hobby drone users is also increasing quickly, with millions of registered drone users in the United States of America alone.[3]

  The nature of drones, namely the fact that these devices can soar up to 30 or more metres in the air and carry out different kind of operations (including taking photographs) by an operator on the ground may cause a lot of conflicts between drone operators and people not taking part in the operation. However, these conflicts, are unlikely to be solved without legal interference, which makes it necessary for both lawmakers and organizations applying the law to prepare for these situations in order to be able to give proper answers to the problem.

  In my research, I have indicated the development of drones in a historical context and also specified the classification of drones, which allowed me to outline those types that are relevant to the subject matter. I also presented the legal background of drone flight in force, on the level of the EU legislation and also gave an insight to the previous, Hungarian legislation. Then, I started to identify those legal claims that can be especially relevant on the terrain of civil law, and concluded three main claims can be named: liability for damages, infringement on personal rights (right to one’s image and, in particular) and the civil tort of trespass to land.

  I analysed all of these claims separately and in connection with each other, and found interesting problems that could have huge relevance in a legal dispute before a court. I intended to support my findings and arguments with opinions from legal scientists, court decisions from Hungary and abroad, and legislative solutions from abroad. At the end of my writing, I concluded that the described problems, and the solution that is given to them, are indeed crucial, because they will most definitely affect the way people can use drones, and neither too strict, nor too loose rules are appropriate to decide upon the subject.

• A software-rel kapcsolatos alapvető szabályok nemzetközi aspektusból – különös tekintettel a német jogi megoldásokra

  Papp Tekla

  Auer Ádám

  Megtekintések száma:

  111

  Competion in the field of Informational Techonology influences our everyday life; a competion realized in a global playground, not reduced into a national framework. Joining the discussion around optimal software protection, we introduce some foreign software regulations in our essay from different given aspects, and finally we analyse German legal solutions regarding softwares. Observation of foreign regulations related to softwares and their protection is needed because there are still a lot of unanswered questions around software as a legal instrument. Inadequacy of copyright to serve protection of softwares and the need to create sui generis protection come up in the latest researches. Furthermore, the number of inventions supported by IT and the number of software supported technological solutions increase in our days, and that moves this legal instrument into the field of patent jurisdictions and industrial property. Efficient legal protection is both a tool and a goal in the system, since elaboration and support of genuine ideas are priority interests. According to our opinion, it is not only the task but also the obligation of private law – as the law regulating basic rights of natural persons and legal entities in personal and financial context – to set up proper regulation in this system.