Keresés
Keresési eredmények
-
A polgári eljárások egyszerűsítése az Európai Unióban, különös tekintettel a kis pertárgyértékű ügyek szabályozására
Megtekintések száma:33Introduced to reduce obstacles to the free movement of goods and persons, judicial cooperation in civil matters has become part and parcel of the new European area of justice. Creation of this area is meant to simplify the existing legal environment and to reinforce citizens' feeling of being part of a common entity. The Conclusions of the Tampere European Council state in this respect that “in a genuine European Area of Justice individuals and businesses should not be prevented or discouraged from exercising their rights by the incompatibility or complexity of legal or administrative systems in the Member States.”
At present, the judicial cooperation in civil procedures is based on the Hague Programme, adopted by the 2004 Europen Council in Bruxelles.The Hague Programme requires that the Commission should translate the Hague objectives into concrete measures. To this end, the Annex to the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the. European Parliament on the Hague Programme, consists of an Action Plan listing the main actions and measures to be taken over the next five years, including a specific set of deadlines for their presentation to the Council and the European Parliament.
The chapter dealing with this area is named „Strengthening justice”, and it includes amongst others the following tasks:
- Specific Programme on Judicial Cooperation in Civil and Commercial Matters (2007)
- Support by the Union to networks of judicial organisations and institutions (continuous)
- Creating a „European Judicial culture”
- Evaluation of quality of justice (Communication - 2006)
- Creation, from the existing structures, of an effective European training network for judicial authorities for both civil and criminal matters (2007)
The European Union has set itself the objective of maintaining and developing the European Union as an area of freedom, security and justice in which the free movement of persons is ensured. For the gradual establishment of such an area, the Community is to adopt, among others, the measures relating to judicial cooperation in civil matters needed for the proper functioning of the internal market.
The Community has among other measures already adopted Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 of 29 May 2000, on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters; Council Decision 2001/470/EC of 28 May 2001, establishing a European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters; Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters; Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004, creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims; Council Directive 2002/8/EC, of 27 January 2003, to improve access to justice in cross-border disputes by establishing minimum common rules relating to legal aid for such disputes; Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003, of 27 November 2003, concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) 1347/2000; Regulation (EC) No 805/2004, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004, creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims; Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council creating a European order for payment procedure; Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Small Claims Procedure.
The disproportionate cost of litigation for small claims has led many Member States to provide simplified procedures for claims of small value which are intended to provide access to justice at a lower cost, thus influencing one of the three factors that determine the rationales in dispute resolution. The details of these procedures have been investigated and documented in detail in studies prepared for the Commission. The evidence from these reports suggests that the costs and timescale associated with the domestic simplified measures, and thus their use and utility to claimants, varies widely. A 1995 study for the Commission found evidence of how costs of cross-border claims were significant compared to the size of most potential claims, and that these costs varied substantially between Member States. The total costs of pursuing a cross-border claim with a value of € 2.000 was found to vary, depending on the combination of Member States, from € 980 to € 6.600, with an average quoted figure of € 2.489 for a proceeding at the plaintiff’s residence. The study also showed that due to different and conflicting costing rules part of the costs have to be paid even by successful plaintiffs.
On 20 December 2002, the Commission adopted a Green Paper on a European order for payment procedure and on measures to simplify and speed up small claims litigation. The Green Paper launched a consultation on measures concerning the simplification and the speeding up of small claims litigation.
The European Small Claims Procedure is meant to simplify and speed up litigation concerning small claims, whilst reducing costs, by offering an optional tool in addition to the possibilities existing under the laws of the Member States. This Regulation should also make it simpler to obtain the recognition and enforcement of a judgment given in a European Small Claims Procedure in another Member State, including judgements which were initially of a purely domestic nature. In order to facilitate the introduction of the procedure, the claimant should commence the European Small Claims Procedure by completing a claim form and lodging it at the competent court or tribunal. In order to reduce costs and delays, documents should be served on the parties by registered letter with acknowledgment of receipt, or by any simpler means such as simple letter, fax or email. The procedure should be a written procedure, unless an oral hearing is considered necessary by the court. The parties should not be obliged to be represented by a lawyer. The court should be given the possibility to hold a hearing through an audio, video or email conference. It should also be given the possibility to determine the means of proof and the extent of the taking of evidence according to its discretion and admit the taking of evidence through telephone, written statements of witnesses, and audio, video or email conferences. The court should respect the principle of an adversarial process. In order to speed up the resolution of disputes, the judgment should be rendered within six months following the registration of the claim. In order to speed up the recovery of small claims, the judgment should be immediately enforceable notwithstanding any possible appeal and without the condition of the provision of a security. In order to reduce costs, when the unsuccessful party is a natural person and is not represented by a lawyer or another legal professional, he should not be obliged to reimburse the fees of a lawyer or another legal professional of the other party. In order to facilitate recognition and enforcement, a judgment given in a Member State in a European Small Claims Procedure should be recognised and enforceable in another Member State without the need for a declaration of enforceability and without any possibility of opposing its recognition. Since the objectives of the action to be taken namely the establishment of a procedure to simplify and speed up litigation concerning small claims, and reduce costs, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore be better achieved at Community level, the Community may adopt measures in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty. In accordance with the principle of proportionality as set out in that Article this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve those objectives.
The European Council underlines the need further to enhance work on the creation of a Europe for citizens and the essential role that the setting up of a European Area for Justice will play in thisrespect. A number of measures have already been carried out. Further efforts should be made to facilitate access to justice and judicial cooperation as well as the full employment of mutual recognition. It is of particular importance that borders between countries in Europe no longer constitute an obstacle to the settlement of civil law matters or to the bringing of court proceedings and the enforcement of decisions in civil matters.
-
A fellebbezés elintézése a harmadfokú büntetőeljárásban
120-137Megtekintések száma:73The questions of remedy are in close relations with the legal force. The legal force of the
clinching decisions represents the final, irreversible decision about the demand of penal law,
which decision is a guideline and undeniably binding for all, and cannot be attacked with an
ordinary appeal.
The legal force of other decisions with the capacity to have legal force defines a decision
which is final, irreversible, a guideline for all, obligatory (independent of executability) and
cannot be attacked with an appeal.
Furthermore, there are the decisions with formal legal force, the legal force of which stands
only for not being appealable.
A valid decision can only be made about the factual and legal basis of criminal responsibility
by the court that is entitled and obligated to do it, that is, only the court has a right during
criminal procedure to decide whether there was a crime or not, and if yes, who committed it.
In relation to this, the question of material legal force can only regard the constituted charge
and the act in consideration, when the court makes a permanent decision about the demand of
penal law, in the framework of the substantive judging of the act that became the object of
prosecution.
Lodging an appeal on legal grounds shall be governed by the provisions set forth in Chapter
XV of the Criminal procedure Act. The judgement of the court of second instance may be
appealed at the court of appeal. The appeal against the judgement of the court of second
instance may involve any of the dispositions therein or exclusively the justification thereof.
An appeal may be lodged for legal or factual reasons. An appeal suspends the part of the judgement to become final which is to be reviewed by the court of appeal owing to the appeal.
The third remedy is allowed only in cases where the first and second instance decision is
absolutely different in the question of guilty. -
A büntetőjogi mediáció gyakorlati aspektusai
1-12Megtekintések száma:98Mediation is a conflict-management method designed to achieve restorative justice (offenders should assume responsibility and pay the penalty for their deeds, with the greatest emphasis on reparation of the victim, and the affronted community should be conciliated). This method may be applied to solving a variety of disputes or conflicts (e.g. disputes involving neighbours, families, couples, and companies).
The mediation technique has already been used in the fields of civil law, family law and employment law. From 2007 onwards, it can also be applied in criminal procedures. According to Article 221/A of the Code on Criminal Procedure (Act XIX of 1998) the mediation process may be used in criminal procedures dealing with certain offences against the person, property or traffic offences if the crime is punishable with no more than five years imprisonment, and the offender has made a confession during the criminal investigation. -
Gondolatok a pótmagánvádról
Megtekintések száma:68In Hungary the new code of criminal procedure established a new legal institution to the Hungarian legal system: accessory private prosecution. This kind of private prosecution gives opportunity to the afflicted person to continue penal procedure in case of negative sentences from investigation authorities. If the prosecutor or the investigation authority stops proceeding or the prosecutor sets aside, withdraws formal accusation, afflicted person can substitute them during a penal procedure and has a right to claim the continuation of it. Our valid code does not limit the field of crimes this legal institution of accessory private prosecution can be applied. But there are some strict reasons, which limit this right of the afflicted person. If the investigation authorities neglected formal accusation because of childhood, death, prescription, clemency, prohibition of ne bis in idem, accessory private prosecution cannot be applied.
Pros of accessory private prosecution can be found in the rights of afflicted persons. Criminal power of the state cannot be absolute, so we have to give the right for the injured to judge whether he insists on taking the responsibility of the perpetrator despite the opposite opinion of public bodies. This legal institution can help omissions of prosecutors to be remedied. Practicing this right depends on the stadium of the procedure. During the investigation period or the period of formal accusation reasons for accessory private prosecution are different.
According to the new rules of the code, applying an advocate in the procedure is an obligation for the afflicted person. This regulation ensures that the structure of penal proceedings cannot be changed basically. In a normal procedure there is always a professional expert, the prosecutor on the side of accusation. That is why the code does not permit accusation without applying an advocate.
Costs are interesting question in case of accessory private prosecution. In popular action procedures costs are paid by the state. When the afflicted person practices the right of accessory private prosecution, state pays in advance, but if perpetrator is acquitted or the court stops proceeding, costs should be paid by the private prosecutor himself. There are some rules to ease this burden for the afflicted person: if he has bad financial capacity and he can certify this circumstance, court can authorize him not to pay for the fee of the advocate.
There is a special question in connection with accessory private prosecution: representation of the state. In these procedures the afflicted person is the state or one of the state bodies itself. There are two points of view to answer the question: who is authorized to represent the state as an accessory private prosecutor during a penal procedure. First we have to make difference between the injuries: if the injury is against the state while practising public authority, the injured party is the state itself. But if the injury hit the state as a civil legal entity, a possessor, the right to claim is in the hand of that public body, which was entrusted to handle the injured property. This theory means that in case of injuries against the public author state, only the prosecutor can represent it, so there is no chance for accessory private prosecution.
The other solution for this problem has its starting point that in every crime against public property, accessory private prosecution can be applied. In this case the state can be represented by that part of it, which has interest. Although there are no jurisdiction in this question, because accessory private prosecution was established by the new code from 1st July 2003 after fifty years into the Hungarian legal practice. According to the regulations of the code, we can find the following sentence: afflicted person is whose right or legal interest was hurt or endangered by the crime. Analyzing this definition the argument can be read previously is decent for those situations, when we would like to find the legal representative of the state as an accessory private prosecutor.
Accessory private prosecution is a good solution that fits to the new directions of law development, to increase rights of the afflicted person. Naturally, time needs to become a well-adopted legal institution in Hungarian legal system after half a century silence.
-
Ítélkezési állandók és vitás kérdések az erkölcsi kártérítés újabb magyar joggyakorlatában
Megtekintések száma:54Since 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.
-
A bírói munkateher mérésének és az ügykiosztás rendjének alapjogi, munkajogi és emberi erőforrás menedzsment megközelítésű vizsgálata
5-44Megtekintések száma:95Jelen tanulmányban rávilágítok arra, hogy a hazai bíróságok ügyelosztási rendjei, az azon alapuló ügykiosztás (vagy igazgatási szaknyelv szerint: szignálás) rendje, módszerei, valamint a bírói munkateher mérése számos alapjogi és alapelvi kérdést felvet. Az alapjogi megközelítés azonban nem csak az Alaptörvényben lefektetettek vizsgálatát tehetik szükségessé, hanem fontos lehet ezzel összefüggésben azt is elemezni, hogy ezek mely szervezeti emberi erőforrás menedzsment tényezőkkel hozhatóak összefüggésbe és milyen módon. Álláspontom szerint a bírákra nehezedő munkateher és annak „menedzselése”, mint alapjogi és egyben munkajogi kérdés HR kapcsolódási pontja elsősorban (de nem kizárólagosan) az ösztönzésmenedzsment és annak eszköztára lehet.
-
Gondolatok az élethez való jog és a jogellenességet kizáró okok viszonyáról
3-9Megtekintések száma:161A modern polgári demokratikus berendezkedésű államokban az élethez való jog alkotmányos alapjog, mely a legnagyobb értéket, az emberi életet védi. Bár e jog elismerése és védelme megkérdőjelezhetetlen a modern társadalmakban, mégis számos esetben merülhet fel az élethez való jog korlátozhatóságának problematikája.
Munkámban arra a kérdésre kerestem a választ, hogy az élethez való jog a jogellenességet kizáró okok tükrében korlátozható alapjognak tekinthető-e, avagy sem. Miután megvizsgáltam e jog megjelenését az Alkotmányban, illetve az Alaptörvényben, illetve megvizsgáltam a kapcsolatát a jogos védelemmel és a végszükséggel, arra jutottam, hogy ezek a jogellenességet kizáró okok kétség kívül az élethez való jog korlátait jelentik.
Az Alaptörvény újítása, hogy a jogos védelmet alapjogi szintre emelte. Az Alkotmány és a régi Btk. hatálya alatt sem volt vitás, hogy az élet ellen irányuló jogtalan támadás a támadó életének kioltása árán is elhárítható. A problémát az jelenti, ha az egymásnak feszülő jogi érdekek, a védett jogi tárgyak heterogének, mely eset fennállhat a tisztán vagyon elleni támadások esetén. Különösen problematikus az új Btk. által bevezetett szituációs jogos védelemnek az az esete, mely felhatalmazást ad a lakásba éjjel történő jogtalan behatolás esetén a behatoló életének kioltására. Mivel ebben az esetben nem tisztázott, hogy a támadás az élet, avagy a vagyoni javak ellen irányul, véleményem szerint helyesebb lett volna meghagyni a bírói szabad mérlegelés lehetőségét.
A végszükséggel kapcsolatban a bizonyos hivatást űző személyek megítélése a problematikus, ugyanis a törvény kizárja e jog hatálya alól azokat, akiknek a veszély vállalása foglalkozásuknál fogva kötelességük. Tekintettel arra, hogy mind a jogos védelem, mind a végszükség megengedhetőségének indoka az, hogy az emberi természettel összeegyeztethető, jómagam nem látom indokát annak, hogy ebből a jogból bárki is ki legyen zárva.