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.

In 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.

There are several theories when the birth date of international law was. Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) was the first who systematized these specific rules and raised it to a scientific level. In this essay I examine how Grotius thought about important institutions of international law and what kind of impact these considerations have to our modern age.

War cannot be seen only as an unlawful act, because most of the original human instincts can be recognized in fighting to each other. This point of view proclaims that international law does not denounce war generally. Existence of international law is important to determine the rules of warfare. To suit to the criterions of lawful war, a war should perform two requirements: opposite parties have to be main authorities in their state and both of them have to keep special formal rules during their fight. Main supremacy means that this power is absolute in its territory, so there are no other relevant human factors to limit it. In our age we have to mention that this criterion is no longer applicable without reservation, because the attack against USA on 11th September 2001 demonstrated that not only states can fight to each other.

Grotius gives importance to the reasons of war too. Three reasons exist: defence, regain possession and punishment. Defence means self-defence, which is a right for everybody to protect himself against unlawful injuries, but this solution has to be the last one. Self-defence can be applicable only if it is necessary, sudden and proportional. After the attack against USA a question was born: is it possible to protect before the real attack, when the enemy is in the period of planning an injury. This preventive self-defence is supported by USA, but UN appreciates the right to self-defence only if there is an armed attack against the state. According to Grotius reasons of war can be pretexts or real reasons. Fear of uncertainty can be a pretext for example, because it is not the most proportional instrument to avoid conflict.

Grotius examines not only ius ad bellum but ius in bellum, rights during a war. These regulations are formal obligations, which give frame to the lawful war and show direction to the opposite parties. Grotius says that there are regulations strictly from the law of nature. A great example is that every instrument can be applicable if it is necessary to reach the major aim of war. It is obvious that today this sentence is intolerable, because technical revolution created such weapons that have power to destroy a whole country suddenly. That is why certain prohibited weapons and methods of warfare exist in international treaties. Grotius deals with the problem of traitors, who support the enemy. There is a slight distinction between the nature of dispatched goods. If these goods can be used for fighting, i.e. weapons, traders are enemies too. If these goods are luxury ones, no traitors can be found. The third situation is more problematic, because if these goods can be used in and outside a war too, the exact situation has to examine to judge the intention of the party.

Groitus has interesting thoughts about prisoners. All prisoners and their descendants become slaves. It means the enemy can do anything against prisoners. By now we have certain rules how to treat with prisoners and it is a general regulation that torture and murder against prisoners is strictly prohibited.

An interesting question is in connection with the law of contracts. Hostages and pledge can be typical securities to strengthen a contract. Grotius says that killing a hostage can be lawful, but inner morals order that killing is lawful only if hostage is culpable too.

Grotius deals with the question of ministers, arranging debates. Looking through this huge work of Grotius we can say statement that he is the father of international law is not without basic and well structured reasons. Before the birth of his book, there were only rules and commentaries for national laws. Grotius extended them to a larger perspective, up to an international level.

Partnership under the civil code is a harsh institution in Hungarian legal system. Despite of this fact, most of the European countries apply this legal entity a lot as a background for other, more complicated corporate forms. In my essay I demonstrate those rules in German Civil Code (BGB), which show the importance and opportunities of these partnerships.

If we would like to describe the essentials of partnerships under the Civil Code, the most important question is the legal relations from both inner and external point of view. Internal relations mean an obligation between the parties, who form this partnership. It is natural that we can find both rights and commitments between founders. This is a contract but BGB says that all parties have equal rights and commitments in the same partnership. As a general rule of the Code, it is permissive, not cogent. BGB has basic regulation for operating such a partnership, but can be useful if founders live with this permissive opportunity and shape special rules for their partnership, which fit to their aims, functions, different financial potential of the parties.

There is a chance for founders to neglect building a whole structure and organization for their partnership, if they want to operate it as an inner partnership, without external relations, focusing only for the rights and omissions between the parties.

From all contract that establishes a partnership under the Civil Code membership rights follow. These rights cannot be transferred. A distinction can be made between administrational, common business management and financial rights. Rights to common business management can consist of right to information, right to supervision or the most important right to vote. Financial rights gather typical rights such as right to dividend or liquidity proportion. These rights are social omissions from the viewpoint of the partnership itself, as these are for the interest of the parties.

The most important omissions of the founders are financial contribution to establish the partnership. This regulation results from that partnership is to promote common aim of the founders, and to achieve this, all of them have to make available pecuniary or non-pecuniary assets. According to a special rule of BGB, over against the other corporate forms, members of the partnership have no omission to increase or complete their assets.

Management of the partnership is not only a right but an obligation too. A special omission is that all members and founders have to be loyal to the partnership. Because of the strong partnership character of this corporate form, this means that members have to keep the interest and aim of the partnership in view. They all are responsible for achieving the aim of the partnership and nobody can sit as a beneficiary. Loyal members have to keep secrets in connection with operating the partnership and of course the sudden obligation to inform the others of all events and experiences, which are in tight connection with the partnership and the interests of the parties. If any of the members breach these obligations, rules of damages can be applied in BGB.

Assets of the partnership are special, because no separated corporate assets form. Financial and non-pecuniary contribution becomes the assets of the community of members. It is undividable and common. But these common assets are strictly separated from the private assets of the parties. Rights for profit and deficit are equal, but this permissive rule allows different regulation in the contract. The only cogent sentence is the prohibition of societas leoniana, i.e. nobody can be precluded of profit and deficit.

External relations mean the representation of the partnership. In this case the most important law is the contract itself. In case of disagreement between the parties, there is a helping rule of BGB: members can act as a body. If we take into consideration the rules of liability, we can say that because of the lack of legal capacity of the partnership, individual liability has its important role. Generally this liability is unlimited, but there is a chance to agree with the creditor to limit liability. But this limitation is only valid for that legal transaction.

Rules for partnerships under the Civil Code in Germany are more detailed and nuanced than in Hungary. Partnership is the basic type of civil law partnerships, such as limited partnership or general partnership. We have to consider that building up a more coherent regulation for these partnerships can be useful to categorize atypical corporations.

Without abstract.