Search
Search Results
-
Metamorphosis of the sanction power of local self-governments
2-10Views:46A tanulmány a magyar közigazgatási szankciórendszer körében végbemenő legújabb folyamatokat mutatja be. Ezek közé tartozik a szubjektív és objektív szankciók között megfigyelhető átrendeződés, ahol egyre inkább tért nyernek az utóbbiak. Végigköveti, hogy a változásokat az Alkotmánybíróság hogyan értékelte és rámutat, hogy az alkotmányos testület álláspontja szerint az államnak – olyan jogi elveket betartva, mint a jogállamiság elve vagy az emberi méltóság követelménye - lehetősége van arra, hogy a szankciórendszer körében a közigazgatási jog érvényre juttatása érdekében változásokat hajtson végre, így akár a szubjektív szankciók közül az objektív szankciók közé soroljon át tényállásokat. Ezen változások között szerepel a nagy vitákat kiváltó objektív közigazgatási bírságok bevezetése is, amely új szabályozást az Alkotmánybíróság a 60/2009 (V. 28.) határozata kifejezetten is alkotmányosnak mondta ki az állam életvédelmi kötelezettségére is hivatkozással. 2012-ben több fontos változás zajlott le egyszerre. Az új szabálysértési törvény a büntetőjog irányába mozdult el, miközben megszüntette a helyi önkormányzatok azon jogát, hogy szabálysértést statuáljanak önkormányzati rendelet által. Ezzel párhuzamosan a Magyarország helyi önkormányzatairól szóló törvény eleinte egy felhatalmazás alapján lehetőséget adott a helyi önkormányzatoknak közösségellenes magatartások szankcionálására, amelyet később az Alkotmánybíróság még ugyanebben az évben elvont a 38/2012. (XI. 14.) AB határozat nyomán, megsemmisítve az említett parttalannak minősített felhatalmazást. A határozat emellett azonban más lényeges megállapításokat is tett, így a hajléktalanság szankcionálásáról történt állásfoglalás mellett részletesen elemezte, hogy az új szabálysértési törvény büntető jellege milyen szabályozási elemekben nyilvánul meg. A tanulmány foglalkozik a döntés hatásával, elemzi, hogy a helyi önkormányzatoknak a jelenlegi jogi keretek között - amelyet az Alkotmánybíróság 29/2015. (X. 2.) határozata is megerősített- milyen lehetőségük van szankcióalkotásra, valamint meghatározza azon szempontokat, amely mentén a jogalkotó a helyzetet rendezhetné. A 2012 után kialakult gyakorlat nyomán ugyanis a helyi önkormányzatok részben felhatalmazás nélkül, részben visszautalva az önkormányzati törvény azon rendelkezésére, amely szerint a közösségi együttélés szabályrendszerét meghatározhatja a képviselő-testület, egyre több ilyen szankcionáló rendeletet alkotott. Ezek jogellenessége nem volt már kezdetben sem magától értetődő, hiszen a képviselő-testület szabályozási joga nyilvánvalóan kiterjedt az említett területre, ugyanakkor a helyzetet nehezítette, hogy a szankcionálás keretrendszerét és sarokpontjait a jogalkotó nem jelölte ki. Minden hasonló anomália ellenére egyre több ilyen rendelet született, amelyek megalkotását az Alkotmánybíróság az említett döntés nyomán immáron legalizálta.
-
Civil law dogmatic deficiencies and legislative hiatuses in a private law legislation: Short case study
49-66Views:81Based on the Government Decree 383/2023 (VIII.14.) on the ministerial approval of lease contracts of companies directly or indirectly majority-owned by the state, the article presents a case study showing that the legislation suffers from numerous "legal errors" that violate the provisions of the Legislation Act and is not in line with the fundamental doctrinal principles of civil law. The case study describes in detail the provisions of Act CXXX of 2010 on Legislation that the Government Decree does not comply with and shows how imprecise wording leads to problems of interpretation. The paper points out the private law terminus technicus which the legislator did not apply correctly (the party of the lease contract, consideration, invalidity - ineffectiveness) and the author proposes to correct the errors and to clarify certain normative provisions.
-
Consumer insolvency in the European Union
153-163Views:81Almost all modern civil legal systems respect property rights as a privileged and fundamental right, which means the property rights of individuals cannot be restricted or taken away without due process of law. In the case of insolvency proceedings, the person's right to property is violated, as the debtor is deprived of this right, at least partially. In such situations, the property rights of the debtor and the creditor are strained against each other, even to such level that the debtor's livelihood and alimentation is threatened by the satisfaction of the creditor's demands. During insolvency proceedings, we should restore the property rights relationship that was broken on the part of the creditor as a result of the debtor's behavior at the expense of the debtor's assets, ensuring that the debtor's interests are also protected, and that the proceedings take into account the interests of both parties. National lawmakers should, therefore, take several aspects into account to create the material and procedural legislation on the basis of which property of private individuals can also be subject to insolvency proceedings. Lawmakers should act in an environment where, due to the impact of globalization, it is no longer evident that the debtor and the creditor are citizens of the same country. This is the reason it is also important to examine how the European Union regulates insolvency proceedings in the case of consumer over-indebtedness in a manner that crosses national borders and still remains inside the Union.
-
Fragmentation and changes in Hungarian succession law
81-103Views:219The right to inherit is recognized in the Fundamental Law, the detailed substantive legal rules are laid down in the Seventh Book of the Civil Code. In recent years, the legislator has formulated rules of substantive succession in other legislation beyond our private law code (the Civil Code). According to the Registered Partnership Act, the rules applicable to the spouse apply mutatis mutandis to the registered partner, which means that the registered partner is also a legal heir. The special rules for the acquisition of ownership of agricultural and forestry land by succession by will are laid down in the Land Traffic Act (Act CXXII of 2013). On 1 January 2023, a new law will enter into force (Act CXLIII of 2021), which will supplement the succession law provisions of the Civil Code in the case of joint legal intestate succession of undivided common ownership of agricultural land by several heirs. The designation of a public body to represent the State in succession matters is provided for in a separate ministerial decree. The present article analyzes how all these complex, fragmented regulations make it difficult to enforce the law and the extent to which it hinders the speedy execution of probate proceedings. The present article criticizes the fragmented regulation and proposes the integration of the rules of the separate laws into the Civil Code, as this could contribute to a more efficient application of the law.
-
The Right to Information Self-Determination after the General Data Protection Regulation
Views:299Regulation (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 (General Data Protection Regulation), became effective on 25 May 2018. With the regulatory form the legislator raised the regulation of the right to the protection of personal data within the European Union to a higher level. The legislative act has a fundamental impact on the legal systems of the member states showing various differences from each other. Further, it can be stated as a general experience that the right to the protection of personal data and the nature of such right are less known either to those affected or to the data controllers. The new legislative act and the penalties with increased amounts [Article 84 of the GDPR] demand the elaboration of a study understandable for laics, too. Finally, as a result of the General Data Protection Regulation, the institution system ensuring the protection of personal data has fundamentally changed, so, therefore, it is also necessary to examine the authorities of the member states and the Union, as well.
The study primarily approaches the occurring problems from the practice side. Accordingly, the examination conducted by the Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL) against Google is described, as the first significant penalty imposed based on the General Data Protection Regulation.
The first part of the study is intended to present the right to the general protection of personal data. The historical part addresses in details the major elements of the historical development of data protection and the development of its contents, with particular regard to the appearance of the right to information self-determination based on the so-called “census-judgement” of 1983 of the BVerfG (Federal Constitutional Court of Germany). Finally, this part touches upon the theories defined in connection with the historical generations of the right to the protection of personal data. After the historical part the study addresses the peculiarities of the right to the protection of personal data, paying particular attention to separation from the neighbouring legal areas.
The second part is intended to present the prevalence of the right to information self-determination according to the GDPR. It is the institution system protecting personal data that has undergone the most significant change. The Work Group under Article 29 has been replaced by the Data Protection Agency set up based on the GDPR. Setting up the Agency, enlarging its scope of authority and its stronger independence from the executive powers of the Union can, by all means, be evaluated positively. As regards the security of personal data, the practice, major directives and opinions of the Work Group under Article 29 have been examined. It is a significant step forward that the GDPR has made the sphere of special personal data more specific, promoting by this the increase of the extent of protection. It is important that, as a general rule, the Regulation forbids controlling special personal data. The definition of the concept of personal data is an essential condition for understanding the regulation. In addition to the principles of controlling personal data, the legal fundaments of data control have particular significance, with special regard to the consent and the data control necessary for performing the contract. In my view, the consent is a legal fundament of auxiliary nature for data control, which is also supported by the opinions of the Work Group, too. Granting the consent and the individual excluding circumstances occurring in connection with this, were examined on a case-by-case basis. In my opinion, the automated decision making process and the regulation of profile creation are one of the most cardinal issues of the GDPR. The way in which profiles are created, their use and the permissibility of such use are discussed in details. In my view, the regulation of the GDPR is deficient as regards the automated decision making process and the profile creation. The decision making necessary for performing the contract is not separated sharply enough, and it is not necessary for this. In my opinion, in respect of this latter sphere of cases the GDPR is not strict enough and may easily serve as a basis for misuse on the part of data controllers. In my view, granting the consent should be made stricter in respect of creating profiles and the introduction of the (contradictable) legal presumption of refusal would also be desirous.
-
Possibilities of workplace mediation in the European Union
1-13.Views:374The world of labor market and industrial relations is a field where conflicts and disputes are inevitable characteristics of the operation, regardless of the form of employment. Also, labor disputes appear both from an individual aspect, where the disputants are the employer and the employee, and in a collective respect, where the disputes take place between the employer(s) and the collective of the workers, typically represented by an employee organization (union) or a works council.
When a conflict or a dispute cannot be resolved through negotiation, the law offers dispute resolution mechanisms for the participants. Therefore, several legal mechanisms have been evolved in order to resolve disputes, starting from the classical form of litigation, where a court determines the end of the dispute by its judgement, and other alternative forms of dispute resolution, such as arbitration, mediation and conciliation, where the parties can reach a decision or a settlement outside of the judicial system of the state.
EU Member States have introduced various legislative rules for labor dispute resolution covering all manner of individual and collective disputes. ADR schemes are also supported by the ILO, as the ILO Recommendation No. 92 (1951) suggests that voluntary conciliation should be made available to assist in the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes between employers and workers. Within the aegis of the European Union, several instruments have emerged with the attempt to elaborate the basic principles for the operation of ADR schemes in the context of cases between businesses and consumers. The Directive 2013/11/EU on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes (the “ADR Directive”) and Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes (the “ODR Regulation”) ensured that consumers could turn to quality alternative dispute resolution entities for all kinds of contractual disputes with traders, and established an EU-wide online platform for consumer disputes that arise from online transactions with traders.
Workplace mediation is widely and successfully utilized in the USA for solely employment purposes both in the private and the public sector. Also, in the United States is a “employment at will” doctrine prevails, that basically means – unless stipulated to the contrary by the parties – the employment relationship can be terminated with immediate effect without any justification (just cause), thus workers do not have access to legal remedies as in the EU where the statutory laws provide a broad protection against arbitrary or unjust termination. Mediation, however, provide an effective solution for employees and workers, even if situated outside the protective scope of labor law.
While the role of customer/consumer ADR and mediation is increasing throughout the whole European Union, workplace and employment mediation still constitutes a “grey zone”. In many of the legal instruments of the EU and also in several products of the national legislations, consumers and workers are treated with the same legal awareness, thus protective laws compensate their weaker position in their legal relationships, but as far as the utilization and access of dispute resolution schemes are concerned, a significant but not always reasonable differentiation can be detected. Also, while mediation is an available tool for individual employment matters, still has not been utilized considerably, and remained an instrument only to resolve mostly collective conflicts. Therefore, the aim of this paper to present various styles of mediations from a comparative perspective, to express their biggest advantages and to highlight the areas where mediation could be more suitable to use in the context of the individual disputes of the workplace.