Search

Search Results

• A new draft of classification of claims: Reinstating of Bankruptcy Rules in the Provisional Judicial Rules

  66-77.

  Máté Pétervári

  Views:

  121

  After the failure of the Hungarian Independence War of 1848-1849, the neoabsolutism which was the ruling of the Franz Joseph I from 1851 to 1860 reformed the Hungarian legal system. The emperor aimed at legal unification of Austrian Empire therefore he introduced the Austrian codes to Hungary. In 1860 the Austrian emperor eased the absolutistic government attitude with the issuing of the October Diploma and restored the Hungarian jurisdiction and public administration system which functioned before 1847. He charged the Lord Chief Justice, gr. György Apponyi who was recently appointed by him with the realisation of this restitution. That’s why Apponyi summoned a meeting for the Hungarian lawyers in 1861 which called the Conference of the Lord Chief Justice. This assembly specified the material and procedural law for the Hungarian courts.

  In this paper I examine the effect of this conference on the bankruptcy law, and I present the provisions of the Conference of Lord Chief Justice concerning bankruptcy law and the driving forces of the regulation based on the assembly’s records. The conference put into force the first Hungarian Bankruptcy Act (Act 22 of 1840) instead of the Austrian provisional bankruptcy procedure. The Hungarian literature typically includes about this regulation that the assembly only adjusted material and procedural rules of the Bankruptcy Act to the requirements of the civil era. I demonstrated with archival sources and views of conference’s participants that the modifications generated bigger changes in the Hungarian bankruptcy practice. In addition, the first appearance of the deed of arrangement without bankruptcy proceedings in Hungary was connected to the neoabsolutism of which the Hungarian lawyers expressed their opinions.

• Civil law claims in the context of drone flight

  Zsolt Zsurzs

  Views:

  174

  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.