Based on rationalism, on the recommendation No. Rec(2000)19 of the Council of Europe and so that no conflicts arise from the provisions foreseen in the Framework Decision No. 2001/220/IB of the European Council, the study makes a suggestion to allow the victim to act as a substitute private prosecutor in case of authorities partially deny the investigation. However the authors’ suggestion is just the opposite (i.e. restriction) in case of authorities partially deny indictment. According to their suggestion the above mentioned allowance shall based always on reasonable and respectable circumtances and it shall be declared by the victim why the process at the court has to take place even if authorities were not of this opinion.

When the authors are analyzing the problems caused by the principle of opportunity and legality, and when they make suggestions that the rules regarding the substitute private prosecution shall be modified, they try to draw attention on the importance of this process as a significant right of victims regarding access to justice. The authors are on the opinion that the legislator shall pay not just a marginal attention on the problem when the victims are entitled to act as an substitute private prosecutor.

Absztrakt nélkül

Absztrakt nélkül

Absztrakt nélkül

Absztrakt nélkül

Absztrakt nélkül

Absztrakt nélkül

Absztrakt nélkül

Absztrakt nélkül

The criminal code has had a number of essential revisions during the past years, which has received distinct viewpoints concerning the improvement of punishments from the judiciary in criminal cases. The reasons of modifications can be explained mainly by the different penalty politics coming into prominence, occasionally having respect for different social approaches. It is periodically distinct which activities are indictable offences, which of the punishments serve the prevention of committing an act of crime the best in the fight against criminality. It is interesting to study how these sweeping changes can appear and effect in the daily legal activities. How far can the changes lobby the judges and prosecutors? Which punishment is ideal in the case - suiting to the aim of punishment – in the interest of the protection of society? As a result, analyzing judgments and interviewing some professional jurists (as far as I can) the different requirementson infliction of punishments do not appear immediately in practice and do not appear in the similar way concerning the functions of judges and prosecutors. It is not machines that pass judgement in a case, which could modify the expectation concerning the result.

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.

The shareholders agreement is considered a typical contract. This agreement is concluded by and between the members of the company in order to establish the rules of the cooperation among them, their behaviour towards and expectations from each other in connection with the company.

The agreement is often used in the practice, since its flexible construction enables to rule various types of transaction. For example, in Hungary there is a growing tendency i.e.the major investments and joint venture agreements are being established in the frame of a shareholders’ agreement.

On the other hand, drafting such a contract is a complex procedure. This type of agreement is not governed by specific law, therefore the general rules of the contract law may be linefore. Furthermore the shareholders’ agreement is located at the borderline between the civil and company law, and in a given case it might be complicated to enforce the provisions of the agreement. For example, if the member breaches the voting provision outlined in the shareholders’ agreement, then the resolution passed upon the contract breach cannot be challenged.

Due to lack of a specific law, the practice created the adequate legal securities to ensure the enforcement of the cooperation structure outlined in the shareholders’ agreement.

As the first analysed security, the purpose of the buy-out clauses (Russian Roulette, Texas Shoot-out, Dutch Auction, Put-Option, Call-Option) is to ensure the company’s permanent operation, if there is an insoluble dispute among the members, which obstructs the decision making, and consequently the operation of the company, as well. The concept of the buy-out clause is to settle the dispute in the way of taking over the participation of the involved member by another member.

The exit clauses (Drag Along, Carry Along) aimed to encumber or to unburden the step out from the company. The entitled person is able to sell the shares of the remaining members to the buyer, or to oblige the seller to sell his own and the entitled person’s participations jointly to the buyer.

The takeover clauses’ (Control Flip Over, Swiss Clause) duty is to enable the enforcement of the corporate legal obligations outlined in the agreement. If a member fails to fulfil his obligations, the entitled person may acquire his participation, which will enable him to pass the necessary resolution in the members meeting (general meeting). After the voting, the “seller” is entitled to buy back his participation at the same price.

If the members want to exclude acquiring participation by third persons in the company without their approval, there are adequate securities to be specified in the shareholders’ agreement (for example the right of first refusal, option right).

By the specific type of shareholders’ agreement the creditor makes investments in the company and becomes member in order to secure the transaction. If the company or the original owners of the company breach the contract, they will be held individually liable till the limit of the investmented amount.

The shareholders’ agreement is an efficient option to rule major transactions, and with the help of the securities described in this study, the investor could feel his money in safe. On the other hand, there are still a lot of questions to be answered. For example the compliance of these securities with the strict provisions of the law. It is the duty of the practice to reveal the answers.