The system of sanctions is a key element of law enforcement, so it is of particular importance to have a clear and doctrinally based system of sanctions. However, new areas and issues are emerging in the field of administrative sanctions which call into question principles previously thought to be clear and push them in new directions. One such issue is the question of complementary sanctions, which has raised the question of the permissibility of parallel sanctions and is closely linked to the principle of ne bis in idem. The paper outlines the framework in which the main issues of administrative sanctioning arise and shows how they interact. It looks at how fundamental international decisions may affect the frontier issues of administrative sanctions, how Strasbourg and EU practice has evolved, and how this has affected domestic law.

The digital transition has a fundamental impact on everyday life, including the world of work. While working through digital work platforms offers numerous opportunities, it also presents several challenges regarding platform workers’ rights. The paper focuses on platform workers’ right to equal treatment and aims to review the questions and challenges that arise regarding the evaluation of platform workers by consumers. The legal problem is not caused by taking consumer feedback into account per se, but by the fact that the platform relies on such consumer feedback in a different manner and to a different extent than would be the case in traditional employment. Consequently, consumer evaluations and ratings raise several questions regarding the reliability and legality of such feedback. 

The concepts of status and contract are well-established and frequently used analytical categories of good explanatory power in classical and contemporary international labour law literature. Since the interpretation of these concepts varies from era to era and from author to author, recent Hungarian legal literature has paid little attention to the interpretation of legal developments along this theoretical framework, although it could serve as an effective reference point for grasping the trends of existing law. This paper attempts to apply these concepts to describe the regulatory trends in a volatile and conflictual area of law, namely working time.

The principle of sovereignty is one of the cornerstone norms of modern international law. The precise content and meaning of this fundamental principle have changed significantly in historical and political contexts, often sparking intense debates. Today, one of the most critical questions regarding sovereignty is how this principle can be applied in cyberspace. In recent years, the number of hostile cyber operations between states has increased dramatically. By the beginning of the 2020s, various international organizations had already recorded more than a hundred incidents annually. The aim of this study is to examine how international legal literature views the relationship between state sovereignty and cyberspace, to show the current state practice, and to introduce some recent cyber operations that are relevant to the issue.

The United States of America and Europe are each other's most important cooperative partners. This naturally includes the economic relationship based on the transfer of personal data. Over the past nearly decade, this transatlantic data transfer has operated amid continuous legal uncertainties due to the repeated invalidation of the European Commission's adequacy decisions and issues related to the applicability of standard contractual clauses. The problem appears to be currently resolved thanks to the EU-US Data Privacy Framework Decision. However, this Commission decision has already been challenged, and a new procedure is expected to begin this year. The purpose of this study is to conduct a thought experiment to examine the validity of the mentioned decision, which could serve as guidance for future legal practice and provide forecasts for economic actors about expected developments. The paper's conclusion is that due to the unchanged violation of fundamental rights, the EU-US Data Privacy Framework Decision is likely invalid.

Nowadays, it is generally accepted that the lawyers are an essential part of the judicial system, despite the absence of any reference to this in the constitution or other normative provisions. In a market economy, there is no question that a lawyer is remunerated for the work he  performs, and that the lawyer receives this remuneration in the form of fees or reimbursement of expenses from the client who has concluded a contract of engagement with him. In the case of litigation, however, the costs incurred by the lawyer's client may be passed on to the opposing party, since, as a rule, the costs of the successful party, including the lawyer's fees, are to be paid by the unsuccessful party. This paper examines the basic legal provisions that ensure the enforcement of attorney's fees in civil court proceedings, and then presents a number of striking cases that demonstrate that the attorney's representation of his client in civil proceedings is either not compensated at all or only partially compensated in a manner recognised by the court, in the form of a formal injunction binding the opposing party. In the present paper the adequate issues related to the provision of legal representation in civil litigation are presented, on the one hand, from the procedural law and litigation efficiency aspects, on the other hand, from the contractual freedom and thirdly, from the constitutional law aspects, focusing on the judicial practice.  The study describes the change in judicial practice in the spring of 2024. The author seeks an answer to the question whether the principles established by the court practice were due to a legal error, and therefore whether legislative action to eliminate the discrepancies was justified, or whether it was simply a case of an erroneous interpretation of the law by the courts before the spring of 2024, which justified only a change of approach in the court practice within the framework of the existing legal regulation, and therefore no further legislative intervention is necessary.

In the first part of the paper, the authors distinguish between two main forms of working contracts: the traditional one and the one established through an electronic platform. In both cases, if the work is of a fixed (contingent) or more informal nature, an employment relationship exists. The former is a typical employment relationship, while the latter is atypical. Suppose the long-term client/agent becomes an employer and the dependency on it is even looser. In that case, the employee may become a permanent contractor/agent, but this is different in substance from the ad hoc contractor/agent relationship. It should therefore be regulated separately in the Civil Code, together with the employment contract. In the second part of the paper, the authors analyze a judgment in a lawsuit concerning a courier service for the delivery of food through an electronic platform intermediary, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the courier service provider was in a contractor/agent relationship and not in an employment relationship, as qualified by the Court of Cassation. However, the authors argue that the Court of Cassation’s position is also acceptable, which would allow for the classification of dependent self-employment arising from a formal self-employment.

The study examines the risks associated with artificial intelligence (AI) based decision-making and decision-support systems in the decision-making processes of company executives, as well as small and medium-sized enterprises. Due to global trends and digital advancements, company management increasingly faces complex decisions, which AI-based decision-making and decision-support systems may well be suited to support. However, this carries several risks, and the study aims to identify the legal, ethical, and business risks associated with the use of such AI systems, with a particular focus on the decisions made by company executives. The analysis is based on a literature review, which will ultimately be compared with survey responses found in the AI Index Reports published annually by Stanford University.