Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 2

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Content available remote

Role soudů při dotváření správního práva

100%
EN
The participation of courts in law making has undoubtedly been happening for many years already; in the Czech Republic, we started to talk about the issue relatively recently, it was first explicitly mentioned in the academic literature mostly reflecting the impact of German authors, at the beginning of this century. The starting point of this article is the fact, that courts participate in law making when the law is applied against the clear diction of the law, when courts find in the legal texts one of many possible loopholes. The fact is that courts can reveal relatively arbitrarily another ones, and furthermore, courts often participate in law making without pronouncing any loophole expressively, namely under a situation, where the text of the regulation is entirely clear and indisputable. As it can be seen from the examples mentioned above, the boundaries or limits of such activity of courts complete are shifted permanently and increasingly and when such activity is undertaken by the supreme judicial authority or by the Constitutional Court, there can be found no means for remedy. There is no doubt, that the above mentioned tendency has become reality, however, there is no doubt, that courts should abide rather by the principle of self-restraint, otherwise, one of the main principle of the legal state will be threatened permanently, and that is legal certainty.
EN
The need for effective sanctioning of the infringements which amount to administrative offenses in the field of personal data protection arises primarily from EU law, which is based on the requirement of an effective threat of sanctions in the form of effet utile. The imposed sanctions must therefore have a sufficiently deterrent effect, both in terms of possible recidivism on the part of the offender himself and in terms of other entities. However, the Czech legislator has chosen a different path for some entities (public authorities and public entities), which, on the basis of the Adaptation Act, leads to the obligation of the supervisory authority to waive administrative sanctions for these privileged entities without further ado. Although the fact that some categories of entities have different procedural or substantive regimes can generally be accepted, in the present case the legislator chose a problematic method of implementation (adaptation), which in essence completely misses the intended purpose of the EU personal data protection system, and in addition to entities that are usually the largest controllers of personal data in the Czech Republic. The article thus deals with related aspects and consequences of this erroneous adaptation, whether it is the fulfillment of the principle of equality and non-discrimination, the principles of administrative punishment, as well as aspects of indirect public support in competition and other related issues. Scholars are critical of this adaptation of regulation, concluding that the chosen method of adaptation creates strong unconstitutional inequality, leads to indirect public support in competition relations and at the same time does not meet other parameters imposed by national and EU law on this regulation.
CS
Nutnost účinně sankcionovat protiprávní jednání naplňující skutkové podstaty správních deliktů v oblasti ochrany osobních údajů vyplývá pro Českou republiku primárně z unijního práva, které stojí na požadavku efektivní hrozby sankcí v podobě užitečného účinku (effet utile). Udělované sankce tak musí mít dostatečně odrazující účinek, a to jak z hlediska případné recidivy ze strany samotného delikventa, tak i z hlediska ostatních subjektů. Český zákonodárce však u některých subjektů (orgány veřejné moci a veřejné subjekty) zvolil jinou cestu, která na základě adaptačního zákona vede k povinnosti dozorového orgánu od správní sankce u těchto privilegovaných subjektů bez dalšího upustit. Tento způsob implementace (adaptace) se ve své podstatě míjí se sledovaným účelem unijního systému ochrany osobních údajů, a to navíc u subjektů, které představují zpravidla největší správce osobních údajů v České republice. Článek se tak zabývá souvisejícími aspekty a důsledky této chybné adaptace, ať již jde o naplňování principu rovnosti a nediskriminace, principy správního trestání, či o aspekty nepřímé veřejné podpory v hospodářské soutěži a další související otázky. Autoři se k této adaptační úpravě staví kriticky, přičemž dovozují, že zvolený způsob adaptace zakládá silnou protiústavní nerovnost, v soutěžních vztazích pak vede k nepřímé veřejné podpoře a současně nesplňuje další parametry, jež na tuto úpravu klade vnitrostátní a unijní právo.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.