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

Results found: 13

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
PL
Artykuł stanowi próbę zarówno opisania, jak i sklasyfikowania kontraktu socjalnego jako przykładu zastosowania w zawodzie pracownika socjalnego – umowy o charakterze mieszanym. Opracowanie rozpoczyna się zwięzłą definicją negocjacji i ich elementów kluczowych, następnie wymienia różne rodzaje umów w pomocy społecznej, na zakończenie prezentując nie tylko bardziej szczegółowy opis kontraktu socjalnego, lecz również analizę jego niejednoznacznej natury prawnej.
EN
The paper is an attempt to both describe and classify social contract – as an example and result of negotiation in social work - as a contract of a mixed nature. It starts with a brief definition and crucial elements of negotiations, then lists various sorts of contracts applied to social work, ending up with more detailed description of social contract. It also gives a try to an analysis of its ambiguous nature.
EN
The aim of this article is to decode the European standards of the right to a court, as found in the jurisprudence of the CJEU and the ECHR in the context of the guarantees of judicial independence and judicial impartiality. The above analysis points out that these standards are constantly contextualised and updated due to changes in the normative environment in particular Member States and in the European Union. However, this does not mean that the essence of the values in question cannot be conceptualised and protected in the practice of both European and national courts, as this very study shows. The guarantees of judicial independence and the related impartiality in genere are of universal nature within the set of principles and values that determine the standards of a democratic state of law.
EN
The commented judgement concerns an allegation of discrimination in the recruitment process for studies preparing to become a military doctor, when the national authorities denied a female-applicant the right to take the military medical school entrance exam on the basis of her height (she was 150 cm tall and weighed 44 kg). The Ministry of National Defence argued that the law required all military personnel to be able to perform any mission, and that this meant being able to carry a standard soldier’s kit weighing around 57 kg. The European Court of Human Rights found that the reasons why the applicant was treated differently from other women – who met the weight and height requirements – were not “relevant and sufficient”. In particular, the national courts accepted the MND’s argument equating size with strength. Even though size had recently been eliminated from the list of selection criteria and that the applicant was now free to apply to the military academy of her choice, the Court found that she had been unfairly disadvantaged at the time of her application. The co-authors of the gloss agree with the position of the Court and the reasoning presented, while addressing both: the philosophical grounds of the equality principle and the evolution of the judicial dialogue between the ECHR and the CJEU.
EN
The principle of equal rights for the same obligations is one of the core legal principles. A non-exhaustive catalogue of grounds for discrimination has been listed in the provisions of the constitutional as well as in the European law. This means that only certain grounds for discrimination are specified as examples in those provisions. These include sexual orientation. The commented judgement concerns the allegation of employment and labour discrimination (the so-called conditions for access to self-employment) and the anti-discrimination protection for self-employed persons, i.e. those providing services under a contract for specific work. The Court of Justice of the European Union found that the refusal, based on the sexual orientation of a person, to conclude or renew a contract with that person concerning the performance of specific work by that person in a self-employed activity is a potential factor of discrimination (to be examined by the national court) and cannot be justified by Article 5(3) of the Law on equal treatment. In particular, a position which accepts that freedom of contract allows a refusal to enter into a contract with a person on the basis of that person’s sexual orientation would be to deprive Article 3(1)(a) of Directive 2000/78 of its effectiveness (effet utile), in so far as that provision specifically prohibits any discrimination based on such a ground as regards access to self-employment. The co-authors agree with the position of the Court and with the reasoning presented, while also referring to both: the philosophical grounds of the equality principle and the consequent need for an inclusive approach, and to the concept of judicial dialogue provided by preliminary ruling mechanism.
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.