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

Results found: 6

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  state liability
help Sort By:

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

Basic concepts and current developments of Latvian administrative law

100%
Danovskis E.
Prawo
|
2019
|
issue 327
231-242
EN
The article outlines some basic elements of Latvian administrative law, namely the civil service system, state liability law and administrative offence law. The Latvian civil service system is characterized as a decentralized position model, and concepts of “decentralization” and “position” model are briefly described. In the context of state liability law a recent development of the introduction of the concept of “non-material harm” is outlined, explaining why Latvian administrative law has abandoned the concept of “moral harm” used previously. Regarding administrative offence law the article describes the most significant changes to be introduced into legislation in 2018
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Compensation Liability for Damages Incurred while Exercising Public Authority: a Basic Pillar of Democratic State Ruled by Law

100%
Cebera A., Wróbel A.
Polish Political Science Yearbook
|
2016
|
vol. 45
178–190
EN
The leading aim of this paper is to portray the constitutional institution of compensation liability for unlawful acts of public authorities in Polish law related to the development of general principle concerning democratic rule of law. Compensation for damages brought upon the citizens by civil servants constitutes a basic pillar of contemporary democratic state, because it guarantees acting by public authorities in compliances with law and deepen trustfulness. It is also said that the state of the above–mentioned institution indicates the development of democracy.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

State Liability for Judicial Decisions Infringing EU Law – the Polish Experience

100%
Michalak M., Dębicki J.
Adam Mickiewicz University Law Review
|
2022
|
vol. 14
139-161
EN
The liability of Member States for damages caused by the issuance of a judicial decision in breach of EU law has been shaped in the jurisprudence of the CJEU, as a mechanism to ensure effective legal protection of EU citizens. Its primary purpose is to ensure that in a situation where a court of a Member State causes damage to a citizen by violating EU laws by its ruling, the citizen has a legal remedy to obtain compensation for such a violation. Based on the principle of procedural autonomy of the Member States, such claims can be asserted on the grounds of national procedural rules under the substantive legal grounds laid down by the CJEU in its case law.Research conducted by the authors of the article indicates that despite more than 18 years of Poland’s presence in the European Union, it is extremely difficult to find rulings on liability for damages for breach of EU law by Polish courts. It seems that such a state of affairs may be caused by ambiguities and interpretative doubts that arise on the grounds of Polish procedure in the case of claims for damages for breach of EU law by the courts. Both in the doctrine and case law there are far-reaching divergences as to whether the pre-judgment provided for in the Polish Civil Code should apply to claims for breach of EU law, and if so, when it should be applied. These doubts are reflected in the scant judicial case law on the issue in question. It seems that the indicated procedural doubts and lack of clarity as to the proper procedure in pursuing such claims may deter parties from more frequent initiation of proceedings to obtain compensation for breach of EU law by a national courts in the Polish context.
4
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Dyskusja na temat odpowiedzialności odszkodowawczej państwa za szkody wyrządzone przez bezprawne działania urzędników na Kongresie Prawników Niemieckich w Kilonii w 1906 roku

89%
Adamczyk A.
Opolskie Studia Administracyjno-Prawne
|
2017
|
vol. 15
|
issue 2
131-146
PL
One of the most important legal problems discussed in the 19th century by German lawyers was that of state liability due to damages resulting from illegal acts of its officials. An influential forum of exchange of ideas was the German Association of German Jurists which organized all-German congresses to solve legal questions in order to promote German unity. Although the problem of state responsibility was discussed at some of the Association congresses in the 19th century, the most interesting was that held in Kiel in 1905. It was due to the fact that many German states had at that time legal regulations concerning state liability, but they were quite different. That generated many complications, making realization of a legal unity within the German Reich difficult. Two proposals for solving this situation were presented at the Congress in Kiel by Otto von Gierke and Rudolf von Herrnritt. Their ideas constituted bases for the discussion which followed. The paper presents the discussion on the state liability, which took place at the Congress in Kiel.
5
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Bezprawność a niezgodność z prawem na tle „kodeksowej” odpowiedzialności odszkodowawczej władzy publicznej.

75%
Pałka A.
Państwo i Społeczeństwo
|
2015
|
issue 1
37-46
EN
Present model of state liability contained in art. 417 and art. 4171 of the Civil Code maps and concrete content of art. 77 § 1 of the Constitution. Abovementioned provisions combines the state liability to the occurrence of illegality, rather than unlawfulness that is rooted in the general principles of tort liability. Mentioned periods are not identical, and the fact that legislature use the term contained in constitutional norm suggest meaning of the term set out in the judgment of the Tribunal of 4 December 2001, ref. No. SK 18/00 act, OTK 2001 No. 8, item. 256. (i.e. strict recognition of the term involving only denial of behavior that includes orders and prohibitions under the current rules, agreed with regard to the constitutional recognition of the sources of law). It should be noted, however, that due to the nature of certain official actions, violations range implying state liability should be subjected to additional restriction to allow effective functioning of certain institutions and state authorities.
6
Content available remote

Odpovědnost státu za škodu a autonomie Parlamentu: Kancelář Poslanecké sněmovny a Kancelář Senátu jako ústřední správní úřady

63%
Červinka L. L.
Právník. Teoretický časopis pro otázky státu a práva (The Lawyer - Scientific Review for Problems of State and Law)
|
2023
|
vol. 162
|
issue 9
858-866
EN
The more complex the state becomes, the more the formal view of the separation of powers proves insufficient. This article seeks to demonstrate, through the example of the state liability for damage caused by an unlawful decision or an incorrect official procedure, the extent to which the fluid separation of powers forces us to reconsider the nature and status of the Office of the Chamber of Deputies and the Office of the Senate as mere service bodies of the chambers of Parliament and, in situations where they carry out state administration activities, to grant them the status of a central administrative authority. Using the example of the State Liability Act, the article discusses in detail the unsustainability of the purely institutional understanding of the concept of a central administrative authority and uses the Office of the Chamber of Deputies and the Office of the Senate as examples to show why its functional interpretation is essential. However, the issue of the status of the Office of the Chamber of Deputies and the Office of the Senate also has a constitutional dimension since Parliament, or rather its chambers, realises its constitutional autonomy through the activities of these bodies. The article, therefore, also examines the question of whether it is compatible with the constitutional autonomy of the Parliament for the executive branch to act for the State in the matter of a claim for compensation for damage caused by the activities of the bodies of the Parliament, and concludes that it is not, since not only must the autonomous exercise of power necessarily entail responsibility for such exercise, but, in addition, the Office of the Chamber of Deputies and the Office of the Senate, as the articulators of the constitutional autonomy of Parliament, must be able, in the context of such responsibility, to defend their decisions or official procedures independently of the position of the Executive.
CS
Čím se stát stává komplexnějším, tím více se ukazuje formální pohled na dělbu moci jako nedostačující. Tento článek se snaží na příkladu projednávání odpovědnosti státu za škodu způsobenou nezákonným rozhodnutím nebo nesprávným úředním postupem ukázat, nakolik nás tekutá dělba moci nutí přehodnotit povahu a postavení Kanceláře Poslanecké sněmovny a Kanceláře Senátu jako pouhých servisních orgánů komor Parlamentu a v situacích, kdy vykonávají činnosti státní správy, jim přiznat postavení ústředního správního úřadu. Na uvedeném příkladu zákona o odpovědnosti státu za škodu je v článku detailně rozebírána neudržitelnost čistě institucionálního pojetí ústředního správního úřadu a na Kanceláři Poslanecké sněmovny a Kanceláři Senátu ukazuje, proč je zásadní ústřední správní úřad vykládat z hlediska funkčního. Problematika postavení Kanceláře Poslanecké sněmovny a Kanceláře Senátu má však i svůj rozměr ústavněprávní, jelikož Parlament, respektive jeho komory skrze činnost těchto svých orgánů realizují svou ústavní autonomii. Autor článku se proto věnuje i otázce, nakolik je slučitelné s ústavní autonomií Parlamentu, aby ve věci nároku náhrady škody způsobené činností jeho orgánů jednal za stát orgán moci výkonné, a dochází k závěru, že to možné není, jelikož nejenže s autonomním výkonem moci musí být nezbytně spojena i odpovědnost za takový výkon, ale vedle toho musí mít Kancelář Poslanecké sněmovny a Kancelář Senátu, jakožto artikulanti ústavní autonomie Parlamentu, možnost v rámci této odpovědnosti svá rozhodnutí či úřední postup hájit neodvisle od stanoviska orgánu moci výkonné.
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.