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

Results found: 5

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  unification of law
help Sort By:

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

Zjazd prawników państw słowiańskich w 1933 roku

100%
Banaszkiewicz B.
Kwartalnik Prawa Prywatnego
|
2018
|
vol. 27
|
issue 2
289-344
EN
The Congress of lawyers of the Slavic states took place in Bratislava, Czechoslovakia from 8 to 10 September 1933. It brought together 1567 people (participants and special guests), primarily representatives of jurisprudence and legal practitioners from Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and Poland, whereas there were no lawyers from the USSR. The main purpose of the Congress was to establish personal connections and to manifest the willingness to cooperate. Ten sections focused on substantial issues, investigating fifteen major questions. The discussion was held in the participants’ languages as well as in French. During the sessions in the sections the following questions were discussed and then summed up in final conclusions (resolutions): “Unification of the law of obligations in the Slavic states”; “Unification of marital law in the Slavic states”; “Steamboats as an object of mortgage”; “Unification of law on bills of exchange in the Slavic states”; „Unification of execution, bancruptcy and arrangement procedure provisions in the Slavic states”; “Responsibility for crimes committed pursuant to an order of a superior”; “Necessity and scope of criminal law unification in the Slavic states”, “Should the participation of citizens in criminal traials (as jurors or non-professional associate judges) be recommended?”; “The common principles of acquiring the citizenship and the municipality affiliation in the Slavic states”; “Administrative courts”; “The economic cooperation between the Slavic states”; „The common basis of the history of Slavic laws”; “Unification of international private law in the Slavic states”; “The relationship between church and government in the Slavic states”; “To what extent should the limitation of property right be recommended?”. The author discusses the ideological and political background of the 1933 Congress and makes comments as to why the idea to organize the next congress was not successful; introduces the figure of Cyril Bařinka, a Czech attorney working in Bratislava, who was the spiritus movens of the Congress and its General Secretary; depicts the preparation and the course of the Congress; provides a general overview of the topics disscussed at the Congress and its final conclusions.
2

Organizacja i przebieg prac nad kodeksem cywilnym w latach 1919–1964

88%
Moszyńska A.
Kwartalnik Prawa Prywatnego
|
2020
|
vol. 29
|
issue 3
445-510
EN
The aim of this article is to present the history of what has become the first and currently the only Polish Civil Code. The codification work began shortly after Poland regained independence in 1918 and concluded with the adoption of the Code in 1964. These efforts, spanning over almost 50 years, were made under various political and socio-economic conditions. The way the codification work was carried out, the methods used and even the importance attached to the codification by the authorities were entwined with the rhythm of political breakthroughs and turning points. The article describes the course of the codification work, emphasizing methods chosen by various bodies entrusted with the task of preparing the draft version of the Civil Code. These considerations concerning the area of recent legal history contribute to the always topical discussion on how to establish legal norms that are sustainable, of high quality and in line with social needs.
3

Развитие института взаимного признания и исполнения судебных решений в странах Европейского Союза

63%
Maystrovich E., Kucheryavaya E.
Przegląd Europejski
|
2018
|
issue 2(48)
71-86
RU
Свободное перемещение судебных решений на территории Европейского Союза предполагает высокий уровень взаимного доверия между судебными органами государств-членов. С точки зрения граждан, ключевым вопросом является баланс между правами заявителей и ответчиков, то есть правом на доступ к правосудию (подать иск) и правом на защиту. Взаимное доверие между судебными органами может быть достигнуто разными способами. Во-первых, путем создания единой европейской процедуры в форме дополнительных инструментов, применяемых до вынесения судебного решения на основе общих правил процедуры. Во-вторых, путем отраслевой гармонизации процессуального права в рамках решения отдельных вопросов в соответствии с поэтапным подходом. В-третьих, необходимо создание общих стандартов: в виде принципов и правил, в формах регламента и директивы. В статье анализируются основные способы создания единообразия норм, применяемые на территории Европейского Союза, выявляется наиболее подходящий для института взаимного признания и исполнения судебных решений. Рассматривается процесс правового развития института взаимного признания и исполнения судебных решений и его современное состояние.
EN
The free movement of judicial decisions on the territory of the European Union presupposes a high level of mutual trust between the judicial bodies of the Member States. From the citizens’ point of view, the key issue is the balance between the rights of the plaintiffs and the defendants, i.e. the right to access to justice (to sue) and the right to defence. Mutual trust between the judiciary can be built in various ways. Firstly, through the creation of a unified European procedure in the form of additional tools held before the adjudication and based on the general rules of procedure. Secondly, through sectoral harmonisation of procedural law within the framework of solving individual issues in accordance with a step-by-step approach. Thirdly, it is necessary to create common standards, in the form of principles and rules, regulations and directives. The Author in this article analyses the main ways of creating uniformity of norms applied in the territory of the European Union, the most suitable for the institution of mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments. The process of legal development of the institution of mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments and its current status are considered.
4
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Развитие института взаимного признания и исполнения судебных решений в странах Европейского Союза

63%
Maystrovich E., Kucheryavaya E.
Przegląd Europejski
|
2018
|
vol. 2018(2)
71-86
PL
The free movement of judicial decisions on the territory of the European Union presupposes a high level of mutual trust between the judicial bodies of the Member States. From the citizens’ point of view, the key issue is the balance between the rights of the plaintiffs and the defendants, i.e. the right to access to justice (to sue) and the right to defence. Mutual trust between the judiciary can be built in various ways. Firstly, through the creation of a unified European procedure in the form of additional tools held before the adjudication and based on the general rules of procedure. Secondly, through sectoral harmonisation of procedural law within the framework of solving individual issues in accordance with a step-by-step approach. Thirdly, it is necessary to create common standards, in the form of principles and rules, regulations and directives. The Author in this article analyses the main ways of creating uniformity of norms applied in the territory of the European Union, the most suitable for the institution of mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments. The process of legal development of the institution of mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments and its current status are considered.
5
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Kodyfikacja prawa łowieckiego w zaborze austriackim i jego recepcja w ustawodawstwie II Rzeczypospolitej

63%
Wojtacki M.
|
2017
|
vol. 12
|
issue 14 (2)
63-83
EN
The aim of the article is to present the codification of game laws in the territory of the Austrian Partition at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries and the influence of its respective regulations on the shaping of hunting relations in the Polish independent state after 1918. The beginnings of this process took place in the mid-19th century when some work was undertaken in order to regulate hunting issues within the codification of laws carried out by the partitioning powers. I order to describe the proceedings referring to successive stages of the process of codification of game laws in the Austrian Partition at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, the sources produced by the chancellery of the Diet of the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria were examined, the power of which embraced the questions of domestic culture as well as the sphere of hunting. These included parliamentary transcripts of chamber meetings from the years 1883-1910, some appendices dating from this period, which contain detailed texts and analyses of specific legislation drafts, and The Journal of Laws and Domestic Regulations for the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria with the Grand Dutchy of Cracow. Using the above-mentioned material, a thorough analysis of the adopted solutions was conducted, particularly those concerning the structure of hunting districts and the problem of responsibility for damage caused by game on private land. Based on the results of the overview of the Galician hunting law and applying a comparative method together with commentaries on successive codification, a comparison was made between the regulations worked out in the Galician Hunting Act of 1910 and the rules of hunting organization, which were adopted in the Second Republic of Poland (1918-1939) under the Decree of the President of the Republic of Poland of December 3, 1927. This allowed the author to indicate the areas in which the implementation of the earlier regulations was effectuated in terms of hunting organization and hunting districts, among other things, as well as those in which there were fundamental differences resulting from the distinct definitions of the notion of hunting embedded in both pieces of legislation.
PL
Celem artykułu było przedstawienie w ujęciu historycznym, kodyfikacji prawa łowieckiego w zaborze austriackim na przełomie XIX i XX w. i wpływu jego poszczególnych rozwiązań na kształtowanie się stosunków myśliwskich w niepodległym państwie polskim po 1918 r. Początki tego procesu miały miejsce w połowie XIX w., kiedy to w ramach przeprowadzonych w państwach zaborczych (Cesarstwo Austrowęgierskie i Cesarstwie niemieckim) kodyfikacji praw podjęto prace nad uporządkowaniem zagadnień łowieckich. W celu zaprezentowania przebiegu prac nad kolejnymi etapami kodyfikacji prawa łowieckiego w zaborze austriackim na przełomie XIX i XX w., przebadano źródła wytworzone przez kancelarię Sejmu Krajowego Królestwa Galicji i Lodomerii do którego kompetencji przynależały kwestie kultury krajowej, w tym myślistwa. Były to: Sprawozdania Stenograficzne z posiedzeń izby z lat 1883–1910 oraz zawierające szczegółowe teksty i analizy poszczególnych projektów ustaw Allegaty ze wskazanego okresu. Uzupełnienie stanowił „Dziennik Ustaw i Rozporządzeń Krajowych dla Królestwa Galicji i Lodomerii wraz z Wielkim Księstwem Krakowskiem” zawierający teksty ustaw. W oparciu o powyższy materiał źródłowy przeprowadzono szczegółową analizę przyjętych rozwiązań, szczególnie w obszarze struktury okręgów łowieckich oraz odpowiedzialności za szkody wyrządzone przez zwierzynę łowną na terenach prywatnych. W oparciu o wyniki przeglądu galicyjskiego prawa łowieckiego posługując się metodą komparatystyczną i komentarzami do kolejnych kodyfikacji dokonano porównania rozwiązań wypracowanych w galicyjskiej ustawie łowieckiej z 1910 r. z zasadami organizacji łowiectwa przyjętymi w II Rzeczypospolitej (1918–1939) w ramach Dekretu Prezydenta Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej z 3 grudnia 1927 r. Pozwoliło to na wskazanie obszarów, w których nastąpiła implementacja wcześniejszych przepisów, m.in. w zakresie organizacji polowania i okręgów łowieckich. Wskazano również zasadnicze różnice, które wynikały z odmiennie definiowanego zjawiska polowania, w ramach porównywanych aktów normatywnych.
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.