Debreceni Jogi Műhely (DE-journals)
Állandó link (URI) ehhez a gyűjteményhez
A folyóirat a DE-journals platformon keresztül jelenik meg és a https://ojs.lib.unideb.hu/DJM címen érhető el.
Impresszum
Kiadó: Debreceni Egyetem, Állam- és Jogtudományi Kar (4028 Debrecen, Kassai út 26.)
Kiadásért és szerkesztésért felelős: Dr. Szikora Veronika
Online ISSN 1786-5158
Nyomtatott ISSN 1787-775X
Folyóirat hozzáférésére vonatkozó nyilatkozat
A Debreceni Jogi Műhely folyóiratban megjelenő, szakmailag lektorált cikkek nyílt hozzáférésűek (open access), az aktuális számok megjelenéskor azonnal ingyenesen hozzáférhetők online, és díjfizetés nélkül letölthetők. A honlapon közzétett cikkek, tanulmányok szabadon letölthetők, másolhatók, terjeszthetők, kereshetők, hivatkozhatók az eredeti forrás pontos megjelölésével.
A cikkek megjelentetéséért publikációs díjat nem számolunk fel.
Etikai nyilatkozat
A Debreceni Jogi Műhely tanulmányai gondos lektori szűrőn (double blind-peer-review) esnek át a kettős anonim lektorálás folyamatát alkalmazva. A bírálók javaslatot tehetnek a tanulmány megjelenésre történő elfogadására, átdolgozásra való visszaadásra, vagy a megjelenés elutasítására egyaránt. A Szerző kérésére a lektorálás tényéről igazolást is adunk.
A Debreceni Jogi Műhely szerkesztősége elfogadja, és ahol csak tudja, alkalmazza a Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE) javaslatait (Core practices).
A folyóirat szerkesztőbizottsága dönt arról, hogy a publikálásra beérkezett cikkek közül melyeket közli a lapban. A kezirat befogadására azt követően kerülhet sor, hogy a szerző benyújtotta az általa – a lektori, illetve szerkesztőségi kéréseket figyelembe véve – véglegesített változatot (postprint). Erről a szerkesztőség dönt, és a szerző kérésére igazolást állít ki. A lektori véleményekben szereplő, a közlés feltételeként megfogalmazott elvárásokat következetesen figyelmen kívül hagyó kéziratokat a szerkesztőség visszautasítja. A lektorálás teljes folyamata anonim módon történik, azaz sem a lektorok nem szereznek tudomást a szerző személyéről, sem pedig a szerzőnek nem adunk felvilágosítást a lektorok kilétéről. A szerkesztőség a lektori véleményeket beérkezésüket követően megküldi a szerzőnek, és tájékoztatja döntéséről. A lektorálás eredményeként a szerkesztőség háromféle döntést hozhat: (1) a mű változtatás nélkül megjelentethető (2) kéri a szerzőt a kézirat véglegesítésére (korrigálható hiányosságok esetén a lektori véleményekben foglaltak figyelembe vételére); (3) amennyiben átdolgozással sem közölhető a mű, a vélemények alapján elutasítja a kézirat befogadását.
A szerkesztőség a lektori véleményekre adott válaszokat, javításokat értékeli. Ennek megkönnyítése érdekében a javításokat kérjük a word dokumentumban a „változások követése” funkció használatával átvezetni.
A szerkesztőség fenntartja magának a jogot, hogy az olyan kéziratokat, amelyek nyilvánvalóan nem felelnek meg a folyóirat küldetésének (pl. nem tudományos munkák, más szakterületre tartoznak, a terjedelmi korlátokat jelentős mértékben túllépik), lektorok közreműködése nélkül adja vissza a szerzőnek.
A szerkesztőbizottság a cikkek ellenőrzésére plágium-szűrő programot alkalmazhat.
A szerkesztőbizottság és annak tagjai semmilyen információt nem adnak tovább a publikálásra benyújtott kézirattal kapcsolatban. E szabály alól kivételt képez a szerző, a lektorok, a potenciális lektorok, valamint a tanácsadó testület tagjai és a kiadó.
A szerkesztőbizottság tagjai a benyújtott kézirat kiadatlan anyagait nem használhatják fel saját kutatásaikhoz a szerző írásos beleegyezése nélkül.
A szerkesztőbizottság a megjelenésre elfogadott tanulmányon kizárólag a megjelentetéshez szükséges technikai változtatásokat, formai átszerkesztéseket jogosult elvégezni.
A Debreceni Jogi Műhely folyóiratban történő megjelenésért a szerzők díjazásban nem részesülnek.
A szerzőknek szavatolniuk kell, hogy a tanulmány saját, eredeti szellemi alkotásuk, illetve amennyiben felhasználták mások munkáit és/vagy kifejezéseit, azokat megfelelő módon idézték és szakszerűen hivatkoztak rájuk.
Nem helyes gyakorlat ugyanazon kutatást bemutató kézirat különböző önálló publikációkban vagy folyóiratokban való szerepeltetése. Ugyanazon kézirat több folyóirathoz egyidejűleg történő benyújtása etikátlan magatartásnak minősül és elfogadhatatlan.
Böngészés
Debreceni Jogi Műhely (DE-journals) Megjelenés dátuma szerinti böngészés
Megjelenítve 1 - 20 (Összesen 499)
Találat egy oldalon
Rendezési lehetőségek
Tétel Szabadon hozzáférhető Beszámoló Az új büntetőeljárási törvény első éve címmel megrendezett konferenciáról(2004-12-01) Szabó, KrisztiánWithout abstract.Tétel Szabadon hozzáférhető Ítélkezési állandók és vitás kérdések az erkölcsi kártérítés újabb magyar joggyakorlatában(2004-12-01) Fézer, TamásSince 1992, date of Constitutional Court’s decision No. 34/1992, certain rules cannot be found in Hungarian Civil Code. There is only a part of a sentence that gives right to any injured person to claim damages in case of personal injuries. More than 10 years after the cassation we are able to look through the legal practice in connection with damages for non-pecuniary loss. The recent re-codifying process plans a brand new institution to substitute and follow damages for non pecuniary loss: pain award. To establish a decent regulation of pain award, jurisdiction of the last decade cannot be neglected. This essay aims to gather typical and crystallized methods of judgements in certain cases, which could be seen as essential and accepted unwritten rules of jurisdiction concerning this field of damages. One of the most difficult problems to solve is the question of amount. This field of damages for non-pecuniary loss is always problematic, because all of the cases are different. Although there are similarities between cases if we examine just damages themselves, but due to the difference of human personality it is almost impossible to give exact phrases and rules to help our judges. We can say that highest amounts are generated by assaults against physical integrity and life. Examination during a legal procedure concentrates on the stress caused by the injury, number of injured rights, age of the injured person and the durability of the harm. If the injured person contributed to the injury, it generates reduced amount of damages. Method of compensation is really simple for the first time. Hungarian legal system knows two different types for the method of damages: in kind or in money. Former one is inapplicable for non-pecuniary losses. If we compensate in money, there are two solutions: injured person can get the whole sum immediately or we can choose allowance as well. The adaptation of allowance is rather small in Hungary, in spite of the advantages this legal institution could offer. It does not mean res iudicata, so it is flexible and offers opportunity to adjust to changed circumstances in the future: both duration and amount of allowance could be changed. It is an interesting question whether personal circumstances of the misdoer could be examined when calculating the amount of allowance. The answer is not unambiguous. Civil law focuses on compensation for the injured party, not the punishment of the misdoer. In spite of this essential lemma, it is necessary to take into account the solvency of the defendant, if we want the plaintiff to get the adjudged amount really. Youth is not the only reason of allowance, sometimes old age could be a well-based legal ground for application of this method of compensation as well. It is really important to examine the personal circumstances of the injured party to choose between these two methods: which one serves the aim of compensation, moderation of lost joy of life the most. Civil Code precludes the possibility to apply both methods together for the same plaintiff. In my opinion the solution of German Civil Code (BGB) should be considered. BGB allows both methods together. It means that possibilities could be wider and fit better to the actual case and its circumstances. Although obligation of damages has two parties traditionally, in a legal procedure of damages for non-pecuniary loss this bipolar situation can be proven false. On the part of the misdoer it is an interesting question what kind of damages can be blamed the state. In Hungary we can meet rules order the responsibility of the state in the field of medical damages or damages for unlawful arrest and illegal imprisonment. Amounts of damages are the highest in these situations. On the part of the injured person an often argued problem the position of secondary victims’ claims. These claims are always problematic, because personality rights belong closely to the person himself and there is no possibility to inherit them. Hungarian Civil Code admits compensation for relatives only in case of injuring reputation of a dead person. There are several decisions in which courts admit these claims on the ground of their sui generis base. It is a decent solution, but because of the uneven jurisdiction it needs codifying. We can say that there are a lot of jurisdictional constants in Hungary in connection with damages for non-pecuniary loss. These are easy to collect and most of them are able to be codified in a strictly non-taxative style. But this examination showed that doubtful questions can also be found in Hungary especially the application of allowance, claims of secondary victims. To arrange these problems, starting point should be jurisdiction itself.Tétel Szabadon hozzáférhető Hugo Grotius újraolvasva, avagy a „Nemzetközi jog atyja” gondolatai a XXI. század elejének nemzetközi jogában(2004-12-01) Szemesi, SándorThere are several theories when the birth date of international law was. Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) was the first who systematized these specific rules and raised it to a scientific level. In this essay I examine how Grotius thought about important institutions of international law and what kind of impact these considerations have to our modern age. War cannot be seen only as an unlawful act, because most of the original human instincts can be recognized in fighting to each other. This point of view proclaims that international law does not denounce war generally. Existence of international law is important to determine the rules of warfare. To suit to the criterions of lawful war, a war should perform two requirements: opposite parties have to be main authorities in their state and both of them have to keep special formal rules during their fight. Main supremacy means that this power is absolute in its territory, so there are no other relevant human factors to limit it. In our age we have to mention that this criterion is no longer applicable without reservation, because the attack against USA on 11th September 2001 demonstrated that not only states can fight to each other. Grotius gives importance to the reasons of war too. Three reasons exist: defence, regain possession and punishment. Defence means self-defence, which is a right for everybody to protect himself against unlawful injuries, but this solution has to be the last one. Self-defence can be applicable only if it is necessary, sudden and proportional. After the attack against USA a question was born: is it possible to protect before the real attack, when the enemy is in the period of planning an injury. This preventive self-defence is supported by USA, but UN appreciates the right to self-defence only if there is an armed attack against the state. According to Grotius reasons of war can be pretexts or real reasons. Fear of uncertainty can be a pretext for example, because it is not the most proportional instrument to avoid conflict. Grotius examines not only ius ad bellum but ius in bellum, rights during a war. These regulations are formal obligations, which give frame to the lawful war and show direction to the opposite parties. Grotius says that there are regulations strictly from the law of nature. A great example is that every instrument can be applicable if it is necessary to reach the major aim of war. It is obvious that today this sentence is intolerable, because technical revolution created such weapons that have power to destroy a whole country suddenly. That is why certain prohibited weapons and methods of warfare exist in international treaties. Grotius deals with the problem of traitors, who support the enemy. There is a slight distinction between the nature of dispatched goods. If these goods can be used for fighting, i.e. weapons, traders are enemies too. If these goods are luxury ones, no traitors can be found. The third situation is more problematic, because if these goods can be used in and outside a war too, the exact situation has to examine to judge the intention of the party. Groitus has interesting thoughts about prisoners. All prisoners and their descendants become slaves. It means the enemy can do anything against prisoners. By now we have certain rules how to treat with prisoners and it is a general regulation that torture and murder against prisoners is strictly prohibited. An interesting question is in connection with the law of contracts. Hostages and pledge can be typical securities to strengthen a contract. Grotius says that killing a hostage can be lawful, but inner morals order that killing is lawful only if hostage is culpable too. Grotius deals with the question of ministers, arranging debates. Looking through this huge work of Grotius we can say statement that he is the father of international law is not without basic and well structured reasons. Before the birth of his book, there were only rules and commentaries for national laws. Grotius extended them to a larger perspective, up to an international level.Tétel Szabadon hozzáférhető társasági jogviszonyok szabályozása a német polgári jogi társaságban(2004-12-01) Szikora, VeronikaPartnership under the civil code is a harsh institution in Hungarian legal system. Despite of this fact, most of the European countries apply this legal entity a lot as a background for other, more complicated corporate forms. In my essay I demonstrate those rules in German Civil Code (BGB), which show the importance and opportunities of these partnerships. If we would like to describe the essentials of partnerships under the Civil Code, the most important question is the legal relations from both inner and external point of view. Internal relations mean an obligation between the parties, who form this partnership. It is natural that we can find both rights and commitments between founders. This is a contract but BGB says that all parties have equal rights and commitments in the same partnership. As a general rule of the Code, it is permissive, not cogent. BGB has basic regulation for operating such a partnership, but can be useful if founders live with this permissive opportunity and shape special rules for their partnership, which fit to their aims, functions, different financial potential of the parties. There is a chance for founders to neglect building a whole structure and organization for their partnership, if they want to operate it as an inner partnership, without external relations, focusing only for the rights and omissions between the parties. From all contract that establishes a partnership under the Civil Code membership rights follow. These rights cannot be transferred. A distinction can be made between administrational, common business management and financial rights. Rights to common business management can consist of right to information, right to supervision or the most important right to vote. Financial rights gather typical rights such as right to dividend or liquidity proportion. These rights are social omissions from the viewpoint of the partnership itself, as these are for the interest of the parties. The most important omissions of the founders are financial contribution to establish the partnership. This regulation results from that partnership is to promote common aim of the founders, and to achieve this, all of them have to make available pecuniary or non-pecuniary assets. According to a special rule of BGB, over against the other corporate forms, members of the partnership have no omission to increase or complete their assets. Management of the partnership is not only a right but an obligation too. A special omission is that all members and founders have to be loyal to the partnership. Because of the strong partnership character of this corporate form, this means that members have to keep the interest and aim of the partnership in view. They all are responsible for achieving the aim of the partnership and nobody can sit as a beneficiary. Loyal members have to keep secrets in connection with operating the partnership and of course the sudden obligation to inform the others of all events and experiences, which are in tight connection with the partnership and the interests of the parties. If any of the members breach these obligations, rules of damages can be applied in BGB. Assets of the partnership are special, because no separated corporate assets form. Financial and non-pecuniary contribution becomes the assets of the community of members. It is undividable and common. But these common assets are strictly separated from the private assets of the parties. Rights for profit and deficit are equal, but this permissive rule allows different regulation in the contract. The only cogent sentence is the prohibition of societas leoniana, i.e. nobody can be precluded of profit and deficit. External relations mean the representation of the partnership. In this case the most important law is the contract itself. In case of disagreement between the parties, there is a helping rule of BGB: members can act as a body. If we take into consideration the rules of liability, we can say that because of the lack of legal capacity of the partnership, individual liability has its important role. Generally this liability is unlimited, but there is a chance to agree with the creditor to limit liability. But this limitation is only valid for that legal transaction. Rules for partnerships under the Civil Code in Germany are more detailed and nuanced than in Hungary. Partnership is the basic type of civil law partnerships, such as limited partnership or general partnership. We have to consider that building up a more coherent regulation for these partnerships can be useful to categorize atypical corporations.Tétel Szabadon hozzáférhető Gondolatok a pótmagánvádról(2004-12-01) Kardos, SándorIn Hungary the new code of criminal procedure established a new legal institution to the Hungarian legal system: accessory private prosecution. This kind of private prosecution gives opportunity to the afflicted person to continue penal procedure in case of negative sentences from investigation authorities. If the prosecutor or the investigation authority stops proceeding or the prosecutor sets aside, withdraws formal accusation, afflicted person can substitute them during a penal procedure and has a right to claim the continuation of it. Our valid code does not limit the field of crimes this legal institution of accessory private prosecution can be applied. But there are some strict reasons, which limit this right of the afflicted person. If the investigation authorities neglected formal accusation because of childhood, death, prescription, clemency, prohibition of ne bis in idem, accessory private prosecution cannot be applied. Pros of accessory private prosecution can be found in the rights of afflicted persons. Criminal power of the state cannot be absolute, so we have to give the right for the injured to judge whether he insists on taking the responsibility of the perpetrator despite the opposite opinion of public bodies. This legal institution can help omissions of prosecutors to be remedied. Practicing this right depends on the stadium of the procedure. During the investigation period or the period of formal accusation reasons for accessory private prosecution are different. According to the new rules of the code, applying an advocate in the procedure is an obligation for the afflicted person. This regulation ensures that the structure of penal proceedings cannot be changed basically. In a normal procedure there is always a professional expert, the prosecutor on the side of accusation. That is why the code does not permit accusation without applying an advocate. Costs are interesting question in case of accessory private prosecution. In popular action procedures costs are paid by the state. When the afflicted person practices the right of accessory private prosecution, state pays in advance, but if perpetrator is acquitted or the court stops proceeding, costs should be paid by the private prosecutor himself. There are some rules to ease this burden for the afflicted person: if he has bad financial capacity and he can certify this circumstance, court can authorize him not to pay for the fee of the advocate. There is a special question in connection with accessory private prosecution: representation of the state. In these procedures the afflicted person is the state or one of the state bodies itself. There are two points of view to answer the question: who is authorized to represent the state as an accessory private prosecutor during a penal procedure. First we have to make difference between the injuries: if the injury is against the state while practising public authority, the injured party is the state itself. But if the injury hit the state as a civil legal entity, a possessor, the right to claim is in the hand of that public body, which was entrusted to handle the injured property. This theory means that in case of injuries against the public author state, only the prosecutor can represent it, so there is no chance for accessory private prosecution. The other solution for this problem has its starting point that in every crime against public property, accessory private prosecution can be applied. In this case the state can be represented by that part of it, which has interest. Although there are no jurisdiction in this question, because accessory private prosecution was established by the new code from 1st July 2003 after fifty years into the Hungarian legal practice. According to the regulations of the code, we can find the following sentence: afflicted person is whose right or legal interest was hurt or endangered by the crime. Analyzing this definition the argument can be read previously is decent for those situations, when we would like to find the legal representative of the state as an accessory private prosecutor. Accessory private prosecution is a good solution that fits to the new directions of law development, to increase rights of the afflicted person. Naturally, time needs to become a well-adopted legal institution in Hungarian legal system after half a century silence.Tétel Szabadon hozzáférhető “And who will desalt Carthage’s grounds?” – International environmental legal approaches of the Yugoslavian wars 1991-1999(2005-04-01) Végh, KárolyÁltalánosan elfogadott nézet, hogy egyetlen háború sem vívható meg anélkül, hogy ne ártana a természetnek, sőt, ne rombolná le azt; ennél fogva, hosszú időn át a háborúk e hatását elkerülhetetlen következménynek tekintették, melynek megakadályozására nem született átfogó, nemzetközi rezsim. A nemzetközi közösségben, az 1990-es években kiteljesedő értékrendváltozás nyomán, azonban egyre erősödött az igény a környezet védelmének háborúk idejére való kiterjesztése iránt is. E folyamattal egyidejűleg a világ számos régiójában törtek ki fegyveres konfliktusok, melyek sajátos esettanulmányokként mutatják be a nemzetközi jogi szabályozás és annak gyakorlati érvényesülése közötti, gyakran ellentmondásos kapcsolatot. A tanulmány középpontjába állított, a volt Jugoszlávia területén zajlott konfliktusok számos súlyos kérdésre és hiányosságra hívták fel a nemzetközi közvélemény figyelmét, elsősorban két területen: bizonyos, veszélyesnek tekinthető objektumok támadását, valamint a szegényített urániumot tartalmazó lövedékek használatát illetően, mindkét esetben felvetve a támadásokban közvetlenül érintett Észak-atlanti Szerződés Szervezetének (NATO), valamint tagállamainak esetleges nemzetközi jogi felelősségét. A tanulmány első részében vizsgált veszélyes objektumok támadását illetően átfogó képet az UNEP által készített jelentés biztosít, mely azonban maga is több tekintetben árnyalt, olykor ellentmondásosnak tekinthető megállapítást is tartalmaz. A támadások pontos környezeti hatásának tisztázatlansága mellett számos további kérdést hagy nyitva a releváns nemzetközi jogi szabályozás is. Az 1949-es genfi egyezmények és 1977-s kiegészítő jegyzőkönyveik szabályai alapján ugyanis a támadott objektumok nem minősülnek veszélyesnek, ennél fogva kiemelten védettnek, annak ellenére, hogy támadásaik kimutatható környezeti károkat okoztak. A tanulmány, és egyben a vizsgált jogterület kulcsproblémája azonban a jogsértés minimális határértékének tisztázatlansága, illetve ésszerűtlenül magasra helyezése, melynek révén csupán a rendkívül nagy területet érintő és páratlanul súlyos szennyezés minősül az egyezmények megsértésének. A szerző megítélése szerint e kritériumrendszer átértelmezése lehet az első lépés a környezet háborúk idején való hatékony védelme kidolgozásához. A második vizsgált kérdésként vizsgált szegényített uránium tartalmú lövedékek használata a megosztott és kiforratlan tudományos álláspont miatt további jogbizonytalanságot eredményez. Noha e lövedékek a hatályos nemzetközi hadijogi szabályozás alapján nem minősülnek kifejezetten tiltott fegyvereknek, az ilyen lövedéket alkalmazó feleket kifejezett körültekintési és elővigyázatossági kötelezettség terheli a polgári lakosságot érintő káros mellékhatásokat illetően. E kérdés tehát továbbra is lezáratlan, azonban a szerző nem zárja ki annak lehetőségét, hogy amennyiben a jövőben e mellékhatások tudományos alapossággal is bebizonyosodnak, a NATO, illetve tagállamai nemzetközi jogi felelőssége felmerüljön. Összefoglalóan megállapítható, hogy a hatályos szabályozás, az elmúlt évek fejlődési tendenciái ellenére továbbra is több hiányossággal küzd, különösen a felelősség megállapítása és a kikényszerítési eljárások tekintetében. Noha az elkezdett folyamatok a jövőben kiteljesedhetnek, mindaddig, amíg a jelen nemzetközi rendszerben a háborúindítás továbbra is az államok gyakorlatának része, a környezet háborúk idején való védelmének lehetőségei korlátozottak maradnak.Tétel Szabadon hozzáférhető monista felfogás érvényesülése a szerzői jogi törvényben(2005-04-01) Petkó, MihályExamining the history of copyright law, we can distinct two significant theories. The distinction is based upon the position of entitled parties. Two separated fields can be found among the rights of the author: personal and financial rights. It is no doubt that personal rights are inseparable from the author itself, these rights cannot become objects of commercial businesses. If we look at these rights a little bit closer, we can realize that personal rights of the author do not play significant role in earning money from an intellectual product. These rights ensure the integrity and originality of works. Separating the two theories we have to focus on financial rights. Trying to describe these rights we can see that no exact definition can be given to them because of the permanent development of printing and publishing technology. Due to the monist theory it can be said that financial rights are close to personal ones, they are inseparable from personality of the author. Transcribing this opinion to the language of law it means that the decent regulation should prohibit the transfer of these rights among living persons. In the Anglo-Saxon legal system experts think that financial rights have to take part in commercial trade if we want to acknowledge the achievement of authors. In Hungary copyright law is on the point of the monist theory. The Act refers that financial rights of the author cannot be transferred and the author has no right to abandon them. If we get a closer look at the structure of the valid Act, we can say that monist theory is not consistent. It is possible to inherit financial rights. We need this rule if we would like to harmonize the system to the time of protection. The other relevant fact of crossing the prohibition is in connection with works created under labour frames. In this case the employer gets financial rights ex lege. To find the reason of this regulation we have to examine the nature and aim of labour relations. The employer gives payment to his employee, the author to establish and create works. In this situation it is natural that the author looses his financial rights. The problem is that in Hungary differences can be found between civil and labour law. If we try to give meaning to labour relations, misunderstandings and different point of views can reveal. The other problematic factor is that the Act does not bother with the question of succession. In my study I present the pros and cons of both theories and gather those significant practical and theoretical fields of copyright law that can be limits of monist theory. I examine special rules for special works, rules of civil and labour law in connection with authors and give a short historical overview to see what can be the main directions of future developments.Tétel Szabadon hozzáférhető dohányreklámok szabályozásának változásai a magyar jogban(2005-04-01) Pribula, LászlóSince the change of the regime the economic role of advertisements has changed significantly. Advertising forms a considerable part of economic activities, the cost of which constitute a growing portion of the expenses of a given enterprise. The mass-appearance of advertisements has altered the relationship between consumers and advertisers, it has restructured consumption habits and the importance of advertising in media. The most significant modification of the Hungarian Advertising Act occurred by (Act I of 2001), which was in large passed with the consent of the advertising profession. The modification introduced the concept of deceptive advertisements, apparent comparative advertisements and special offers. Comparative advertisements were also regulated in a satisfactory way. However, several legal institutions were introduced as well, which should have been included in competition law. In the last two decades actions against unlawful advertisements were largely based on competition law, which restricts advertising activities violating fair competition in general. Advertising Decree and later the Advertising Act regulated the restriction of advertisements of certain goods and services, or defined the restrictions on certain advertising activities. Due to the modification, the role of Competition Act became less significant, since Advertising Act also contains most prohibitions on advertising activities that were defined in the Competition Act. In addition, in the case of violation of regulations on deceptive and comparative advertisements, Advertising Act denoted the Bureau of Competition and the court as chief acting powers, whereas the violation of rules on apparent comparative advertisements falls in the scope of the Consumer Protection Authority. What is more, the (Act I of 2001) “smuggled” the entire prohibition of tobacco advertisements into the Advertising Act, which totally contradicted with the opinion of advertising profession. Thus Hungary, similarly to France, joined the strictest practice in this question. It is also disputable whether such restrictions promote the fight against smoking, and it was certainly disadvantageous that legislation decided in the question without involving the profession, for which there had been no precedents so far.Tétel Szabadon hozzáférhető lipcsei ítélet(2005-04-01) Szabó, IstvánIn Germany the new constitution published in 1919 established a brand new and democratically based state structure. Beside the traditional forum of administrative courts a new court system had been established in connection with public law jurisdiction. After Germany lost the first World War, general depression made a big impression on German state structure too. One of the most significant conflicts of this period had risen between the Empire and its biggest member state, Prussia. On 20th July 1932 president of the Empire suspended the Prussian autonomy and seized the power of directing the member state. The German Court of State had to verify this decision. Because of the fact that the court held its session in Lipche, this judgement is called as the famous judgement of Lipche. There are several really significant and dogmatically important factors in this decision, which help us understand the legal structure of that age in the German Empire. In this study I examine extraordinary power of the monarch in the Republic of Weimar and its special control by the courts. Constitution gave the right to the sovereign to obtain the regulations of the constitution by force in member states. There was a special right that entitled him using uncommon orders in case of attack against public order and public security. These rules ensured the unity of the Empire. The speciality of this judgement is that the Court qualified the order of the monarch unlawful because of the lack of the two circumstances mentioned above. To verify this decision court had to examine not only the nature of its procedure but the meaning of unity in the whole Empire, the aim of the constitution and these special rights of the monarch. The court focused on the examination of culpability in a member state. The conclusion is that intervention is legally based not only when a member state breaks the law with culpable behaviour but when breaking down of public order exists. In this special case the court split this practice and qualified the suspension of autonomy unlawful, but it found that other orders of the sovereign were acceptable. The result was that the autonomy was renovated but the Prussian government did not have the right in those cases, which were deprived by the monarch.Tétel Szabadon hozzáférhető Tétel Szabadon hozzáférhető munkaügyi alternatív vitafeloldó módszerek a bírósághoz fordulás alapjogának fényében(2005-04-01) Nádházy, ZsoltThanking to the fact that numerous European countries have become more democratized, and to the practical experience based on common law legal system, from the middle of the XXth century some of the continental legal systems have begun to apply alternative procedures for solving disputes between parties, such as facilitation, arbitration or mediation. We can stress two important common features of these solutions. Firstly, if parties apply these ways, they can avoid the traditional judicial way (or, if the result of the chosen method is not satisfactory, these ways can be considered as the preliminary step before the judicial way). Secondly, these procedures have appeared firstly in labour law. As we emphasized, applying these solutions parties try to avoid the judicial way, for this reason in this study we try to introduce the relationship between these methods and the basic right to turn a (traditional) court. Expert’s opinions in connection with these processes are very different, we introduce only the two farthest standpoint: on the one hand these ways can speed up the procedure between parties, and can increase the efficiency of it, and parties can agree with each other by amicable way. On the other hand, applying these ways some of the basic rights (for example the principle of independence of courts and the right of fair trial or the principle of contradictory) will be decreased. In this study we try to examine the problem determined in the title, on the basis of the rules of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and the Constitution of Hungary. But, we have to examine not only the right of fair trial and turning to a (traditional) court, but the monopoly of courts in connection with solving legal disputes (as constitutional principle) in details. We utilize the orders of the Hungarian Constitutional Court as well as the theological and practical experience of these procedures. We have to emphasize that from the different alternative dispute-solving mechanisms we examine not all of the models, but only the model of New York, because only the procedures follow these model are relevant for us in this study.Tétel Szabadon hozzáférhető Tétel Szabadon hozzáférhető Úton Európába - a közigazgatási reform és a modernizáció egyes összefüggései(2005-07-01) Bereznay, GáborWithout abstract.Tétel Szabadon hozzáférhető szabályok és erkölcsi megfontolások bírói döntést meghatározó szerepe(2005-07-01) Ficsor, KrisztinaWithout abstract.Tétel Szabadon hozzáférhető elállás dogmatikai kérdései egyes nemzeti jogokban és a közösségi irányelvekben(2005-07-01) Csöndes, MónikaWithout abstract.Tétel Szabadon hozzáférhető természetvédelmi igazgatás szervezetrendszere Magyarországon(2005-07-01) Bányai, OrsolyaWithout abstract.Tétel Szabadon hozzáférhető Tétel Szabadon hozzáférhető Tétel Szabadon hozzáférhető büntetotörvénykezés és a büntetés-végrehajtás Debrecenben a 18-20. században, különös tekintettel a Debreceni Királyi Törvényszéki Fogház működésére(2005-07-01) Mohácsi, BarbaraWithout abstract.Tétel Szabadon hozzáférhető fiatalkorúakkal szemben alkalmazható büntetések és intézkedések, különös tekintettel a szabadságvesztés büntetésre és a javítóintézeti nevelésre(2005-07-01) Rajzinger, ÁgnesWithout abstract.