The object of this scientific article is protection of consumer rights and interests in contractual relationship between seller and consumer. The ever-expanding trade development, increasing abundance of goods and services stimulates consumption and this obviously leads to the growing number of consumer contracts. The growing number of consumer contracts determines the need to regulate contractual relations of consumers and sellers as much detail as possible. The purpose of detailed regulation is to prevent unfairness and ensure effective protection of the consumer as the weaker party. The work also draws attention to European Union law. The European Union law not only develops and ensures free movement of goods, services, capital and persons in a single market of European Union, but also seeks to discover a balance between the competitiveness of various companies in different Member States and a high level of consumer protection.
Recently, due to the rapid development of the European data protection legislation and approval of the GDPR, the right to be forgotten has become under the spotlight of scholars and public officials especially in Europe as well as a basis for heavy debates in Latin America countries. This paper presents the comprehensive analysis of the nature of the right to be forgotten from both scientific and practical point of view. The first part will be devoted to the theoretical framework including the definition of terms, its correlation as well as balance with other fundamental values and historical development amongst various jurisdictions. The second part focuses on current and planned data protection legislative regime practical applicability of the concept of the right to be forgotten by the CJEU and the ECHR. Finally, third part mainly concentrates on a wide scope of interpretation and description of criteria used by courts to apply the right to be forgotten in different states. As result, the paper concludes by proposing a balanced understanding of the right to be forgotten including its elements, criteria of identification and application by judges and modern challenges on its path.
Recently, due to the rapid development of the European data protection legislation and approval of the GDPR, the right to be forgotten has become under the spotlight of scholars and public officials especially in Europe as well as a basis for heavy debates in Latin America countries. This paper presents the comprehensive analysis of the nature of the right to be forgotten from both scientific and practical point of view. The first part will be devoted to the theoretical framework including the definition of terms, its correlation as well as balance with other fundamental values and historical development amongst various jurisdictions. The second part focuses on current and planned data protection legislative regime practical applicability of the concept of the right to be forgotten by the CJEU and the ECHR. Finally, third part mainly concentrates on a wide scope of interpretation and description of criteria used by courts to apply the right to be forgotten in different states. As result, the paper concludes by proposing a balanced understanding of the right to be forgotten including its elements, criteria of identification and application by judges and modern challenges on its path.
That permits to continue the discourse on the universality of human rights. In Christian ethics and doctrine the essence of human being is fully revealed only in a relation with God and with another human being. Therefore, a Christian concept of human rights is adequately balanced with the concept of public rights and interests. Utilitarianism, as an ethical doctrine, is accepted by the Western legal systems and is rooted in current legal and political discourse. It has linkages with Christian ethics, but can only be considered partially as a criterion for human rights and moral decision-making. Utilitarianism is based on subjective evaluation of the principles of human behavior, which leads to compromise in every situation. Thus it may lead into a situation where new human right breaches already recognized individual or group human rights. In the case of the formation of new human rights we must recognize certain features of the differences arising from the historical era and the prevailing moral and legal consciousness. However, while there are no universally accepted doctrine of objective ethics, the Institute of Human Rights have no solid ground for the discourse on universality of human rights – both basic and new – because the concept of human rights becomes a victim of compromises in unequal struggle against economic and political interests.
That permits to continue the discourse on the universality of human rights. In Christian ethics and doctrine the essence of human being is fully revealed only in a relation with God and with another human being. Therefore, a Christian concept of human rights is adequately balanced with the concept of public rights and interests. Utilitarianism, as an ethical doctrine, is accepted by the Western legal systems and is rooted in current legal and political discourse. It has linkages with Christian ethics, but can only be considered partially as a criterion for human rights and moral decision-making. Utilitarianism is based on subjective evaluation of the principles of human behavior, which leads to compromise in every situation. Thus it may lead into a situation where new human right breaches already recognized individual or group human rights. In the case of the formation of new human rights we must recognize certain features of the differences arising from the historical era and the prevailing moral and legal consciousness. However, while there are no universally accepted doctrine of objective ethics, the Institute of Human Rights have no solid ground for the discourse on universality of human rights – both basic and new – because the concept of human rights becomes a victim of compromises in unequal struggle against economic and political interests.
The social nature of human beings pushes them for social interaction and each human being has their own interests, which may not always coincide with the interests of other individuals. Therefore, a state's high priority task is to ensure that every human being and the whole society is protected by the state from unlawful acts. The state is obliged to take legal means to disclose the criminal acts committed by the individuals, and limitation of human rights and fundamental freedoms is inevitable. It means that law enforcement agencies can enter a person's private life protected by international and national law. In given situations, a form of competition arises between the two legal values protected by the law: the right of the people to be secure in their persons and the right of person to privacy and dilemma how to tackle in case of collision of two mentioned values during pre-trial investigation. Based on international standards formulated by European Court of Human Rights, a person's right to privacy can be limited in some cases if such restrictions procedures, in details, are prescribed by law. Mandatory requirements for law restricting a person's privacy are: accessibility (publicly accessible for everyone who wish to introduce); targeting legal objectives; possibility to protect a person's rights from illegal actions; foreseeability; necessity in the democratic society for the prevention of disorder or crime; state's interference into a person's privacy must fit pressing social need. The states (signatories of 1950 European Convention on Human Rights) enjoy a certain but not unlimited margin of appreciation in the matter of the imposition of restrictions on a person's right to privacy. [.]
The social nature of human beings pushes them for social interaction and each human being has their own interests, which may not always coincide with the interests of other individuals. Therefore, a state's high priority task is to ensure that every human being and the whole society is protected by the state from unlawful acts. The state is obliged to take legal means to disclose the criminal acts committed by the individuals, and limitation of human rights and fundamental freedoms is inevitable. It means that law enforcement agencies can enter a person's private life protected by international and national law. In given situations, a form of competition arises between the two legal values protected by the law: the right of the people to be secure in their persons and the right of person to privacy and dilemma how to tackle in case of collision of two mentioned values during pre-trial investigation. Based on international standards formulated by European Court of Human Rights, a person's right to privacy can be limited in some cases if such restrictions procedures, in details, are prescribed by law. Mandatory requirements for law restricting a person's privacy are: accessibility (publicly accessible for everyone who wish to introduce); targeting legal objectives; possibility to protect a person's rights from illegal actions; foreseeability; necessity in the democratic society for the prevention of disorder or crime; state's interference into a person's privacy must fit pressing social need. The states (signatories of 1950 European Convention on Human Rights) enjoy a certain but not unlimited margin of appreciation in the matter of the imposition of restrictions on a person's right to privacy. [.]
The social nature of human beings pushes them for social interaction and each human being has their own interests, which may not always coincide with the interests of other individuals. Therefore, a state's high priority task is to ensure that every human being and the whole society is protected by the state from unlawful acts. The state is obliged to take legal means to disclose the criminal acts committed by the individuals, and limitation of human rights and fundamental freedoms is inevitable. It means that law enforcement agencies can enter a person's private life protected by international and national law. In given situations, a form of competition arises between the two legal values protected by the law: the right of the people to be secure in their persons and the right of person to privacy and dilemma how to tackle in case of collision of two mentioned values during pre-trial investigation. Based on international standards formulated by European Court of Human Rights, a person's right to privacy can be limited in some cases if such restrictions procedures, in details, are prescribed by law. Mandatory requirements for law restricting a person's privacy are: accessibility (publicly accessible for everyone who wish to introduce); targeting legal objectives; possibility to protect a person's rights from illegal actions; foreseeability; necessity in the democratic society for the prevention of disorder or crime; state's interference into a person's privacy must fit pressing social need. The states (signatories of 1950 European Convention on Human Rights) enjoy a certain but not unlimited margin of appreciation in the matter of the imposition of restrictions on a person's right to privacy. [.]
The Book Two of Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania, which came into force in 2001, and Law on Companies of the Republic of Lithuania, which came into force in 2004, provide property and non-property rights for shareholders. The law of the European Union is also still significantly influential in development of Lithuanian companies' law. At present the doctrine of companies' law is still developing in Lithuania and after a relatively recent enactment of mentioned laws, theorists and practitioners of Lithuanian law noticed newly developing tendencies in the doctrine of the companies' law of the Republic of Lithuania, which also include the alternation of possibilities of implementation of shareholders' non-property rights. These master theses aim at determination of how non-property rights of shareholders of Lithuanian companies are implemented at present, what factors influence the scope of implementation of these rights, what measures and means would help solving existing problems of implementation of shareholders' non-property rights, and also in what extent Lithuanian law system secures the implementation of shareholders' non-property rights, what are theoretical and practical problems of implementation of these rights, possible ways and assumptions of their solution.
The Book Two of Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania, which came into force in 2001, and Law on Companies of the Republic of Lithuania, which came into force in 2004, provide property and non-property rights for shareholders. The law of the European Union is also still significantly influential in development of Lithuanian companies' law. At present the doctrine of companies' law is still developing in Lithuania and after a relatively recent enactment of mentioned laws, theorists and practitioners of Lithuanian law noticed newly developing tendencies in the doctrine of the companies' law of the Republic of Lithuania, which also include the alternation of possibilities of implementation of shareholders' non-property rights. These master theses aim at determination of how non-property rights of shareholders of Lithuanian companies are implemented at present, what factors influence the scope of implementation of these rights, what measures and means would help solving existing problems of implementation of shareholders' non-property rights, and also in what extent Lithuanian law system secures the implementation of shareholders' non-property rights, what are theoretical and practical problems of implementation of these rights, possible ways and assumptions of their solution.
The Book Two of Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania, which came into force in 2001, and Law on Companies of the Republic of Lithuania, which came into force in 2004, provide property and non-property rights for shareholders. The law of the European Union is also still significantly influential in development of Lithuanian companies' law. At present the doctrine of companies' law is still developing in Lithuania and after a relatively recent enactment of mentioned laws, theorists and practitioners of Lithuanian law noticed newly developing tendencies in the doctrine of the companies' law of the Republic of Lithuania, which also include the alternation of possibilities of implementation of shareholders' non-property rights. These master theses aim at determination of how non-property rights of shareholders of Lithuanian companies are implemented at present, what factors influence the scope of implementation of these rights, what measures and means would help solving existing problems of implementation of shareholders' non-property rights, and also in what extent Lithuanian law system secures the implementation of shareholders' non-property rights, what are theoretical and practical problems of implementation of these rights, possible ways and assumptions of their solution.
The Book Two of Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania, which came into force in 2001, and Law on Companies of the Republic of Lithuania, which came into force in 2004, provide property and non-property rights for shareholders. The law of the European Union is also still significantly influential in development of Lithuanian companies' law. At present the doctrine of companies' law is still developing in Lithuania and after a relatively recent enactment of mentioned laws, theorists and practitioners of Lithuanian law noticed newly developing tendencies in the doctrine of the companies' law of the Republic of Lithuania, which also include the alternation of possibilities of implementation of shareholders' non-property rights. These master theses aim at determination of how non-property rights of shareholders of Lithuanian companies are implemented at present, what factors influence the scope of implementation of these rights, what measures and means would help solving existing problems of implementation of shareholders' non-property rights, and also in what extent Lithuanian law system secures the implementation of shareholders' non-property rights, what are theoretical and practical problems of implementation of these rights, possible ways and assumptions of their solution.
Shareholders, being the owners of the company's shares, are interested in a profitable and effective performance of the company, because by acquiring shares of the company they seek satisfaction of their own interests, i.e. material gain. Therefore, the shareholders should have an opportunity to be actively involved in the management of the company, control actions of the management bodies of the company and, thus, pursue defined business objectives. Such opportunities to shareholders are provided by their non-property rights. This work analyses the main non-property rights of shareholders in Lithuania, emphasizes the importance of proper implementation of these rights. It also deals with infringement instances of these non-property rights and their consequences to the rights enjoyed by other shareholders, remedies for such infringed rights and discusses major problems that shareholders, both residents and non-residents, face in exercising them. The work also examines the initiatives proposed by the European Commission to improve corporate management in EU member states, in particular the Proposal by the European Commission for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 January 2006 on the exercise of voting rights by shareholders of companies having their registered office in a Member State and whose shares are admitted to trading on a regulated market and amending Directive 2004/109/EC.
Shareholders, being the owners of the company's shares, are interested in a profitable and effective performance of the company, because by acquiring shares of the company they seek satisfaction of their own interests, i.e. material gain. Therefore, the shareholders should have an opportunity to be actively involved in the management of the company, control actions of the management bodies of the company and, thus, pursue defined business objectives. Such opportunities to shareholders are provided by their non-property rights. This work analyses the main non-property rights of shareholders in Lithuania, emphasizes the importance of proper implementation of these rights. It also deals with infringement instances of these non-property rights and their consequences to the rights enjoyed by other shareholders, remedies for such infringed rights and discusses major problems that shareholders, both residents and non-residents, face in exercising them. The work also examines the initiatives proposed by the European Commission to improve corporate management in EU member states, in particular the Proposal by the European Commission for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 January 2006 on the exercise of voting rights by shareholders of companies having their registered office in a Member State and whose shares are admitted to trading on a regulated market and amending Directive 2004/109/EC.
The Relationship between the Right to Respect for One's Private and Family Life and the Right to Freedom of Expression according to the European Convention on Human Rights SUMMARY Right to private life, guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention, protects individuals not only against interference by the public authorities but also against interference by individuals and private institutions, including the media. Freedom of expression is one of the key foundations of a democratic society. In that regard, the media play a pre-eminent role in a State governed by the rule of law. This brings us to the heart of a situation of "virtual conflict" between two rights. Each right and freedom is proclaimed, recognised and guaranteed, but, at the same time, each one is capable of limiting the other and being limited by it. Indeed, the right to respect for private life may be openly hostile to freedom of expression. A conflict of values lies within the tension between freedom of expression, the public's right to be informed and the right to one's privacy or reputation. Conflicts between privacy and freedom of expression commonly arise where non-State actors, such as the media or authors of books, publicise private matters. Publishers may claim that the revelations were a matter of public interest or that the individuals involved had forfeited their privacy interest by leading very public lives. The legitimacy of these claims has been tested in a number of cases in countries which provide legal protection for privacy. In such cases, courts have had to balance privacy interests against the guarantees of freedom of expression. The need to balance these key interests arises most commonly where privacy laws restrict freedom of expression. The balance between privacy and freedom of expression depends on one's assessment of what the public interest demands. Journalism shall be exercised so as to serve freedom of expression, which includes respect for other fundamental rights, freedoms and interests protected by the Convention. The competing right we are concerned with is the right to private life, respect for which by the media is, as numerous texts adopted within the Council of Europe have also emphasised, an imperative need. It is various implications for the operation of the media in a democratic society, which are to be found in numerous codes of professional practice: respect for the public's right to be informed accurately of facts and events; collection of information by fair means; presentation of information, comments and criticism in such a way as to avoid unwarranted invasion of privacy, defamation or unfounded accusations; correction of any seriously inaccurate information, etc. Many cases in which privacy interests arise involve a public figure and such cases usually engage the public interest. Public figures often play an important social role and this should be taken into account in determining whether the public interest is engaged. The private lives of public figures are entitled to protection, save where they may have an impact upon public events. The limits of acceptable criticism are accordingly wider as regards a politician as such than as regards a private individual. This study of a comparative analysis about the conflicting situation between Articles 8 ant 10 of the Convention indicates that freedom of the press should not be understood as some kind of licence for publishers and broadcasters, allowing them to maximise profits by commercialising other people's lives against their will. Freedom of the press has to be understood in a way required by its democratic legitimacy and its high legal status. The press is supposed to serve public discussion and the shaping of public opinion on subjects of general importance.
