Search results

"The author intends to present legal socialization - the concept of the sociology of law - which describes attitudes to norms, law and law enforcement institutions. For law to be effective, any individual in a given community needs to internalize a number of values and attitudes. The attitude to law will influence its application; its effectiveness will depend on the perspective adopted by the legal norm addressees who could either accept binding regulations or ignore them. An adequate legal policy helps construe legal norms in a manner to prevent costs of interventions which need to be taken when law is not convergent with social expectations." (author's abstract)

Rozdział prezentuje teoretyczna analizę relacji zachodzącej między prawem a kontrolą społeczną przedstawiając w jaki sposób prawo jako narzędzie kontroli społecznej określa nastawienia wobec prawa.

The purpose of the article is to present the legal situation of a slave under Roman criminal law. The analysis conducted proves that the approach towards slaves changed along with the transformation of the government system of ancient Rome. In the Period of the Republic, criminal liability of slaves evolved in two directions. The dominica potestas was exercised by owners, as well as the collegial body – tresviri capitales. From the Principate period, Roman jurists were convinced that the legal status of a slave and a free person was identical under criminal law. The difference between these offenders was non-exercise of leges criminales with a penalty that would be inadequate for their legal status, or ruling and exercising of more severe penalties against slaves. ; Artykuł ma na celu przedstawienie sytuacji prawnej niewolnika na gruncie rzymskiego prawa karnego. Przeprowadzone rozważania dowodzą, że podejście do niewolników ulegało zmianie wraz z ewolucją systemu władzy w starożytnym Rzymie. W okresie republiki odpowiedzialność karna niewolników kształtowała się dwutorowo. Jurysdykcję w ramach dominica potestas wykonywali ich właściciele, a także kolegialny urząd – treviri capitales. Juryści rzymscy, począwszy od epoki pryncypatu, nie mieli żadnych wątpliwości, że status prawny niewolnika i osoby wolnej był na gruncie prawa karnego tożsamy. Różnica dotyczyła niestosowania wobec nich leges criminales z sankcją karną nieadekwatną do ich statusu prawnego czy też orzekania i wykonywania surowszej kary wobec niewolnika.

The institution of self-defence comprises both provisions of the General Part (art. 36 and 37:self defence and imaginary self defence) and the Special Part (art. 118 and 124: intentional killing,causing grievous bodily harm as a result of exceeding the borders of self defence or using excessivemeasures necessary to catch the perpetrator) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.There are diverse opinions in Ukrainian jurisprudence concerning the problem of how selfdefenceand other circumstances eliminate the illegality of a forbidden act. The aim of this paper isto present the main attitudes to these problems. The approach considering self-defence in the lightof legality is the most popular view. There is also an approach according to which one distinguishesthe prerequisites for self-defence and the elements of such self-defence taking into account elementssuch as: the subject – the aim – the objective side – the subjective control. The socially harmfulattack which justifies the use of self-defence should be analysed using both of these approaches.The features of a legitimate self-defence are: the subject – a private person; the aim – to causeinjuries to the attacker (the direct aim) in order to repel or stop the attack (the indirect aim) in orderto defend legally protected rights and interests of a person, interests of the society or the state (thefinal aim); the object – the attacker, his rights and interests; the objective side – actions casually connectedwith the causing of harm to the attacker, commensurable with the harmfulness of the attackand the state of the defence; subjective control – proper realisation by the subject of the prerequisitesand features of the defence and the will to cause commensurable harm to the attacker.Two types of exceeding the borders of self-defence are distinguished in the paper: exceedingthe borders of acceptable harm and exceeding the borders of adequate harm. Criminal responsibilityfor exceeding the borders of self-defence arises only in cases clearly provided for in art. 118 and 124of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The sanctions in these articles are much more lenient than in thecase of corresponding offences not committed while exceeding of the borders of self-defence (art.115, 119 and 121 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). ; Artykuł nie zawiera abstraktu w języku polskim

The article is devoted to a critical review of the European Parliament Resolution of February 16, 2017 on the regulations in the field of robotics. The authors analyze the approaches of the creators of the law in terms of perception of autonomous robots as subjects of law and pay attention to the legal liability for damage caused by robots. The authors conclude that the concept of robots as the subject of law and the possibility of endowing robots with artificial intelligence with the qualities of a legal or electronic entity are arguable. First of all, the legal personality of robots raises the problem of responsibility and protection of the rights of potential victims. The resolution of the European Parliament emphasizes the need for such a legal structure that will ensure the harmonization of the interests of developers and sellers of autonomous robots, users and victims – the imposition of liability on the manufacturer or liability insurance.

Which rights and obligations arise from the EU principle prohibiting unjust enrichment? This is the first publication to thoroughly examine the consequences this principle has - or may have - for private law relationships. An illuminating analysis, bearing both academic and practical importance. As the interplay between EU law and national private law intensifies, the question arises how the EU principle prohibiting unjust enrichment plays into various legal relationships involving one or more individuals. Unjust enrichment in European Union law takes a pioneering step in addressing this pressing issue. The author puts forward a compelling analysis, taking into account the functions of unjust enrichment in a number of national law systems and the functions of general principles of EU law, as well as case law of the Court of Justice of the EU. For analytic purposes, links are identified between EU causes of action based on undue payment, unjust enrichment and unlawful act, respectively. This is followed by a discussion whether or not such actions should be founded on violation of an EU provision having direct (horizontal) effect. Insight into the possible consequences of the EU principle prohibiting unjust enrichment has both academic and practical importance. The reader gains a deeper understanding of how the Court of Justice may further develop EU law on the basis of private-law principles. The study illuminates which rights individuals may derive from such legal principles and - if they can do so - under which circumstances