Search results

A magyar politikai és katonai vezetés és 1920-ban még reális lehetőséget látott az békefeltételek, módosítására. Az elképzelés részben a csehszlovák állam komoly belső problémáira épített. Másrészt szovjet-orosz Vörös Hadsereg Közép-Európát veszélyeztető sikerei teremthettek a régióban válsághelyzetet. Mindkét esetben számítani lehetetett arra, hogy a nyugati hatalmak kedvezően fogadnák a Magyar Nemzeti Hadsereg fellépését, a szovjetek által fenyegetett Lengyelország megsegítésére, a térség stabilizálására, a bolsevik veszély elhárítására. Ehhez azonban a magyar csapatoknak be kellett volna vonulniuk a Felvidékre. A magyar kormány titkos tárgyalásokat folytatott francia személyiségekkel, melyek hajlottak volna arra, hogy a magyar segítségért cserébe Felvidék, vagy annak legalább a keleti része ismét magyar fennhatóság alá kerülhessen. A katonai tervek (Ébredés, Pirkadás, Árpád) végül a politikai feltételek hiánya miatt nem valósulhattak meg. A szovjet előretörést a lengyelek megállították, Csehszlovákiában pedig nem került sor bolsevik fordulatra. In 1920, the Hungarian political and military leadership still saw a realistic opportunity to modify the peace conditions. The idea was partly built on the serious interior problems of the Czecho-Slovakian. On the other hand, a crisis situation might have been created in the region by the success of the Soviet-Russian Red Army that was pushing forward towards the West. In both cases, it could have been possible to count on the Western powers' favourable receipt of the act of the Hungarian National Army in order to help Poland that was threatened by the Soviets, to stabilise the region, and to eliminate Bolshevik threat. However, in order to do that, the Hungarian troops had had to march in the Highlands. The Hungarian Government held confidential negotiations with French personalities who would have propended to accept that in turn of Hungarian help, Highland or at least its Eastern part could belong again under Hungarian control. Eventually, the military plans (Awakening, Dawn, Arpad) could not be implemented because of the lack of political conditions. The Polish stopped the Soviets' sudden attack, while in Czecho-Slovakia no Bolshevik turn took place.

"Following the coming into force of the new Social Dialogue Act in 2011, the Romanian collective bargaining system has fundamentally changed due to the restructuring of the levels of collective bargaining and the definition of the representativeness criteria. The collective agreement is the central institution of the collective labour law, the existence or non-existence of it, the content of the agreement being of a real interest for the enforcement of employees' interest. The new regulation significantly weakened the bargaining power of the social partners, which very soon led to a drastic reduction in the number of the concluded collective agreements.
In our study, we try to point out the problematic issues of the Romanian regulation related to the collective agreement, anticipating at the same time the possible new perspectives opened up by the attempt to amend the law."

"Employers' liability for damages is an extremely strict, no-fault liability. In practically all cases, employers are liable for employment-related damages suffered by employees. Rules on employers' liability for damages has been changed in many aspects by the Hungarian code of labour law in the private sector, Act I of 2012 on the Labour Code (hereinafter referred to as Labour Code). These changes have introduced some, generally private law institutions into the assessment of liability, such as the foreseeability clause.
The application of these rules raises a lot of questions even in typical employment relationships, while for atypical employment relationships it is especially true. We must realize that the system of the employers' liability for damages has been designed for conventional employment relationships.
The purpose of this presentation and study is to review to what extent the rules governing employers' liability for damages may be applied for atypical employment relationships unobjectionably, e.g. remote working, or for atypical elements of typical employment such as home office."