Suchergebnisse

This article is a comparative analysis of the legal nature and the rights and obligations of parties concluding property insurance contracts under the provisions of the Maritime Code and the Civil Code. When navigating a ship, the shipowner conducts a business commonly referred to as the operation of a ship, which includes, inter alia, its use for business purposes. The shipowner business is therefore an economic activity and the owner is the entrepreneur who runs his business which s/he is liable for. It is his/her broad interest to insure permanent assets of his/her company against damage as well as his/her civil liability. As the text indicates, s/he is treated by the legislature more severely than a person conducting a standard property insurance. In addition, the legal nature of the policy, due to the requirements of maritime traffic, differs from that from the Civil Code. The purpose of this study is to identify the key differences between the two regulations.

Public funds should play important role in rationalization of the social security system as they allow greater control over expenses redistribution and thus over changes in society. However, as the rule of parainsurance is not followed while creating public funds, one cannot hope for public support for fiscal burdens and for diminishing political influence on the tax collection for social expenses and social expenses itself. The lack of public support should not limit possibilities of using public funds to rationalize public finances, particularly social security.

During the discussion, the panellists analyzed several main issues: I. The role of the family and public institutions in long-term care. II. System solutions in the policy of supporting carers of dependent people. III. The method of financing care for elderly dependent people (including the role of social insurance). IV. The ability to provide care to dependent people and public expenditure on it, forms of support for carers. V. The role of the market in providing care and state activities. Outsourcing of carers of dependent people. Relationship between bottom-up actions and top-down actions taken by central authorities. VI. Reconciling the role of a caregiver with work on the free market.

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.