Suchergebnisse

Central and Eastern European countries had a process of privatising financial institutions in 1990's as the right way to a market economy. The world has been shaken by the global financial crisis of 2008-2009 and as certain distrust of private-owned financial institutions started to evolve, state authorities were pushed to punish the distressed financial institutions and their managers and public funds were diverted from social projects to bank rescue schemes. The world is facing various stress scenarios and challenges today that might influence the fundamental system of private property of financial institutions. Financial institutions are the principal mechanisms for money circulation and a precondition for successful economic development. The change in financial institutions property status may consequently influence the pace of development of certain aspects of the economy. However, property rights cannot be accounted as an uninfringeable fortress of the entitlement theory because a modern social and economic policy state seeks to transfer them, especially when the goal is preserving a state as such in a stress scenario. This research is dedicated to justify the thesis hypothesis that property rights of financial institutions can be legally infringed by a government performing deprivatisation from the perspective of the public interest in a stress scenario. Property rights and their theoretical implications are being examined throughout the thesis from the perspective of the public interest. Financial institutions and their critical situations are analysed from the perspective of their deprivatisation and the historical events of the 2008-2009 global financial crisis. Stress scenario situations are outlined with the public interest's influence on a government's actions in the deprivatisation of financial institutions. The status of financial institutions in a stress scenario is discussed and recommendations for an efficient deprivatisation are presented from the perspective of property rights. Finally, case law on the legality of a deprivatisation is studied and recommendations for litigating deprivatisation are presented. The hypothesis of the thesis is justified through the most important conclusion that a state's intervention in the financial sector is inevitable in a stress scenario to protect scarce financial resources and their efficient allocation, social security, state administration and the state as such even by infringing property rights in deprivatisation process performed within the limits of the eminent domain theory. The legitimacy of a state's decisions has to be evaluated by courts, otherwise governments could just proceed with deprivatisation procedures and there would be no public challenges for these actions of governments.

Central and Eastern European countries had a process of privatising financial institutions in 1990's as the right way to a market economy. The world has been shaken by the global financial crisis of 2008-2009 and as certain distrust of private-owned financial institutions started to evolve, state authorities were pushed to punish the distressed financial institutions and their managers and public funds were diverted from social projects to bank rescue schemes. The world is facing various stress scenarios and challenges today that might influence the fundamental system of private property of financial institutions. Financial institutions are the principal mechanisms for money circulation and a precondition for successful economic development. The change in financial institutions property status may consequently influence the pace of development of certain aspects of the economy. However, property rights cannot be accounted as an uninfringeable fortress of the entitlement theory because a modern social and economic policy state seeks to transfer them, especially when the goal is preserving a state as such in a stress scenario. This research is dedicated to justify the thesis hypothesis that property rights of financial institutions can be legally infringed by a government performing deprivatisation from the perspective of the public interest in a stress scenario. Property rights and their theoretical implications are being examined throughout the thesis from the perspective of the public interest. Financial institutions and their critical situations are analysed from the perspective of their deprivatisation and the historical events of the 2008-2009 global financial crisis. Stress scenario situations are outlined with the public interest's influence on a government's actions in the deprivatisation of financial institutions. The status of financial institutions in a stress scenario is discussed and recommendations for an efficient deprivatisation are presented from the perspective of property rights. Finally, case law on the legality of a deprivatisation is studied and recommendations for litigating deprivatisation are presented. The hypothesis of the thesis is justified through the most important conclusion that a state's intervention in the financial sector is inevitable in a stress scenario to protect scarce financial resources and their efficient allocation, social security, state administration and the state as such even by infringing property rights in deprivatisation process performed within the limits of the eminent domain theory. The legitimacy of a state's decisions has to be evaluated by courts, otherwise governments could just proceed with deprivatisation procedures and there would be no public challenges for these actions of governments.

Central and Eastern European countries had a process of privatising financial institutions in 1990's as the right way to a market economy. The world has been shaken by the global financial crisis of 2008-2009 and as certain distrust of private-owned financial institutions started to evolve, state authorities were pushed to punish the distressed financial institutions and their managers and public funds were diverted from social projects to bank rescue schemes. The world is facing various stress scenarios and challenges today that might influence the fundamental system of private property of financial institutions. Financial institutions are the principal mechanisms for money circulation and a precondition for successful economic development. The change in financial institutions property status may consequently influence the pace of development of certain aspects of the economy. However, property rights cannot be accounted as an uninfringeable fortress of the entitlement theory because a modern social and economic policy state seeks to transfer them, especially when the goal is preserving a state as such in a stress scenario. This research is dedicated to justify the thesis hypothesis that property rights of financial institutions can be legally infringed by a government performing deprivatisation from the perspective of the public interest in a stress scenario. Property rights and their theoretical implications are being examined throughout the thesis from the perspective of the public interest. Financial institutions and their critical situations are analysed from the perspective of their deprivatisation and the historical events of the 2008-2009 global financial crisis. Stress scenario situations are outlined with the public interest's influence on a government's actions in the deprivatisation of financial institutions. The status of financial institutions in a stress scenario is discussed and recommendations for an efficient deprivatisation are presented from the perspective of property rights. Finally, case law on the legality of a deprivatisation is studied and recommendations for litigating deprivatisation are presented. The hypothesis of the thesis is justified through the most important conclusion that a state's intervention in the financial sector is inevitable in a stress scenario to protect scarce financial resources and their efficient allocation, social security, state administration and the state as such even by infringing property rights in deprivatisation process performed within the limits of the eminent domain theory. The legitimacy of a state's decisions has to be evaluated by courts, otherwise governments could just proceed with deprivatisation procedures and there would be no public challenges for these actions of governments.