Search results

The article presents legal solutions of the European Union (EU) and Member States (MS) with respect to the digitalisation of company law. We analyse and evaluate the EU's efforts to overcome the backlog of legislation concerning technological development, with legal solutions in the field of the electronic formation and registration of companies and in shareholders' communication with company board members. The analysis shows that company law in the EU is lagging behind technological development. Despite ongoing dynamic efforts to modernise it on the EU level, the MS reveal differences in their speed of implementing the EU's directives. The case of Slovenia shows that while digital tools are in wide use for ensuring transparent data disclosure and publication, along with the realisation of basic corporate governance functions, big differences remain between the minority of companies traded on the regulated market and the majority of companies for which such regulation is deficient. Keywords: digitalisation, electronic means, block chain technology, company registration, shareholders' general meeting (SGM), COVID-19 pandemic

학위논문 (석사)-- 서울대학교 대학원 : 환경계획학과, 2012. 2. 전상인. ; 경주지역의 고도보존법 개정과정 사례는 사회구조의 변화에 따른 문제점과 갈등의 원인을 공공부문과 시민들이 함께 인식하고, 다양한 이해관계자들이 참여와 협력을 통한 상호작용으로 합의를 도출한 협력적 계획사례로 평가할 수 있다. 따라서 경주사례를 협력적 계획의 구성요소를 통해 분석해 보는 과정은, 지방 환경에서 협력적 계획이론의 적합성과 현실에서의 적용에 있어 발생하는 문제들을 어떻게 개선하여 보완해야 하는지에 대하여 시사점을 제공한다. 협력적 계획이론에 대한 탐구를 바탕으로, 협력적 계획의 네 가지 구성요소들인 '제도적 맥락', '상호작용의 장', '사회적 학습', '참여 및 합의형성'을 도출하였고, 그중 제도적 맥락을 중심으로 분석을 진행하였다. 경주지역 고도보존법 개정과정에는 공공부문과 시민부문을 중심으로 하는 다양한 이해관계자들이 네트워크를 형성하고 있으며, 공유된 이해에 따라 네트워크는 변화하는 양상을 나타냈다. 개정과정의 이해관계자들은 공청회와 주민설명회를 중심으로 하는 상호작용의 장에서 유통되는 정보를 바탕으로 사회적 학습을 하고 있었으며, 이를 바탕으로 계획과정에 참여하여 개정안의 도출이라는 합의를 형성하였다. 분석의 결과를 종합하면, 경주의 사례는 협력적 계획의 외형은 갖추어져 있다고 평가할 수 있지만, 실제 과정에 있어서는 공공부문의 제한적인 정보공개 범위와 접근성의 문제, 참여자의 대표성과 권력의 비차별성이 부족, 상호작용의 장에서 공동학습이 이루어지기보다 소통의 방향이 일방적이라는 문제점을 가지고 있었다. 제도적 맥락으로 종합하면, 경주지역에 있어 위 문제들은 이해관계자들 간 신뢰저하의 원인으로 작용하였다. 경주지역의 이해관계자들은 정책의 목표달성을 위해 표면적으로 협력하고 있지만 서로를 신뢰하지 않았다. 지방환경에서 발생하는 공공부문과 시민들 간의 신뢰의 문제는 지속적인 합의형성의 학습에서 그 해답을 구할 수 있기에, 정책적 제언을 통해 제도적 보완과 사유재산권 제한에 대한 해법을 모색하고자 하였다. ; Gyeongju-city's preservation law revision process is evaluated as collaborative planning practices. On this case, first the public sector and citizens recognize social problem and conflicts, then various stakeholders are produced agreement with participation and interaction. Therefore, this analysis of cooperative Gyeongju case through the components of the collaborative planning theory provides implications for suitability of collaborative planning theory. It also provides the application of local environment and how to improve and supplement in real life problems. To precede the analysis, first I studied on collaborative planning theory and then derived four components of the collaborative planning theory that 'institutional context', 'field of interaction', 'social learning', 'participation and consensus-building'. Among these components, analysis was performed mainly on the institutional context. Various stakeholders to form a network and a shared understanding of the network showed a changing pattern in this revision process. Stakeholders are conducting social learning, based on the information that delivered by public-hearings and presentations around field of interaction. Based on this information, they involved in the planning process and derived the agreement. In sum, this case evaluated as collaborative planning case superficially. But there are some problems in process that information, participation and mutual understanding. Problem that listed above acts as the cause of deterioration of trust between stakeholders. On the surface, to achieve the goals of the policy is working, but stakeholders are did not trust each other. Through policy proposal, I tried to seek a solution on deterioration of trust problem. Continuous learning on public consensus is encouraging a social capital, such as trust. Study institutional complements on regional commission and find solution in private property limitation problem, are able to derive consensus making. ; Master

Book, written in Slovene, discusses the legal content and scope of the concept of discriminatory harassment, which is deemed to be an unlawful discrimination under modern EU non-discrimination law, in the context of implementation of provisions of relevant EU directives in legal systems of the United Kingdom and Ireland. the two most important EU non-discrimination directives, adopted under Article 13 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community (now Article 19 of the treaty on the Functioning of the European union) - Racial Equality Directive (Directive 2000/43/EC) and Employment Framework Directive (Directive 2000/78/EC) - explicity mention harassment as prohibited form of discrimination. Legal definitions contained in these two directives define harassment as discriminationdiscrimination itself. Prior to the transposition of the EU non-discrimination directives into their laws, while few member states tackled this issue either within the context of the law on equal treatment (e.g. Denmark, the United Kingdom and Ireland) or outside this context (e.g. France), that is in the framework of criminal, civil, health and safety or employment legislation. As a result of the implementation of relevant provisions of the two main non-discrimination directives (Directives 200/43/EC and 200/78/EC) a definition of harassment has been included in legislations of all EU member states. In most member states such legislative definition is a literal copy of the definition of harrasment that can be found in the Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC. The approach to the definition of harassment that appears to be the most "generous" from the perspective of victims of discriminatory harrasment is the one that was taken by British legislator. Such legal position in respect of the prohibition of discrimination has been developed in British case law and is based on the extensive interpretation of non-discrimination laws.

The special legal nature of the concession contract (as one of the legal transactions) which represents a legal framework where the public & private interests meet (two parties cooperate for mutual benefit) is characterized by intertwining of general rules of obligation law & special legal institutes that originate from the sphere of public law. The legal nature of the contractual relationships that arise between administrative & private entities requires special regulation of individual institutes that should reflect the public interest as an important guiding principle for concluding these contracts, & a special legal position of a public law entity as a holder of this public interest. Despite adoption of the new Public-Private Partnership Act in the legislative regulation of the concession contract that still remains variously regulated in previously adopted special provisions of sectoral laws, there are still some deficiencies & dilemmas that are more or less effectively dealt with in the contractual practice. For the legal positions that are classically civil at first sight, the legislator or court practice have laid down special modified rules of civil law in most developed countries. In the course of time, these rules became part of public law/administrative law. Thus, the French legal order has best developed the rules of the public contractual law & the legal institute of the administrative contract that the Slovenian administrative theoreticians try more & more to introduce also into our legal order. References. Adapted from the source document.

The concept of "hidden payout of profit" is characteristic for tax law, but inappropriate for corporate law, although it became deep-rooted in this field by practice. Within the context of corporate law it is not only about the problem of profit payouts, but also about the protection of the so-called tied up assets of a capital company within the so-called principle of capital preservation. The purpose of the corporate legislation is to prevent inadmissible interferences of shareholders or associates in the company's assets. Unlike corporate law, the purpose of tax law is to protect (fiscal) interests of the state, primarily to protect the tax base of the company as an independent and only subject to taxation, therefore the payouts of profit don't have an effect on the amount of the tax base, irrespective of whether the company pays out the profit in an open or hidden way. Hidden payouts of profit - as the open ones - do not reduce the tax base for income. The subject of the discussion are both aspects - the corporate aspect of hidden transfers of assets and the tax aspects of hidden transfers of assets within the law of joint-stock companies and limited liability companies.