Lawyers’ Disciplinary, Corporate, and Professional Liability in the EU: Applicability to the Russian Legal System

Author(s):  
Alexander Vasyaev
2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-37
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Kustra-Rogatka

Summary The paper deals with the changes in the centralized (Kelsenian) model of constitutional review resulting from a state’s membership of the EU, which unequivocally demonstrates the decomposition of the classic paradigm of constitutional judiciary. The main point raised in the paper is that European integration has fundamentally influenced on the four above-mentioned basic elements of the Kelsenian model of constitutional review of legislation, which are the following: the assumption of the hierarchical construction of a legal system; the assumption of the supreme legal force of the constitution as the primary normative act of a given system; a centralised model of reviewing hierarchical conformity of legal norms; coherence of the system guaranteed by a constitutional court’s power to declare defectiveness of a norm and the latter’s derogation. All its fundamental elements have evolved, i.e. the hierarchy of the legal system, the overriding power of the constitution, centralized control of constitutionality, and the erga omnes effect of the ruling on the hierarchical non-conformity of the norms. It should be noted that over the last decade the dynamics of these changes have definitely gained momentum. This has been influenced by several factors, including the “great accession” of 2004, the pursuit of formal constitutionalization of the EU through the Constitutional Treaty, the compromise solutions adopted in the Treaty of Lisbon, the entry into force of the Charter, and the prospect of EU accession to the ECHR. The CJEU has used these factors to deepen the tendencies towards decentralization of constitutional control, by atomising national judicial systems and relativizing the effects of constitutional court rulings within national legal systems. The end result is the observed phenomenon, if not of marginalisation, then at least of a systemic shift in the position of constitutional courts, which have lost their uniqueness and have become “only ones of many” national courts.


Author(s):  
Elena Sorokina

The preliminary ruling procedure is an essential feature of the EU legal system, which is a unique cooperation tool as part of the dialogue between the Court of Justice of the EU and national courts of the Member States. Its main purpose is to ensure uniform interpretation and application of the provisions of EU law with all Member States and to preserve the uniformity of the European legal system. The continuous use by national courts of the Member States of the mechanism of preliminary ruling and constructive inter-judicial cooperation, the Court of Justice has developed an extremely extensive case law on the prohibition of discrimination and with the result to introduce substantial changes in European anti-discrimination law.The preliminary rulings of the Court of Justice have shown its inclination to expand notions of what constitutes discrimination and in most cases the Court prompt by the desire to interpret the provisions of European law so as to ensure the full effectiveness of the law, as well as a willingness to promote and strengthen protection against discrimination in Europe. While the protection against discrimination on some grounds is stronger than others, however, the preliminary rulings of the Court of Justice are important contribution to the transformation of anti-discrimination law, promote change in the national legislation of the Member States and provide the more effective protection of human rights in general.


Author(s):  
Maksymilian Pazdan

The position of the executor of the will is governed by the law applicable to succession (Article 23(2)(f) of the EU Regulation 650/2012), while the position of the succession administrator of the estate of a business of a physical person located in Poland is subject to the Law of 5 July 2018 on the succession administration of the business of a physical person (the legal basis for such solution is in Article 30 of the EU Regulation 650/2012). However, if the court needs to determine the law applicable to certain aspects of appointing or functioning of these institutions, which have a nature of partial or preliminary questions, these laws will apply, as determined in line with the methods elaborated to deal with partial and preliminary questions in private international law. The rules devoted to the executors of wills are usually not self-standing. In such situations, the legislators most often call for supportive application of the rules designed for other matters existing in the same legal system (here — of the legis successionis). This is referred to as the absorption of the legal rules.


2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 173-196
Author(s):  
Nina Cek

The article examines the procedural aspect of medical malpractice cases. It focuses on the differences in proof standards by first explaining the characteristics of the Slovenian legal system and then comparing it with German and English legal systems. The author sheds light on the EU court's approach on the question of the responsibility of the manufacturer for the product (vaccine) and suggests the direction to use a broader framework for the evaluation of evidence and presumptions. Given the disclosed problems of proving through a medical expert's help, the article emphasizes the importance of respect for human rights in civil proceedings. Particular emphasis is also placed on no-fault systems. The question is raised of how introducing such a system into the Slovenian legal system would affect the perceived problem of proving a medical error and informed consent omission.


The current insolvency legislation is the result of a long and cumbersome evolution. It was approved on 7 July 2003 (Ley 22/2003, the Insolvency Act 2003 (‘IA’)) and came into force on 1 September 2004, putting an end to one of the most embarrassing situations that the Spanish legal system has ever had to endure: coming into the 21st century with an insolvency legislation dating back to the beginning of the 19th century. The previous insolvency system was composed of as many as five different legal instruments: the Commercial Codes (Codigo de Comercio) of 1885 and 1829 (only partially in force) and the Law on Suspension of Payments of 1922 (Ley de Suspension de Pagos), which regulated some procedural aspects and all material aspects of commercial insolvency; the Civil Code of 1889, which regulated the insolvency of the general—non-commercial—debtor; and the Civil Procedural Law, dating from 1881 (Ley de Enjuiciamiento civil ). It can then be said that the insolvency of a large business in a developed European economy (the fifth largest in the EU) had to be solved with laws that dated from two centuries before. The reform has been a relief and it has greatly modernised Spain’s economic legal legal framework. However, this process was neither easy nor did it produce a fully satisfactory result.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document