The author is writing about the political issues related to the project of Common Framework of Reference (CFR), initiated by the European Commission, which often presents it as an unbinding handbook containing fundamental principles, model definitions and norms of the law of contractual obligations, which should serve as a source of inspiration for EU institutions in preparation of new and revision of the existing legal regulations of EU and thus contribute to improvement of their quality and coherence. When looking more closely we find that this is a sensitive political topic; the project is by many connected with the idea of creating unified legal regulation of contractual bonds on EU level or even of European civil code. Worries can be noticed that it might serve as a kind of Horse of Troy for pushing such unification. The author presents the project in wider context of unification initiatives in the field of private law and analyses its political potential and usefulness in the light of its declared aims. In his view these worries are justified.

Kandalec P.: Cancellation of fraudulently acquired nationality (state citizenship)

Article 12 Section 2 of Czech Republics Constitution stipulates that nobody can be deprived of state citizenship against his own will. This contribution tries to show the limits of this inviolability in cases when the citizenship was acquired by naturalization after which it was discovered that the applicant for naturalization had intentionally given untrue facts in his application, or had even used pressure or corruption in its obtaining. With reference to the current jurisprudence of German courts the author argues in favour of the possibility of cancellation of citizenship obtained in such way, without having to make changes in the existing Constitution of the Czech Republic. Attention is paid also to the European dimension of this problem the increasingly relevant issue of EU citizenship.

Svoboda K.: Judicial decision as a legal fact per se

During civil dispute the parties can make two types of acts. Acts of purely procedural nature as well as acts by which they interfere in material relations which are the subject of the proceedings. However, mutual action may contain both. This is the case when the defendant incorporates in it, beside the actual mutual proposal, also an objection of inclusion. In such mixed act it is not possible to separate its material component from the procedural component. Therefore the court cannot but approach the mutual action as a whole and to consider its eventual defects exclusively according to procedural regulations (§ 43 of Civil Procedure Code). However, that means that the judge must provide an instruction how to remove also the defect of material component of mutual action. That means an act beyond the framework of instructing duty set by the law. However, there is no such effect regarding the other party, because the plaintiff does not have any duty of collaboration in relation to the defendant. If the mutual action is delivered to the plaintiff by way of fiction, such delivery will not include the exercise of the objection of inclusion. That is to say the plaintiff will not be informed about the objection of inclusion when such kind of delivery is used (§41 Section 3 of Civil Procedure Code).

Vyhledávání

Pro předplatitele

Pro editory

přihlásit

Inzerce

suchnova@wkcr.cz

WebHosting Rozhled