The author analyses in detail the jurisprudence of European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) concerning the restriction of activity of political parties (dissolution, stoppage of activities or refusal to register a political party). The jurisprudence related to Art. 11 (freedom of association) and Art.17 (ban on abuse of rights) of the European Convention on Human Rights is analyzed in particular detail. The author comes to the conclusion that ECHR in reviewing the cases of political parties dissolution questions especially whether there is sufficient evidence that (1) the program of the respective party interpreted with regard to the conduct and speeches of the political partys representatives is in contradiction with the conception of democratic society; (2) that this risk of threat to democracy is sufficiently immediate; (3) that the conduct and speeches of representatives, which are considered within the frame of assessment of the case, can be ascribed to the political party in question. Application of these criteria is demonstrated on cases Refah Partisi versus Turkey and Batasuna versus Spain.

Wagnerová E.: Sovereignty seen from various perspectives

In the first part of this article the author introduces various concepts of sovereignty, seen from the view of social and legal studies. In the second part she focuses specifically on the issues of the sovereignty of state, and follows by a part devoted to U.S. experience and treatment of sovereignty. The evaluation of these issues leads to the most extensive part, describing the conception of sovereignty in the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court, namely in the findings in cases of sugar quotas Pl.ÚS 50/04, Lisbon Treaty I. Pl.ÚS 19/08 and the so-called Lisbon Treaty II. Pl.ÚS 29/09

Pipková H.: Concept of good faith in the trademark application proceeding

DCFR defines good faith as a mental attitude characterized by honesty and an absence of knowledge that an apparent situation is not the true situation. The judgment whether the applicant of a trademark was or was not in good faith falls upon both the national bodies of EU member states and on the respective bodies of the Union. The concept of bad faith, respectively lack of good faith, is not understood in the European specter of legal culture in the same extent. Principle differences as to the contents or meaning can be met. On principle in member states the bona fide good faith is defined, and bad faith is its opposite, a mirror image, beginning where the extent of the concept of good faith ends. Therefore the theory is based on the concept of good faith. With regard to the burden of proof in assessing good faith in this sphere the fundamental issue is whether the applicants good faith should be presumed or not. The bona fide concept is on principal related to the presumption of honesty of the acting party of a private law relation. The concept of bad faith in EU trademark law was interpreted by the European Court of Justice in the case C-529/07 Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli by formulating three preconditions which must be met (condition sine qua non) in order to mark the applicants conduct as made in bad faith. It has to be proved in evidence procedure whether the applicant knows or must know that somebody else is using such label, whether the application was made in order to block the use by a third person and whether the product enjoys other legal protection.

Vyhledávání

Pro předplatitele

Pro editory

přihlásit

Inzerce

suchnova@wkcr.cz

WebHosting Rozhled