RALF
Not a member yet
2273 research outputs found
Sort by
Unjustified enrichment in relation to contract, tort and property law
Get PDFPravo neosnovanog obogaćenja nezavisna je grana obligacionog prava koja se zbog svog razvoja u istoriji do neke mere preklapa sa drugim oblastima civilnog prava - deliktnim, stvarnim i ugovornim pravom te poslovodstvom bez naloga. Upravo zbog toga se često postavlja pitanje odnosa ugovornih zahteva prema zahtevima po drugim pravnim osnovama. Rad se bavi pitanjem da li je zahtev iz neosnovanog obogaćenja u odnosu na ugovorno, deliktno i stvarno pravo supsidijarnog karaktera i da li je isključen ukoliko poverilac ima mogućnost da podnese zahtev po drugačijoj, specijalizovanoj pravnoj osnovi. U raspravi se, koja slovenačko pravo stavlja u središte i analizira ga u svetlu rešenja odabranih stranih pravnih sistema, razmatraju različite varijante principa supsidijarnosti te uloga i značaj prava neosnovanog obogaćenja u sistemu građanskog prava.The unjustified enrichment law creates an independent source of obligations, which for historic reasons often overlaps with other fields of private law-the law of delict, property law, contract law, and negotiorum gestio. This raises many issues concerning the relationship between enrichment claims and other private law claims. The paper examines the issue whether the enrichment claim has a subsidiary role and is excluded in the event that the creditor disposes of a more specific claim based on contract, tort or ownership. In doing so it analyses the principle of subsidiarity and examines the role of unjustified enrichment in the system of private law. While the discussion mainly focuses on the Slovenian law of unjustified enrichment, it takes into consideration the approaches adopted in selected foreign jurisdictions
Horizontal and vertical agreements: Differences between the European Union and the United States
Get PDFThis article compares the European Union and the United States with respect to competition law and enforcement practices as it pertains to agreements among competitors in a market (horizontal) and agreements among firms in a supply chain (vertical). Regarding horizontal agreements, the primary difference in the law is the ability of the competition authority to bring a criminal case in the U.S. and a more subtle difference is the presence of concerted practices in the EU. Enforcement differs in the far more active role of private litigation in the U.S. The differences are greater when one turns to vertical agreements. Though the EU provides safe harbors for vertical agreements, something which is absent in the U.S., it is abundantly clear that the U.S.is more lenient in the law and in enforcement. Also provided is a discussion of some recent departures between the U.S. and EU
Protection of jobseekers participating in job announcements and advertisements, and the right to an effective remedy in the general employment regime
Get PDFJavni oglas, odnosno konkurs za zasnivanje radnog odnosa predstavljaju instrumente posredstvom kojih se može ostvariti ustavno načelo da svakom pod jednakim uslovima moraju biti dostupni svi slobodni poslovi. Primena tog načela najtešnje je povezana s delotvornim ostvarivanjem slobode rada i prava na rad, zbog čega postupak zasnivanja radnog odnosa ne može biti van domašaja kontrole koja omogućava neposredno uklanjanje nepravilnosti i nezakonitosti u ovom postupku. U tom smislu je u članku razmotreno pitanje prava učesnika oglasa ili konkursa na delotvorno pravno sredstvo, i to ne samo kroz pravo na pravosudne i vanpravosudne pravne lekove, već i kroz pravo na prigovor ili žalbu, kao sredstva kojima se ostvaruje interna zaštita prava. U Republici Srbiji, ovo pitanje je posebno delikatno, jer Zakon o radu ne poznaje dvostepenost, dok sudska zaštita prava učesnika oglasa ili konkursa nije neposredno uređena, uz izuzetak zaštite od diskriminacije, kao i zaštite radnika kojima je kod poslodavca prethodno prestao radni odnos kao višku zaposlenih, zbog čega uživaju prvenstvo pri zapošljavanju za obavljanje istih poslova. Takvo rešenje prati niz otvorenih pitanja, posebno što učesnici oglasa ili konkursa u posebnim režimima radnih odnosa uživaju dvostepenost u istoj situaciji, čime se dovodi u pitanje delotvorna primena načela jednakosti i jednake zakonske zaštite. U članku su, otud, formulisani predlozi de lege ferenda za stvaranje uslova za delotvorno ostvarivanje prava na rad, slobode rada i zaštite od diskriminacije u postupku u kom radnik nastoji da stekne status koji će mu obezbediti sredstva za izdržavanje, kao i mogućnost da kroz rad razvija svoju ličnost.Public job announcements and advertisements are instruments which provide for exercising the constitutional principle that all available jobs must be accessible to everyone under equal conditions. The application of this principle is most closely connected with the effective exercise of freedom of work and the right to work. For this reason, recruitment procedure cannot be beyond the scope of control which enables immediate elimination of irregularities in this procedure. In that context, this article discusses the issue of the right of participants in public announcements or job advertisements to an effective legal remedy, not only via the right to judicial and extrajudicial remedies, but also via the right to object or appeal, as the means to achieve internal protection of rights. In the Republic of Serbia, this issue is particularly delicate because the Labour Act does not recognize the two-instance internal procedure, while judicial protection of the rights of jobseekers has not been directly regulated, with the exception of protection against discrimination, and protection of workers whose employment was previously terminated due to redundancy, resulting in their employment priority when hiring for the same jobs. This legal solution is accompanied by a number of open questions, especially as the participants in public announcements and job advertisements procedures in special employment regimes enjoy the two instance internal protection in the same situation, which calls into question the effective application of the principle of equality before the law. Therefore, the article formulates proposals de lege ferenda to create conditions for effective exercise of the right to work, freedom of work, and protection against discrimination in a procedure in which a worker seeks to acquire a status that will provide him with the means of subsistence as well as an opportunity to develop his personality through work
Taxing artificial intelligence and robots: Critical assessment of potential policy solutions and recommendation for alternative approaches-Sovereign measure: Education taxes/global measure: Global education tax or planetary tax
No full textIn recent years, investments in technology have resulted in an exponential growth of AI/robots. It is argued that some of these innovations are able to outperform and replace humans in various types of jobs. Accordingly, concerns regarding government revenues have been raised, as AI/robots could trigger widespread unemployment with the result that less tax revenue will accrue to the government. This contribution, as a start, analyses whether or not this is truly a concern. In order to do so, the authors map the Industrial Revolution(s) that humankind has witnessed and then conduct a literature review of economic and demographic studies relevant to the debate. The economic studies indicate two different directions, that is, some argue that AI/robots (Industry 4.0) will increase human jobs whereas others argue that jobs could disappear. At the same time, the demographic perspective indicates that a purely economic employment-focused view of AI/robots is bound to lead to inconclusive results. Assuming that this is a probable concern, the authors summarize selected measures taken by governments as well as the various options that have been considered in academic literature to introduce taxes on AI/robots. Subsequently, the authors analyse the various "taxing" options from the perspective of commonly accepted tax policy principles applicable to electronic commerce (Ottawa Taxation Framework conditions). This analysis indicates that several proposals (e.g. proposals that treat AI/robots as independently taxable subjects or proposals that attribute income to owners of AI/robots) breach the principles of (i) neutrality; (ii) simplicity and certainty; (iii) efficiency; (iv) effectiveness and fairness; and (v) flexibility. Thus, such measures should not be pursued. The authors also conclude that, at this stage, targeted taxes on AI/robots should not be introduced, as this would also be contrary to the measures taken by governments globally to promote research and development (R and D) (input or output incentives). The present contribution therefore suggests that governments need to be proactive rather than reactive in this area. This could be achieved by monitoring the impact of AI/robots on a regular basis, and if the trend indicates that jobs are disappearing or revenues are declining, then the article suggests that states raise funds from an earmarked education tax. The funds raised from this tax, among other objectives, should be used to finance and foster professional educational programmes to reskill workers, besides assisting and guiding them to transition into new roles. However, a national measure may not be sufficient to tackle the issue (issues) at stake, especially in light of the demographic perspective discussed in the contribution. Thus, considering some jurisdictions may not be in a position to implement or fully benefit from an education tax, the authors also discuss the possibility of implementing a global fiscal redistribution mechanism (multilateral solution) from developed (surrender jurisdictions) to developing countries (recipient jurisdictions). The latter, depending on its scope, could be in the form of a global education tax or more broadly a planetary tax
'Legality' of the legal order in postwar Serbia from 1944 to 1946: Organization and work of the judiciary
Get PDFThe judiciary in Serbia is heir to a long tradition of political influence, which was particularly visible during the Communist regime after World War II. Violations of the presumption of innocence, retroactive sentencing and a denial of basic human rights are just some of the features of the work of the postwar "judiciary" in Serbia, between 1944 and 1946. This paper analyzes the implications of revolutionary legislative activity, the structure and organization of the Military Court and the Court of Honor, and examines to what extent the dominant political culture, implemented through the state coercive apparatus, influenced judicial adjudication. The paper elaborates on Radbruch's idea of "statutory lawlessness", Fuller's notion of "procedural natural law" and "internal morality of law" and argues that the postwar law of Communist Serbia did not exercise formal and procedural justice, and cannot be called a legal system in the full sense of the word
Contrast effect and dispute resolution: An experimental study
Get PDFPredmet ovog rada je efekat kontrasta u pregovaranju iz ugla biheviorističke ekonomije. Sprovedeno je empirijsko istraživanje, korišćenjem "igre razvoda" sa potpunim informacijama o mogućim isplatama, u cilju provere da li su ispitanici skloni odlukama koje su kontekstualno zavisne. Uzorak je sačinjen od 100 studenata Pravnog fakulteta Univerziteta u Nišu. U eksperimentalnom dizajnu "između subjekata", 100 različitih učesnika testirano je u kontrolnoj i eksperimentalnoj grupi. Glavni nalaz je da postoji statistički značajna razlika između dve grupe čime se potvrđuje prisustvo efekta kontrasta. Ova studija otvara vrata budućim istraživanjima efekta kontrasta, sa akcentom na druge subjekte, kao što su advokati, radi provere teze da li su oni toliko "racionalni".The subject of this paper is the contrast effect in negotiations from the behavioral economics perspective. We conducted an experimental study using a "divorce litigation game" with complete information about payoffs aimed at testing whether participants are prone to context-dependent decisions. The sample was created by 100 law students from the Faculty of Law of the University of Niš. In a "between subjects" design 100 different participants were tested in the control and treatment group. The main finding is that there is a statistically significant difference between the two groups, thus confirming the presence of the contrast effect. The study opens the door to further real experiments with an emphasis on other subjects, such as lawyers, checking if they are so "rational
Predictability of working conditions as a prerequisite for effective exercise of labor rights: A review of directive (EU) 2019/1152
Get PDFZaposleni, kao slabija (pravno podređena i ekonomski zavisna) strana radnog odnosa ima potrebu da blagovremeno i na odgovarajući način bude obavešten o uslovima rada, posebno u državama u kojima ugovor o radu ne mora biti zaključen u pisanoj formi. Dostavljanje podataka o uslovima rada zaposlenom, otud, predstavlja važnu pretpostavku delotvornog uživanja prava iz radnog odnosa, jer mu omogućava pravilno sagledavanje vlastitog radnopravnog položaja, a u slučaju radnog spora, i lakše dokazivanje ugovorenih uslova rada. Time se može doprineti i poštenoj konkurenciji na tržištu, kao i suzbijanju rada 'na crno', jer nepostojanje poslodavčevog pisanog obaveštenja o uslovima rada može poslužiti inspekciji rada i drugim nadležnim organima kao indikator povreda radnih prava u određenom preduzeću. Iako je na nivou EU, poslodavčeva obaveza obaveštavanja radnika o uslovima rada iscrpno uređena Direktivom Saveta 91/533/EEZ, nemali broj radnika ostaje uskraćen za pisano obaveštenje, između ostalog, i zbog pojave novih oblika rada koji su skopčani s rizikom otežanog ostvarivanja radnih prava. Ovaj rizik nastoji da prevaziđe Direktiva Evropskog parlamenta i Saveta 2019/1152 o transparentnim i predvidivim uslovima rada u EU, koja se primenjuje i na nove forme rada, kao i na lažno samozapošljavanje, a, pored proširenja kruga lica u pogledu kojih postoji obaveza obaveštavanja, utvrđuje i minimalni kataloga prava svih radnika. Stoga su u članku kritički razmotrena ključna rešenja iz nove direktive, uz ukazivanje na rizik da ovako širok krug zaštićenih lica može odvraćati poslodavce od zasnivanja radnog odnosa, kao i od dosledne primene merodavnih (radnopravnih, socijalnopravnih i poreskopravnih) propisa.Employee, as a weaker (legally subordinate and economically dependent) party to the employment relationship, needs to be informed about working conditions in a timely and appropriate manner, especially in countries where the employment contract does not have to be concluded in writing. Providing information on working conditions to the employees, therefore, represents an important prerequisite for effective enjoyment of employment rights, because it allows them to properly assess their own employment status, and in the event of a labor dispute, makes it easier to prove the contractual working conditions. This can also contribute to the fairness of the competition on the market, as well as the suppression of undeclared work, because absence of an employer's written notice regarding working conditions can serve as an indicator, to the labor inspection and other relevant authorities, of violation of labor rights in a particular entreprise. Although an employer's obligation to inform workers about working conditions is regulated in detail by the Council Directive 91/533/EEC at the EU level, many workers are denied written notice, due to, amongst other things, the emergence of new forms of employment that are heavily associated with the risk of difficulty in exercising labor rights. Directive (EU) 2019/1152 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on transparent and predictable working conditions in the European Union, which is applied to the new forms of employment, as well as to bogus self-employment seeks to overcome this risk, and, in addition to expanding the circle of persons who have to be notified, it also establishes the catalog of minimum rights of all workers. Therefore, the article critically discusses the key solutions from the new directive, pointing out the risk that such a wide circle of protected persons may deter employers from establishing employment, as well as from consistent application of relevant (labor law, social law and tax law) regulations