In analysing the historical development of the Roman criminal procedure it should be observed that it followed the immediacy principle from the earliest times until the Justinian period. Adherence to this rule is best confirmed by the manner in which particular evidence was taken in the Roman criminal procedure, as well as by its judicial evaluation. The significance attached by Romans to the principle in question is corroborated primarily by an example of evidence obtained from a witness’s testimony. Already in the Republic period, testimony given personally by a witness before the court was preferred to testimony in the form of a document. Adherence to the immediacy principle in the Roman criminal procedure was manifested by the fact of preparing reports, initially comprising only certain decisions, e.g. judgements, and later all procedural actions. In the Empire period, the Roman criminal procedure was also ominated by the immediacy principle. The fact that the principle was adhered to is explicitly confirmed by the rescripts issued by Emperor Hadrian, expressing the demand that direct evidence be taken before the court, the reform of the irenarchae’s office implemented by Antoninus Pius, as well as a ban on legal assistance in criminal cases, confirmed by Justinian. Certain exceptions to the immediacy principle were allowed, such as submitting at a trial written laudationes prepared out of court and reports on interrogation of witnesses compiled during the proceedings, as well as admissibility of circumstantial evidence.
In the correspondence between the governor of Bithynia-Pontus and emperor Trajan in the years 111–113 one can find an exchange on whether to allow a buried body to be exhumed and transported to be buried in a different place. Pliny, who was familiar with Roman practices in this respect, turned to the emperor seeking advice on what policy he should adopt with regard to the inhabitants of the province. The emperor’s answer upheld the common practice that it was possible to move a body to a different burial site only when there was a strong reason for doing so (especially when the tombs were being violated or otherwise under threat). Trajan’s judgement influenced the decisions by subsequent rulers who took their stance in this matter.
The age of a human being is a common research topic in many branches. This topic is also addressed by the legal theory. Age categories also functioned in Roman law, determining the legal position of a person. In this article, the non-judicial sources which concerned the division of human life are analyzed. Consequently, it has been possible to determine that in ancient Rome, there were several theories concerning this matter. The division of life into three, four, five, six or seven stages was very popular. Each theory has different justifications and various arguments. Among those, we can distinguish medical, psychological, numerical and also military-administrative arguments.
In the Princes Czartoryski Museum in Krakow there is a Roman headstone with the following inscription: For the best and most faithful wife (coniux) Threpte, well distinguished, put up by Eutyches, a slave of Atilius Agricola (CIL VI 27389a – 1st/2nd c. AD). They were probably slaves from Hellenized eastern regions. Eutyches is explicitly described as a slave (EUTYCHES ATILI AGRICOLAE SERVUS), while Threpte’s status is clarified by her name, which is the Greek word for a slave, conceived and raised up in the family of a master (Roman verna). In legal terms, the only relationship they could enter was contubernium. Possibly, Atilius Agricola had two slaves whom he treated in a friendly manner allowing them to maintain a relationship; he also agreed for Threpte to be buried in a separate grave with an inscription. It is one of many texts suggesting cordial relations between slaves and Roman families in the early period of the Roman Empire. Interestingly, the ashes have remained in Roman soil, while the plate with the inscription has found its way to Krakow.
The increased effectiveness of competition law enforcement has contributed to th appearance of an atypical type of cartel, which engages not only competitors, but also their common supplier (or retailer). The so called hub-and-spoke cartel consists in the exchange of strategic information between two or more horizontal competitors (spokes) via a common contractual partner active at a different level of the production/distribution chain (the hub), who often also contributes to stabilizing a cartel. Due to the existence of the vertical element of this indirect information exchange, the question arises whether it should be assessed in the same way as its direct equivalent, i.e. as a “by-object” restriction of competition, thus, not requiring an analysis of its actual effects. Although the EU institutions have not adjudicated a hub-and-spoke collusion case yet, the jurisprudence of the national courts may provide useful guidance on what the constituent elements of the hub-and-spoke collusion are and how to assess this practice under the EU competition law. The analysis of both national and EU case law allows to contend that the hub-and-spoke cartels should amount to de facto horizontal information exchange and be assessed in accordance with the “by-object” standard. However, the hub-and-spoke collusion may equally constitute a part of a normal negotiation process (e.g. bargaining) with trading partners, as well as give rise to several efficiency gains, which should be taken into account in examining the practice concerned under the EU competition law.
These standards were introduced at four international organizations and supranational associations: 1) the European Union; 2) the Council of Europe; 3) the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; 4) the Commonwealth of Independent States. The article states that the key reason for the introduction of standards for the regulation of lobbying at the international level was considerable corruption in the adoption of legal acts. It is concluded that latent and unregulated lobbying can seriously undermine public confidence in the institution of government, especially in the countries of the so-called “new democracy”. International regulation of lobbying takes the form of resolutions, procedural rules, guidelines, recommendations and model legislation. Notably, the first steps towards international regulation of lobbying were taken by the institutions of the European Union. Today EU standards for the regulation of lobbying is based on a series of articles set out in the EU-founding treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. EU standards for the regulation of lobbying influence not only the EU Member States, but it also extends to EU Partner Countries. Significant steps in the implementation of international standards for the regulation of lobbying are being constantly carried out by the Council of Europe. The establishment of CE standards for the regulation of lobbying is reflected in the activity of statutory bodies of the Council of Europe and its semi-autonomous bodies. In recent years a lot of work on the strengthening of international standards for lobbying regulation has been done by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. To help address the concerns with transparency and integrity in lobbying, the OECD Member Countries adopted in 2010 a Recommendation on Principles for Transparency and Integrity in Lobbying as guidance to decision-makers on how to promote good governance in lobbying. Another international organization, which began to regulate actively the practice of lobbying is the Commonwealth of Independent States. In order to intensify the work concerning legislative regulation of lobbying in the member countries of the CIS, at the XXII Plenary Session of the Interparliamentary Assembly of the CIS member states the Resolution No. 22-16 of November 15, 2003 was adopted, which approved a model law “On regulation of lobbying activity in state authorities”.
This study aims at presenting the results of a basic statistical description and initial analysis of the legislation in the Czech Republic in 2014. It offers a fundamental quantitative description of the composition of Czech legislation, particularly its formal typology and structure, including the sector structure and the information about fundamental changes in this structure as they occurred in 2014.
The aim of this paper is to address the issue of implementation of international legal instruments regarding cybercrime into the Polish criminal law. Effective protection against cybercrime requires, among other things, the establishment of an appropriate legal framework. Criminal prohibitions of a deterrent effect, which are a part of this framework, seem of particular importance. In Europe such a set of rules is provided for in the instruments of the Council of Europe as well as in the European Union instruments. As a member of both these international organisations, Poland is obliged to implement their standards. The author’s aim is to analyse whether and, if so, to what extent the current Polish criminal legislation is in line with European requirements. The process of implementation of these norms has expanded in the span of over 10 years and was initiated even before Poland accessed the European Union. Polish criminal law, however, is not yet fully compliant with international requirements on cybercrime. This paper is an attempt to identify some areas of the criminal law which are still to be amended as well as to submit some solutions de lege ferenda.
In the Roman inheritance law, until post-classical law, the appointment of an heir on the basis of the rule heredis institutio caput et fundamentum totius testamenti est, was the foundation of the whole will. Heredis institutio was a crucial element of the content of the will and it should be placed in the very beginning as all dispositions placed before it, were void. And remained this way until Justinian law where the above mentioned formalism was annulled. First exceptions of the rule heredis institutio caput et fundamentum totius testament est and the order arising from testamentary dispositions placed therein, can be noticed in classical law, according to the constitution of custody, appointment to inherit by the own slave together with his liberation and disinheritance. Moreover, Roman law, based on the performance of praetors and Cesar law, exceptionally allowed the maintenance if the rest of the testamentary content (demises, trusts, liberations) when the heredis institutio fell or did not lead to inheritance. And so, the acceptance of the heir appointed in a will becomes a sole formality in classical law, and a range of deviations and exceptions appear in the discussed rule Heredis institutio caput et fundamentum totius testamenti est. The Western Roman post – classical practice and Justinian omitted the above mentioned rule totally.
Among the institutions adopted from Roman law whose historical evolution within ius commune is particularly interesting, it is worth pointing out the issues connected with the distribution of damage incurred as a result of throwing a part of the cargo overboard from a ship due to the risk of its sinking because of overload. Deliberations of Roman lawyers, gathered under the title De lege Rhodia de iactu, were object of medieval jurists’ creative interpretation. The role of the glossators’ school representatives seems to be particularly significant here as an important contribution to the development of the European legal doctrine in subsequent centuries. In the modern era, the innovations introduced by representatives of this school were considered communis opinio doctorum and it was applied in legal practice of the Imperial Chamber Court of the Reich. Its purpose was compensation for any damage incurred in joint interest or in other people’s interest, which was reflected in the content of ABGB, the Polish Civil Code and Roman-Dutch Law.
