Biometric data are typically used for the purposes of unique identification of a person. However, recent research suggests that biometric data gathered for the purpose of identification can be analysed for extraction of additional information. This augments indicative value of biometric data. This paper illustrates the range of augmented indicative values of the data as well as identifies crucial factors that contribute to increased vulnerability of data subjects., Alžběta Krausová, Hananel Hazan, Ján Matejka., and Obsahuje bibliografické odkazy
After the accession of several Central and Eastern European countries to the European Union in 2004, new challenges arose for their highest judicial institutions to define and shape the relationship between the national and European legal order. This paper assesses the first decade of the effort of the Slovak Constitutional Court (SCC) in interpreting the relationship between domestic and EU law via applying the concept of constitutional pluralism which presumes a specific relationship between the legal orders characterized by their heterarchical structure, mutual interaction and cooperation rather than of a hierarchical, monistic structure, governed by clash over dominance. Answering the research question how the SCC has positioned itself vis-à-vis the constitutional monism v. pluralism dilemma can offer an insight on the general relationship between domestic and EU law in Slovakia. By analysing statutory law, selected judgments and reviewing secondary literature, the paper argues that the SCC seems to have chosen the monistic, hierarchical approach to the relationship, having rejected constitutional pluralism. At the same time, this position is not articulated clearly enough due to the veil of secrecy that to some extent still prevails over the SCC’s doctrinal attitudes to EU law. The findings of the paper, which combines conceptual analysis of constitutional pluralism with review of relevant legal provisions and case law, demonstrate the need for a more active and straightforward approach of the SCC when dealing with the challenges of EU law., Max Steuer., and Obsahuje bibliografické odkazy
Stejně jako dnes není nauka schopna vymezit Evropskou unii jako entitu sui generis, tak i v době meziválečné nebyla jednoznačně zařaditelná koncepce Společnosti národů. Antonín Hobza varoval, že snaha o to, aby Společnost národů byla za každou cenu zařazena do některé z kategorií jako „spolek států“, nemá rozumný smysl, protože jde o spojení států, které nemá v historii obdobu.V souladu s jinými evropskými teoretiky mezinárodního práva Antonín Hobza soudil, že obraz Společnosti národů by byl zkreslen, kdybychom na něj chtěli uplatňovat představy o tradičních organizačních uskupeních, neboť jde o nové období mezinárodního práva. Obdobnou argumentaci zaznamenáváme dnes v souvislosti s Evropskou unií snad jen s tím rozdílem, že o evropském právu nehovoříme jako o právu mezinárodním, ale jako o právu nadnárodním. and Just like today the legal science is far from being able to define European Union as an entity sui generis, it was difficult to classify the League of Nations between the two wars. Czech internationalist Antonín Hobza warned that the aim to define League of Nations as a “Union of states” did not have a rational meaning because the League of Nations was an unprecedented integration of states. In agreement with other theoreticians of international law Antonín Hobza thought that the image of League of Nations would have been misinterpreted if we wanted to apply traditional concepts of organization of states because we have reached a new era of international law.We are seeing the same argumentation today in relation to the European Union. The difference is that European law is treated not only as international but as a supranational law.
Profesor Viktor Knapp ovládal několik cizích jazyků – angličtinu, francouzštinu, němčinu, rušitnu a španělštinu. Ve 30. letech získal jako student pražského gymnázia solidní znalosti latiny, která je považována za základ všeobecné i jazykové logiky. Viktor Knapp představil svoji první sémantickou analýzu právní terminologie v roce 1947 ve své knize o nacistické právní filozofii. Během 60. a 70. let dospěl k významným teoretickým závěrům o právním jazyku, právním metajazyku a o jazykovém výkladu. Všechny zmíněné metody aplikoval Viktor Knapp ve svých monografiích a statích o srovnávacím právu. Přínos Viktora Knappa ke všeobecné teorii právního překladu nachází široké uplatnění i v dnešní době v teorii a praxi současného evropského práva. and Professor Viktor Knapp mastered several foreign languages – English, French, German, Russian and Spanish. In 1930s, as a student at Prague grammar school he received a solid knowledge of Latin which is considered to be a basis of both general and linguistic logic.Viktor Knapp presented
his first semantic analysis of legal terminology in 1947 in his book on Nazi legal philosophy. During 1960s and 1970s, he brought up important theoretic conclusions on legal language, legal metalanguage and linguistic interpretation. All these methods were applied by Viktor Knapp in his monographs and articles on comparative law. The contribution by Viktor Knapp to the general theory of legal translation is broadly reflected at present in theory and practice of contemporary European law.