Suchergebnisse

Based on archival documentary materials and current information sources as supplemented by various opinions of scientists and practitioniers, this article investigates the efforts of the government to implement the 1933 judiciary reform. The Temporary Law on Lithuanian Courts and the Order of their Work of 1918 had been criticised even at the moment it was enacted by its creators. However, in real life it had proven sufficiently robust and acceptable to the masses. There was no rush to revise it, while attempts were made to soften the emerging deficiencies of court system procedures by making separate amendments to existing legislation. The judiciary system was marginally improved based on needs and circumstances as they arose. Only certain isolated areas relating to organisational procedures were affected by those changes. However, this proved insufficient in the long run. The coming reform meant a great deal of work involving legislative creation that required a decade of efforts from many specialists and people in the government. The first solid draft of the Law on Order of the Courts was completed in 1924. The creators of the draft identified the supplementation of the existing three-tier generalpurpose court system with two new tiers as the most important change in a bid to balance workloads between courts. The draft reached the Seimas, but was subsequently retracted by the government for further improvements. Several successive governments with different political views, representing different political parties that existed at the time, demonstrated various levels of care for the reform. Alongside those changes in power, several different versions were proposed for the coming legislation. Upon establishment of the State Council in 1928, preparation of the relevant legislation was handed over to it. With the approval of the Cabinet of Ministers, the president of the Republic enacted the draft as a law on 11 July 1933. The courts of Lithuania managed to become a reliable, qualified and moral constitutional establishment during the time of independence.

Based on archival documentary materials and current information sources as supplemented by various opinions of scientists and practitioniers, this article investigates the efforts of the government to implement the 1933 judiciary reform. The Temporary Law on Lithuanian Courts and the Order of their Work of 1918 had been criticised even at the moment it was enacted by its creators. However, in real life it had proven sufficiently robust and acceptable to the masses. There was no rush to revise it, while attempts were made to soften the emerging deficiencies of court system procedures by making separate amendments to existing legislation. The judiciary system was marginally improved based on needs and circumstances as they arose. Only certain isolated areas relating to organisational procedures were affected by those changes. However, this proved insufficient in the long run. The coming reform meant a great deal of work involving legislative creation that required a decade of efforts from many specialists and people in the government. The first solid draft of the Law on Order of the Courts was completed in 1924. The creators of the draft identified the supplementation of the existing three-tier generalpurpose court system with two new tiers as the most important change in a bid to balance workloads between courts. The draft reached the Seimas, but was subsequently retracted by the government for further improvements. Several successive governments with different political views, representing different political parties that existed at the time, demonstrated various levels of care for the reform. Alongside those changes in power, several different versions were proposed for the coming legislation. Upon establishment of the State Council in 1928, preparation of the relevant legislation was handed over to it. With the approval of the Cabinet of Ministers, the president of the Republic enacted the draft as a law on 11 July 1933. The courts of Lithuania managed to become a reliable, qualified and moral constitutional establishment during the time of independence.

The study is the result of a legal comparative analysis of the directions of reforms in the administrative judiciary in the countries of young democracy: Poland, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Croatia, Serbia, Hungary, Ukraine, Georgia and Kazakhstan. The analysis was carried out with reference to the patterns developed in old European democracies, mainly in Austria and Germany. Papers on reforms of the administrative judiciary in each of these countries were delivered at the international scientific conference: Reforms of administrative judiciary in the countries of young democracy (10–11.06.2021, Faculty of Law and Administration, University of Lodz). They focused on three issues: 1) contemporary challenges of the rule of law and administrative judiciary, 2) directions of changes in the national systems of administrative judiciary, 3) the future of administrative judiciary. The content of the study refers to this system of issues, which reflects the stages of development of administrative judiciary in the countries of young democracy. The conclusions drawn from the analysis show the results of reforms at each of these stages – from the constitutionalization of the rule of law, through the independence of the court-administrative procedure, to the stage of the present, extremely difficult challenges, not only of a procedural nature. ; Opracowanie stanowi wynik prawnoporównaczej analizy kierunków reform sądownictwa administracyjnego w państwach młodej demokracji: Polski, Czech, Litwy, Chorwacji, Serbii, Węgier, Ukrainy, Gruzji i Kazachstanu, w nawiązaniu do wzorów wypracowanych w starych demokracjach europejskich, głównie w Austrii i Niemczech. Wygłoszone na międzynarodowej konferencji naukowej: Reformy sądownictwa administracyjnego w państwach młodej demokracji (10–11.06.2021r. WPiA UŁ) referaty na temat reform sądownictwa administracyjnego w każdym z tych państw koncentrowały się na trzech zagadnieniach: 1) współczesne wyzwania praworządności a sądownictwo administracyjne, 2) kierunki przemian w krajowych ...

The study is the result of a legal comparative analysis of the directions of reforms in the administrative judiciary in the countries of young democracy: Poland, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Croatia, Serbia, Hungary, Ukraine, Georgia and Kazakhstan. The analysis was carried out with reference to the patterns developed in old European democracies, mainly in Austria and Germany. Papers on reforms of the administrative judiciary in each of these countries were delivered at the international scientific conference: Reforms of administrative judiciary in the countries of young democracy (10–11.06.2021, Faculty of Law and Administration, University of Lodz). They focused on three issues: 1) contemporary challenges of the rule of law and administrative judiciary, 2) directions of changes in the national systems of administrative judiciary, 3) the future of administrative judiciary. The content of the study refers to this system of issues, which reflects the stages of development of administrative judiciary in the countries of young democracy. The conclusions drawn from the analysis show the results of reforms at each of these stages – from the constitutionalization of the rule of law, through the independence of the court-administrative procedure, to the stage of the present, extremely difficult challenges, not only of a procedural nature. ; Opracowanie stanowi wynik prawnoporównaczej analizy kierunków reform sądownictwa administracyjnego w państwach młodej demokracji: Polski, Czech, Litwy, Chorwacji, Serbii, Węgier, Ukrainy, Gruzji i Kazachstanu, w nawiązaniu do wzorów wypracowanych w starych demokracjach europejskich, głównie w Austrii i Niemczech. Wygłoszone na międzynarodowej konferencji naukowej: Reformy sądownictwa administracyjnego w państwach młodej demokracji (10–11.06.2021 r. WPiA UŁ) referaty na temat reform sądownictwa administracyjnego w każdym z tych państw koncentrowały się na trzech zagadnieniach: 1) współczesne wyzwania praworządności a sądownictwo administracyjne, 2) kierunki przemian w krajowych systemach sądownictwa administracyjnego, 3) przyszłość sądownictwa administracyjnego. Treść opracowania nawiązuje do tego układu zagadnień, który odzwierciedla etapy rozwoju sądownictwa administracyjnego w państwach młodej demokracji. Płynące z przeprowadzonej analizy wnioski pokazują wyniki reform na każdym z tych etapów – od konstytucjonalizacji zasady praworządności, przez usamodzielnienie się procedury sądowoadministracyjnej, aż po etap obecnych, niezwykle trudnych wyzwań nie tylko procesowej natury.

The term «international legal standards» is considered to be the most acceptable designation of the rules for the national legislation of Ukraine. Such rules are included in various international documents and in standardized rules of conduct of subjects in certain areas of intergovernmental cooperation. Their significance for the national legislation of Ukraine lies in the fact that they perform the function of a guideline. But such rules require adaption to the norms of domestic law. During the years of independence, the judicial system of Ukraine has been reformed repeatedly. However, the objectives set before it have never been implemented. For a successful judicial reform, one pattern can be traced: reform of the judicial system should take place in a comprehensive manner: reforming the judicial system itself and other related legal institutions. Therefore, the problem of reforming the judiciary in Ukraine has never been so relevant as nowadays. The most important preconditions for the development of civil society should be quality, stable legislation and effective justice. These can really provide a reliable protection of human rights and freedoms, the interests of society and of the state in order to eradicate tyranny and iniquity. A theoretical understanding of the issues of the implementation of judicial and legal reform is necessary in order to ensure the effective functioning and further development of the judicial system. Such research is necessary for the study and further consideration of problems that arise in the process of reform. ; Термін «міжнародно-правові стандарти» для національного законодавства України вважається найбільшприйнятним позначенням закріплених у різноманітних міжнародних документах норм, стандартизованими правилами поведінки суб'єктів у тих чи інших сферах міждержавного співробітництва. Їх значення для національного законодавства України полягає в тому, що вони є своєрідним орієнтиром. Але такі норми потребують конкретизації і доповнення з боку норм внутрішньодержавного права. За роки незалежності судова система України піддавалася реформуванню неодноразово. Однак поставлені перед нею цілі до кінця так і не були реалізовані.Для успішного проведення судової реформи простежується одна закономірність – реформування судової системи має відбуватися комплексно, а саме реформування самої судової системи, судоустрою та інших пов'язаних правових інститутів. Проблема реформування судової влади в Україні натепер виявляє свою актуальність як ніколи, оскільки найважливішими передумовами розвитку громадянського суспільства мають стати якісне, стабільне законодавство та ефективне правосуддя, які здатні реально забезпечувати надійний захист прав і свобод людини, інтересів суспільства і держави, щоб викорінити свавілля і беззаконня. Задля забезпечення ефективного функціонування та подальшого розвитку судової системи необхідне теоретичне осмислення питань реалізації судово-правової реформи. Такі дослідження є необхідними для вивчення і подальшого врахування проблем, які виникають у процесі здійснення реформи.

As Ukraine has taken the course on European integration and is actively implementing it after the signing and ratification of the Association Agreement with the European Union in 2014 and its entry into force on September 1, 2017, the issue of protection of intellectual property rights is gaining great importance. Improving the protection of intellectual property rights involves implementation of many tasks related to both the improvement of legislation, law enforcement practice and active involvement and constant interaction of state authorities, law enforcement, fiscal authorities, etc., as well as development of appropriate legal mechanisms. The judicial branch of power, which is in the stage of active reformation, plays a significant role in this process. Reforming of Ukrainian judicial system involves deepening of the specialization of judges, which is a result of the formation of a separate judicial body – the High Specialized Court on Intellectual Property. The right to judicial protection is guaranteed by acts of international law and the norms of national legislation. Article 55 of the Constitution of Ukraine stipulates that human and citizen rights and freedoms are protected by court. Everyone is guaranteed the right for judicial appeal against decisions, actions or inactivity of state authorities, local governments, acting officials and civil servants. For the implementation of the principle of judicial protection of civil law and interests, the content of Article 16 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, which establishes the general principles for the protection of civil rights and interests by a court, is of fundamental importance. In order to ensure the protection of intellectual property rights, the court may use any means of protection provided for by civil law. Intellectual property disputes are among the most difficult to deal with. Taking into account the overload of courts in Ukraine, the resolution of intellectual property disputes in a separate consideration today is of great current interest, so there are expectations that the High Specialized Intellectual Property Court will improve the quality of case handling, develop a unified judicial practice without distinction for civil and economic processes, as well as significantly reduce the time for dealing with cases. ; В статье проанализировано действующее законодательство Украины, регулирующее защиту прав интеллектуальной собственности, исследованы особенности защиты прав интеллектуальной собственности в контексте реформирования и создания Высшего суда по вопросам интеллектуальной собственности. Проанализированы положения теории гражданского права по судебной защите прав интеллектуальной собственности как один из факторов, определяющих особенности реализации принципа защиты гражданских прав и охраняемых интересов в сфере интеллектуальной собственности, сформулированы выводы по совершенствованию национальной системы правовой охраны интеллектуальной собственности. ; У статті проаналізовано положення чинного законодавства України, що регулює захист прав інтелектуальної власності, досліджено особливості захисту прав інтелектуальної власності в контексті реформування судової системи. Розкрито положення теорії цивільного права щодо судового захисту прав інтелектуальної власності як одного факторів, що визначають особливості реалізації принципу захисту цивільних прав та охоронюваних інтересів у сфері інтелектуальної власності, окреслено перспективи роботи Вищого суду з питань інтелектуальної власності.