Tomáš Gábriš

42 Geschichte der Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit in der Slowakei

Die Geschichte der Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit in der Slowakischen Republik entspricht bis 1918 der Geschichte der Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit des Ungarischen Konigreichs in der Osterreichisch-Ungarischen Monarchie und anschliesend bis 1992 der Geschichte der Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit in der Tschechoslowakischen Republik. Besondere Entwicklungen traten in der Zeit der Slowakischen Kriegsrepublik – die volkerrechtlich null und nichtig war – und in der Zeit nach 1993 ein, seitdem der Verwaltungsrechtsschutz in der Slowakischen Republik eigenstandig organisiert ist. Die wichtigsten Anderungen insoweit ergingen seit 2015, als das Parlament die Verwaltungsgerichtsordnung verabschiedete, die im Juli 2016 in Kraft trat und erstmals in der heutigen Slowakei einen Kodex des Verwaltungsprozessrechts schuf. Allerdings wurden keine speziellen Verwaltungsgerichte errichtet. Am Ende dieses Beitrags stellen wir die grundlegenden Ideen und Innovationen vor, die das Gesetz charakterisieren.

Cyber Attacks, Information Attacks, and Postmodern Warfare

Abstract The aim of this paper is to evaluate and differentiate between the phenomena of cyberwarfare and information warfare, as manifestations of what we perceive as postmodern warfare. We describe and analyse the current examples of the use the postmodern warfare and the reactions of states and international bodies to these phenomena. The subject matter of this paper is the relationship between new types of postmodern conflicts and the law of armed conflicts (law of war). Based on ICJ case law, it is clear that under current legal rules of international law of war, cyber attacks as well as information attacks (often performed in the cyberspace as well) can only be perceived as “war” if executed in addition to classical kinetic warfare, which is often not the case. In most cases perceived “only” as a non-linear warfare (postmodern conflict), this practice nevertheless must be condemned as conduct contrary to the principles of international law and (possibly) a crime under national laws, unless this type of conduct will be recognized by the international community as a “war” proper, in its new, postmodern sense.

Edition of the Provisional Judicial Rules of the Judex-Curial Conference from 1861 and the Methodology of Editions of Historical Legal Sources

The paper explains the methodology applied in the edition of historical legal sources of major importance for the 19th and 20th centuries Slovakia – the edition of the Provisional Judicial Rules (“PJR”) of the Judex-Curial Conference of 1861. At the Conference, legal scholars and politicians adopted a decision to abandon the previous twelve years of neoabsolutism and centralism introduced by the Austrian law, and opted for a renewal of the traditional Hungarian legal system with some changes introduced by the laws of March 1848 (the March Constitution of 1848). At the same time they retained some rules of Austrian origin and created some rules that were entirely new, particularly in the field of civil procedural law and inheritance law. While evaluating the legal nature of the PJR, the literature used to claim that they never became law because Parliament of 1861 was not created legally (representatives were not elected under the electoral law enacted as part of the March Constitution of 1848) and because the monarch, Francis Joseph I, had not yet been crowned (his coronation took place in 1867). Therefore the legislative process could not be successfully completed. The only solution that was reported to was the recognition of the exceptional situation which dominated in Hungary between 1861–1867 – It was the period between neoabsolutism and another provisorium, a period of “limited constitutionalism”. Under such conditions it was not possible to meet the formalities of official legislation process. Thus PJR could become binding only de facto – through the power of persuasion. However, after a corpus of case law began to consolidate during several years, it could be argued that the PJR was transformed from the actual source of judicial decision-making into customary law.

Professional Football and the EU Law: Bernard Award of the ECJ from March 16, 2010

The ruling of the European Court of Justice in the Bernard case promulgated on March 16, 2010 has revived the topic of relationship between sports and the EU law. The case concerned the matter of training compensation calculation and its nature as an obstacle for the freedom of movement of workers. In order to accept the obstacle, the ECJ requires that real costs are taken into account when calculating the compensation, which is neither the case in FIFA regulation on status and transfer of players, nor in domestic, national regulations of sporting organizations. Average amounts are used instead, which could be challenged before a court. A solution would be to use real costs as established on the basis of accountancy, or to create a solidarity system – a fund from which the compensations would be paid to the clubs so that the freedom of movement of players is not hindered. The most important question dealt with in this paper is the influence of the ECJ award upon the domestic regulation of training compensations. By-laws or laws (depending on the country) should be changed so as to comply with the ruling by the ECJ.

European Social Dialogue in Sports

The European Union is not only an economic project, but also a social and cultural project. Until recently, in sports, only the economic aspect was recognized. However, since December 2009 when the Lisbon Treaty entered into force, an educational and cultural aspect of sports and its specificity was officially recognized. Social aspects of sports were admitted by the European Court of Justice even previously, but this was only as far as the players were protected as workers. As such, the players are allowed to enter into dialogue with their employers – clubs. There was even a special sectoral social dialogue committee for professional football created in 2008. This committee’s task was to prepare a collective agreement in football. However, the recognition of specificity of sports in Lisbon Treaty led the employers´ representatives to withdraw from the social dialogue in hopes for greater autonomy of sports. Thus, it is time to reconsider the social dialogue and other possibilities of corporate social responsibility in sports.