DOCSLIB.ORG

Volume 4, Issue 1, Spring 2017

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Volume 4, Issue 1, Spring 2017 Volume 4 Spring 2017 Issue 1 UNIVERSITY OF WARSAW JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE LAW ARTICLES The role of public prosecutor and parties in criminal cases – an insight – Judyta Banaszyńska into Polish and American regulations The meaning of bad faith in European trademark law – Sofie Cristens Methods of lifting the veil of incorporation in the company law of the – Patryk Polek United Kingdom and its judicial difficulties CEFTA and CISFTA as Mechanisms for Introducing Free Trade in – Maria Bun Central and Eastern Europe Post-1989 An ocean apart: Comparison of Insider Trading regulations in the US – Michał Bałdowski and in the EU SHORT ARTICLES The system of monitoring wholesale energy markets for electricity and – Julia Rychlińska gas – the REMIT Regulation Copyright © by the Authors UNIVERSITY OF WARSAW JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE LAW UNIVERSITY OF WARSAW JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE LAW THE JOURNAL – SUBMISSIONS – The University of Warsaw Journal of The Journal accepts two types of Comparative Law has been established as an manuscripts: open access Journal welcoming students, legal (1) articles between 5,000 and 12,000 scholars and professionals from various words including footnotes; jurisdictions to contribute to the study of (2) short articles between 3,000 and differences and similarities between different 5,000 words including footnotes; legal systems. (3) case notes not exceeding 3,000 words including footnotes. CONTACT INFORMATION – All manuscripts must be submitted University of Warsaw Journal of through our Electronic submission system Comparative Law accessible on our website. Articles are University of Warsaw subject to a double blind peer review by Faculty of Law and Administration the Editorial Board and by the Academic Collegium Iuridicum I Building Review Board. Room 003 Citations must be conform with the 4th 26/28 Krakowskie Przedmieście Street Edition of the Oxford Standard for 00-927, Warsaw, Poland Citation of Legal Authorities. E-mail: [email protected] COVER DESIGN – Web: www.uwjcl.wpia.uw.edu.pl Copyright © by Justyna Markowska CITATION – The online version of the Journal is its primary version. This issue should be cited as (2017) 4(1) University of Warsaw Journal of Comparative Law. ISSN 2353-3358 (Print) ISSN 2353-642 X (Online) ii EDITORIAL BOARD 2017 EDITORS-IN-CHIEF Marta Ołowska – Samanta Wenda-Uszyńska EDITORS Aleksandra Chadaj – Monika Ziarno ACADEMIC REVIEW BOARD PROF. DR DRES. H.C. RAINER ARNOLD, PROF. STUART R. COHN, Emeritus Professor of Law, University of Regensburg; Professor of Law, University of Florida; Jean Monnet Chair of EU Law; Membre Member of the American Bar Association; Associé of the International Academy of Senior Fellow, United Nations Institute for Comparative Law; Fellow of the European Training and Research Law Institute PROF. DR HAB. TADEUSZ ERECIŃSKI, PROF. LARRY A. DIMATTEO, Huber Hurst Professor of Civil Procedure at the Professor of Contract Law & Legal Studies University of Warsaw; President of the Civil at the University of Florida; President, Chamber of the Supreme Court of the International Law Section, Academy of Republic of Poland Legal Studies in Business PROF. DR HAB. ZDZISŁAW GALICKI, PROF. DR HAB. LECH GARDOCKI, University of Warsaw Professor of Professor of Criminal Law at the International Law; former Member of the University of Warsaw; former First United Nations International Law President of the Supreme Court of the Commission Republic of Poland PROF. DR HAB. TOMASZ GIARO, Professor DR HAB. EWA GMURZYŃSKA, Assistant of Roman Law at the University of Warsaw Professor in Alternative Disputes and Vice-Dean for International Resolution at the University of Warsaw; Cooperation of the Faculty of Law and Director of the Centre for American Law Administration; former researcher at the Studies, Faculty of Law and Max Planck Institute for European History Administration, University of Warsaw of Law PROF. DR HAB. ROBERT GRZESZCZAK, PROF. DR DRES. H.C. MARCUS LUTTER, Professor of European Law, University of Professor of Commercial and Economic Warsaw, Member of the Committee of Law at the University of Bonn; former Legal Sciences of the Polish Academy of Visiting Professor at the University of Sciences; Member of the Programming Oxford and at the University of California Board of the Strategic Litigation Program of Berkeley; former Member of the the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights government commission on the German Corporate Governance Code; Honorary Doctor of Law of the University of Warsaw; Consultant with WillmerHale Germany iv DR ELŻBIETA MIKOS-SKUZA, Assistant PROF. JOAKIM NERGELIUS, Professor of Professor in International Law at the Law at the University of Örebro; Assistant University of Warsaw; Member and former Professor of Comparative and European Vice-President of the International Law, Abo Academy, Turku, Finland Humanitarian Fact Finding Commission; full Member of the San Remo International Institute of Humanitarian Law; former Vice- President of the Polish Red Cross PROF. DR HAB. KRZYSZTOF PROF. DR HAB. JERZY POCZOBUT, PIETRZYKOWSKI, Professor of Civil Law at Professor of Private International Law at the University of Warsaw; Justice of the the University of Warsaw Supreme Court of the Republic of Poland PROF. DR HAB. JERZY RAJSKI, Professor of PROF. DR HAB. MACIEJ SZPUNAR, Civil Law at the University of Warsaw; Professor of Private International Law at former Visiting Professor at the University the University of Silesia in Katowice; of California Berkeley; Correspondent of Advocate General in the Court of Justice the International Institute for the of the European Union Unification of Private Law UNIDROIT DR STEPHEN TERRETT, Director of the PROF. TAKIS TRIDIMAS, Chair of European British Law Centre at the University of Law, Dickinson Poon School of Law, Warsaw Kings College London; Sir John Lubbock Professor of Banking Law, Queen Mary College, University of London; Professor of European Law, College of Europe, Brugges PROF. DR HAB. MAREK ZUBIK, Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Warsaw; Justice of the Constitutional Tribunal of the Republic of Poland Volume 4 Spring 2017 Issue 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLES The role of public prosecutor and parties in criminal cases – an insight into 2 Polish and American regulations – Judyta Banaszyńska The meaning of bad faith in European trademark law 16 – Sofie Cristens Methods of lifting the veil of incorporation in the company law of the 48 United Kingdom and its judicial difficulties – Patryk Polek CEFTA and CISFTA as Mechanisms for Introducing Free Trade in Central 63 and Eastern Europe Post-1989 – Maria Bun An ocean apart: Comparison of Insider Trading regulations in the US and in 96 the EU – Michał Bałdowski SHORT ARTICLES The system of monitoring wholesale energy markets for electricity and gas – 120 the REMIT Regulation – Julia Rychlińska vi 2017 Judyta Banaszyńska 2 The role of public prosecutor and parties in criminal cases – an insight into Polish and American regulations Judyta Banaszyńska* Abstract The role of public prosecutor and parties in criminal cases is determined by the criminal law regulations, which in Polish and American law are mostly conditioned on the bases of common law and continental legal systems. Several differences and various approaches with reference to the special rights and obligations of the entities each time need to be considered in regard with the whole domestic legal system. In the paper the main distinctions and similarities between the roles in Polish and American regulation will be presented, as well as the short historical outline and laws in force in both countries. I. INTRODUCTION – HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Despite of the latest reforms, conducted in relevance to Polish acts: Penal Code1 from 1997 (hereinafter referred as “p.c.”) and the Code of Criminal Procedure2 from 1997 (hereinafter referred as “c.c.p.”), the role of public prosecutor and parties in the criminal procedure remains connected with the system of proceedings which has been evolving in Polish law over past centuries. The first modern own Polish criminal act was Kodeks Karzący Królewstwa Polskiego (Penal Code of the Kingdom of Poland) from 1818, based on the Austrian, French and Bavarian law3, later replaced by the Russian Kodeks Kar Głównych i Poprawczych (The Code of Main and Correctional Punishments) numbering 1221 articles.4 * The Author is a 5th year Law student at the Faculty of Law and Administration of the University of Warsaw 1 Penal Code - Ustawa z dnia 6 czerwca 1997 r. – Kodeks karny, Dz.U. 1997 nr 88 poz. 553 2 Code of Criminal Procedure - Ustawa z dnia 6 czerwca 1997 r. - Kodeks postępowania karnego, Dz.U. 1997 nr 89 poz. 555 3 B. Sygit, Historia prawa kryminalnego (Toruń 2007) 404 4 Ibid 419 3 The role of public prosecutor and parties in Vol. 3, Issue 1 criminal cases – an insight into Polish and American regulations On the beginning of the independent Poland’s history there were different criminal procedural laws being in force: Russian (1864), Austrian (1873), German (1877) and Hungarian (1896) acts. In 1919 the Codification Commission (Komisja Kodyfikacyjna) was launched in order to prepare the proper unified Polish procedural code, which was finally enacted in 1926 as the Regulation of the President.5 During the XX century many reforms - connected with Polish political systems - were conducted: communistic changes in the 50s, and also the Code of Criminal Procedure from 1969 (prepared by the Codification Commission), which was modifying the obligatory system in the framework
Load more

Recommended publications
  • IS VEIL PIERCING REALLY the MESS THAT COMMENTATORS THINK IT IS? Ioanna Mesimeri Advocate 1. INTRODUCTION in Appropriate Cases
    IS VEIL PIERCING REALLY THE MESS THAT COMMENTATORS THINK IT IS? Ioanna Mesimeri Advocate 1. INTRODUCTION In appropriate cases, the judiciary or the legislature have decided to disregard the principle of corporate personality in order to ‘look behind the corporate person to its real controllers’1 and so to reallocate liability among shareholders and corporations2. This situation is commonly known as ‘piercing’ or ‘lifting’ the corporate veil and it occurs in an attempt of the courts to focus on the reality of the company instead of its structural form3. The doctrine of veil piercing ‘has been generally assumed to exist in all common law jurisdictions’4 but without a well-articulated basis. The courts, though, instead of producing comprehensive doctrines as to when the veil should be lifted, they have tended to use some unhelpful metaphors when describing the process of the doctrine5. Particularly, they stated that the corporate veil will be lifted when the company is ‘a mere cloak or sham’6, ‘a mere device’7, ‘a mere channel’8, ‘a mask’9, or ‘a façade concealing the real facts’10. Thus, the absence of a certain principle to veil piercing, ‘has been the subject of intense scrutiny by both judges and scholars’ as it has provoked many issues that need to be examined at theoretical, doctrinal and empirical levels11. In this regard, the very recent decision of the Supreme Court in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013]12 has introduced a new approach at the concept of veil. However, it is debated whether Prest represents ‘a fresh start to this sometimes vexed area of corporate law’13 or if it enhances even more the controversy and complexity of the veil piercing approach.
    [Show full text]
  • Corporate Structures, the Veil and the Role of the Courts
    CRITIQUE AND COMMENT CORPORATE STRUCTURES, THE VEIL AND THE ROLE OF THE COURTS T HE HON CHIEF JUSTICE M ARILYN WARREN AC* The topic of the corporate veil is one that has been long-discussed, but which remains the subject of considerable debate and uncertainty. This lecture will look at a few areas related to veil-piercing or lifting, used in a broad sense, which usefully highlight the tensions the courts have to grapple with when faced with corporate structures and the question of whether to look behind those structures to commercial realities. The topics canvassed are directors’ liability for corporate fault, limited liability and corporate groups, and direct liability of parent entities in tort. C ONTENTS I Preface: Professor Ford ............................................................................................ 658 II Introduction .............................................................................................................. 659 III Directors’ Liability.................................................................................................... 661 IV Limited Liability and Corporate Groups .............................................................. 668 V Direct Liability of Parent Entities .......................................................................... 673 A Chandler v Cape ........................................................................................... 674 B The Australian Cases ................................................................................... 677 C Canada
    [Show full text]
  • Tort Litigation Against Transnational Corporations in the English Courts: the Challenge of Jurisdiction Ekaterina Aristova*
    This article is published in a peer-reviewed section of the Utrecht Law Review Tort Litigation against Transnational Corporations in the English Courts: The Challenge of Jurisdiction Ekaterina Aristova* 1. Introduction Recent decades have seen an explosion of interest in the social, economic and environmental risks caused by the cross-border operations of transnational corporations (‘TNCs’). These powerful corporate groups have often been involved in various forms of corporate wrongdoing in many parts of the world.1 Severe abuses, reported by various non-governmental organisations (‘NGOs’), range from murder to the violation of socio- economic rights.2 As a response to inadequate legal remedies for the victims of corporate abuses in host states3 and an absence of international binding instruments on corporate accountability,4 few jurisdictions have shown a growing trend of civil liability cases against TNCs (‘Tort Liability Claims’).5 These cases are examples of private negligence claims brought by the victims of overseas corporate wrongs against parent companies before the courts of the home states. This paper will address the potential of Tort Liability Claims to close a regulatory gap in international corporate accountability. It is divided into three parts. Part 1 will provide a general analysis of Tort Liability Claims through a description of the facts of the most significant UK cases and an identification of their common features. The second part will then examine recent developments in the establishment of the personal jurisdiction of the English courts over the corporations involved in the overseas abuses. Finally, the concluding part will critically assess the overall impact of the increasing trend of litigating against TNCs in their home states.
    [Show full text]
  • Judging Corporate Law II May 31St 2013 University of Pennsylvania
    Judging Corporate Law II May 31st 2013 University of Pennsylvania Law School Organized and moderated by John Armour (Oxford) and Edward Rock (Penn Law) 9.00 am Registration and Coffee 9.30 am Welcome PROFESSOR MICHAEL A. FITTS Dean and Bernard G. Segal Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School 9.45am Capital Structure I: Legal Capital: What are the constraints on redemption of redeemable shares? How are these constraints imposed, and to what extent may parties modify them by contract? How are questions of valuation of corporate assets approached for the purposes of applicability of these constraints? Barclays Bank plc v British & Commonwealth Holdings plc [1996] 1 BCLC 1 SV Investment Partners LLC v Thoughtworks Inc, (Del. 2011) CHIEF JUSTICE STEELE MR JUSTICE HILDYARD Delaware Supreme Court High Court, Chancery Division 10.45am Capital Structure II: Exchange Offers: What degree of coercion, if any, is it permissible to introduce into an exchange offer to bondholders, in order to overcome hold-out objections? How do/should courts review such offers? Katz v Oak Industries, Inc, 508 A.2d 873 (Del. Ch. 1986) Asseìnagon Asset Management SA v Irish Bank Resolution Corp [2012] EWHC 2090 (Ch), [2013] 1 All ER 495 MR JUSTICE BRIGGS CHANCELLOR STRINE High Court, Chancery Division Delaware Court of Chancery 11.45pm Coffee 12.00pm Piercing the Corporate Veil: What is understood by “piercing the corporate veil”? Is there a judicial power to do this in appropriate circumstances? If so, what do such circumstances look like? Midland Interiors Inc v Burleigh 2006 WL 3783476 (Del. Ch.
    [Show full text]
  • VTB Capital Plc (Appellant) V Nutritek International Corp and Others (Respondents)
    Hilary Term [2013] UKSC 5 On appeal from: [2012] EWCA Civ 808 JUDGMENT VTB Capital plc (Appellant) v Nutritek International Corp and others (Respondents) before Lord Neuberger, President Lord Mance Lord Clarke Lord Wilson Lord Reed JUDGMENT GIVEN ON 6 February 2013 Heard on 12, 13 and 14 November 2012 Appellant 2nd Respondent Mark Howard QC Michael Lazarus Paul McGrath QC Christopher Burdin Iain Pester Tony Singla (Instructed by Herbert (Instructed by SJ Berwin Smith Freehills LLP) LLP (up to 1st December 2012) and Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson (London) LLP (from 1st December 2012)) 4th Respondent Mark Hapgood QC Stephen Rubin QC James McClelland (Instructed by by SJ Berwin LLP (up to 1st December 2012) and Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson (London) LLP (from 1st December 2012)) LORD MANCE Introduction 1. The appellant, VTB Capital plc (“VTB”), is incorporated and registered, and authorised and regulated as a bank, in England. It is majority-owned by JSC VTB Bank (“VTB Moscow”), a state-owned bank based in Moscow. The first, second and fourth respondents are, respectively, Nutritek International Corp (“Nutritek”), Marshall Capital Holdings Ltd (“Marcap BVI”), both British Virgin Islands companies, and Mr Konstantin Malofeev, a Russian businessman resident in Moscow said to be the ultimate owner and controller of both, as well as of the third respondent, Marshall Capital LLC (“Marcap Moscow”), a Russian company which has not been served. 2. The present case arises from a Facility Agreement dated 23 November 2007 (“the Facility Agreement”) entered into between VTB and a Russian company, Russagroprom LLC (“RAP”), under which VTB advanced some US$225,050,000 to RAP.
    [Show full text]
  • Wirtschaftliche Einheiten Im Europäischen Kartellprivatrecht Eine Rechtsvergleichende Studie Zur Haftung Von Wirtschaftlichen E
    Wirtschaftliche Einheiten im europ¨aischen Kartellprivatrecht Eine rechtsvergleichende Studie zur Haftung von wirtschaftlichen Einheiten im deutschen und englischen Schadensersatzrecht fur¨ Verst¨oße gegen europ¨aisches Kartellrecht Dissertation zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades doctor iuris (Dr. iur.) vorgelegt dem Fakult¨atsrat der Rechtswissenschaftlichen Fakult¨at der Friedrich-Schiller-Universit¨at Jena von Rene Thomas Wieser geb. am 12.12.1989 in Bad Frankenhausen/Kyffh¨auser Gutachter: 1. Gutachter (Referent): Prof. Dr. Christian Alexander 2. Gutachter (Koreferent): Prof. Dr. Walter Bayer 3. Prufer:¨ Prof. Dr. Christoph Ohler, LL.M. (Brugge)¨ Disputation: 9. November 2016 Inhaltsubersicht¨ A.Problemstellung........................ 27 B. Europarechtliche Vorgaben zur Haftung von wirtschaft- lichen Einheiten als schadensersatzrechtliche Anspruchs- gegner – Schaffung eines harmonisierten Kartellscha- densersatzrechts........................ 33 C. Haftung von wirtschaftlichen Einheiten im englischen Law of Torts fur¨ Verst¨oße gegen europ¨aisches Kartellrecht 115 D. Haftung von wirtschaftlichen Einheiten im deutschen Schadensersatzrecht fur¨ Verst¨oße gegen europ¨aisches Kar- tellrecht............................ 169 E.ZusammenfassungundAusblick............... 233 F.Thesen............................. 239 Anhang............................... 243 Literaturverzeichnis........................ 257 Rechtsprechungsverzeichnis.................... 287 Inhaltsverzeichnis A. Problemstellung ...................... 27 B. Europarechtliche Vorgaben
    [Show full text]
  • Doi: 10.14324/111.2052-1871.079 60 the Legal Measures Against the Abuse of Separate Corporate Personality and Limited Liability
    DOI: 10.14324/111.2052-1871.079 THE LEGAL MEASURES AGAINST THE ABUSE OF SEPARATE CORPORATE PERSONALITY AND LIMITED LIABILITY BY CORPORATE GROUPS: THE SCOPE OF CHANDLER v CAPE PLC AND THOMPSON v RENWICK GROUP PLC Daisuke Ikuta∗ Abstract: While the scope of ‘veil lifting’ has been severely restricted in UK case law, two recent notable judgments, Chandler v Cape Plc and Thompson v Renwick Group Plc, have held that a parent company could owe tortious liability for the health and safety of its subsidiary’s employees. This article contends that the legal principle recognised in Chandler and Thompson could successfully prevent corporate group abuses of separate corporate personality and limited liability, when combined with ‘veil lifting’ and protection against misrepresentation in UK law. With reference to the theoretical justification of limited liability, there are three circumstances in which limited liability should not apply: ex ante opportunism, ex post opportunism and in relation to involuntary creditors. Most cases in the former two categories can be dealt with by applying existing UK legislation and case law concerning misrepresentation and ‘veil piercing’. The final category can be dealt with by Chandler’s direct tortious liability regime if it is appropriately refined. This paper proposes an integrated understanding of Caparo’s three requirements for establishing a duty of care, namely foreseeability, proximity and fairness, and four-group categorisation, namely reliance on superior knowledge, confusing representation, business integration and fairness for other reasons, in which the parent’s direct tortious liability should be recognised. A. INTRODUCTION As corporate groups have gained power in the global economy, concern has grown regarding their abuse of separate corporate personality and limited liability in order to avoid liabilities such as tax, tortious claims of personal injury, environmental damage and exploitation of workers in developing countries.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Iași Faculty of Law
    « ALEXANDRU IOAN CUZA » UNIVERSITY OF IAȘI FACULTY OF LAW « THE COMPARATIVE LAW OF REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO MULTINATIONAL COMPANIES » -Summary of doctoral thesis - Scientific supervisor: prof. univ. Dr. Valeriu M. Ciucă Doctoral Candidate: Alexandra Teodora Oprea IAȘI 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.Table of contents for the doctoral thesis ................................................................................................ 3 2. Introduction .............................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.Structure of doctoral thesis. Approach ................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.An exposition of the content of the thesis chapters ................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. 5.Conclusions ................................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. 6. Bibliography ............................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.THESIS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 4 2. The evolution of concepts and regulations pertaining to companies from a hystorical, legal and cultural point of view ................................................................................................................................ 14 3.1. Legal forms for the organization
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Jurisdiction to Sue a Parent Company in The
    Jurisdiction to Sue a Parent Company in the English Courts for the Actions of its Foreign Subsidiary: Vedanta v Lungowe and Post-Brexit Implications Mukarrum Ahmed Introduction This article will examine the private international law and substantive liability issues in proceedings against UK based parent companies for the actions of foreign subsidiaries. The UK Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Vedanta v Lungowe will be assessed.1 Moreover, the post-Brexit implications for the viability of such claims before English courts will be considered. In the context of business- related civil claims for human rights violations, the European Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs has recently presented a draft proposal with recommendations to the Commission on corporate due diligence and corporate accountability.2 These proposals include amendments to the European Union’s (‘EU’) Brussels Ia Regulation and the Rome II Regulation.3 The author will introduce these new developments on jurisdiction and the applicable law in relation to corporate human rights abuse claims against EU based parent companies for the actions of foreign subsidiaries. The Emerging Accountability of Multinational Companies for Human Rights Violations in the Developing World It could be argued that access to justice over human rights abuse claims against parent companies for the actions of subsidiaries should not be easily granted because it would interfere with the laissez-faire business efficacy promoted by the corporate and jurisdictional veils.4 The emerging jurisprudence on parent company liability would also diverge from the usual restrictive approach of the English courts to piercing the corporate veil.5 However, the fundamental human right of access to justice and the need for corporate due diligence and accountability necessitates an international consensus on parent company liability.
    [Show full text]
  • DREPTUL COMPARAT AL REGLEMENTĂRILOR PRIVITOARE LA SOCIETĂȚILE MULTINAȚIONALE » -Rezumatul Tezei De Doctorat
    UNIVERSITATEA « ALEXANDRU IOAN CUZA » DIN IAȘI FACULTATEA DE DREPT « DREPTUL COMPARAT AL REGLEMENTĂRILOR PRIVITOARE LA SOCIETĂȚILE MULTINAȚIONALE » -Rezumatul tezei de doctorat- Coordonator științific: prof. univ. dr. Valeriu M. Ciucă Doctorand: Alexandra Teodora Oprea IAȘI 2020 Cuprins 1.Cuprinsul tezei de doctorat ..................................................................................................................... 3 2. Introducere .............................................................................................................................................. 5 3.Structura tezei de doctorat. Abordare ................................................................................................... 7 4.Prezentarea capitolelor tezei de doctorat ............................................................................................... 8 5.Concluzii ................................................................................................................................................. 17 6. Bibliografie ............................................................................................................................................ 22 1.Cuprinsul tezei de doctorat 1. Introducere .......................................................................................................................................... 4 2. Evoluția conceptelor și reglementărilor privitoare la societăți în context istoric, juridic și cultural ......................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Prolomení Majetkové Samostatnosti Obchodních Společností
    Právnická fakulta Masarykovy univerzity Právo a právní věda Katedra obchodního práva DIPLOMOVÁ PRÁCE Prolomení majetkové samostatnosti obchodních společností Martin Brázdil 2014/2015 Prohlašuji, že jsem diplomovou práci na téma Prolomení majetkové samostatnosti obchodních společností zpracoval sám. Veškeré prameny a zdroje informací, které jsem použil k sepsání této práce, byly citovány v poznámkách pod čarou a jsou uvedeny v seznamu použitých pramenů a literatury. V Brně dne 2. 4. 2015 Martin Brázdil 1 Rád bych poděkoval JUDr. Ing. Josefu Šilhánovi, Ph.D., vedoucímu mé diplomové práce, za pomoc v podobě odborných konzultací a všechny cenné rady, které mi při jejím zpracování poskytl. 2 Abstrakt Tato práce se zabývá analýzou prolomení majetkové samostatnosti obchodních společností, především s ohledem na českou a anglickou právní úpravu. Po stručném historickém shrnutí vývoje samostatné právní subjektivity je práce v další části zaměřena na vývoj doktríny piercing the corporate veil v anglickém právu a představeny jsou základní východiska, ke kterým anglická judikatura dospěla. Následuje analýza právních nástrojů českého práva, které je možné uplatnit v souvislosti s prolomením majetkové samostatnosti. Pozornost je věnována zejména zákonu o obchodních korporacích, institutu vlivné osoby a ručení statutárních orgánů v případě úpadku obchodní společnosti. Poslední část práce se zabývá nejvýznamnější judikaturou ESD a právní úpravou EU v oblasti samostatné právní subjektivity. Klíčová slova piercing the corporate veil – prolomení majetkové samostatnosti – omezená odpovědnost – samostatná právní subjektivita – vlivná osoba – ručení statutárních orgánů – zákon o obchodních korporacích – podnikatelská seskupení Abstract The thesis analyzes the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil of commercial companies, particularly with regard to Czech and English law. A brief historical summary of the development of the separate legal personality is followed by a discussion of how the doctrine manifests in English law, including the basic assumptions found in English case law.
    [Show full text]
  • Corporate Liability Towards Tort Victims in the Personal Injury Context
    QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON Corporate Liability Towards Tort Victims in the Personal Injury Context Xue Feng Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy June 2017 1 Statement of Originality I, Xue Feng, confirm that the research included within this thesis is my own work or that where it has been carried out in collaboration with, or supported by others, that this is duly acknowledged below and my contribution indicated. Previously published material is also acknowledged below. I attest that I have exercised reasonable care to ensure that the work is original, and does not to the best of my knowledge break any UK law, infringe any third party’s copyright or other Intellectual Property Right, or contain any confidential material. I accept that the College has the right to use plagiarism detection software to check the electronic version of the thesis. I confirm that this thesis has not been previously submitted for the award of a degree by this or any other university. The copyright of this thesis rests with the author and no quotation from it or information derived from it may be published without the prior written consent of the author. Signature: Date: 2 Abstract This thesis examines approaches to establishing liability in corporate groups. It considers the problem that arises when an insolvent subsidiary’s tort creditors suffer personal injury, and try to pursue recourse against other group companies – especially the parent company. Courts have tried to provide answers regarding the parent company’s liability for the torts of their subsidiaries, but have had limited success.
    [Show full text]