|
|
Non-contractual liability of the EU
Navrátil, Petr ; Tomášek, Michal (advisor) ; Král, Richard (referee) ; Sehnálek, David (referee)
Non-contractual liability of the EU Abstract The aim of this thesis is to systemize the history of EU non-contractual liability; to analyse in detail the current concept of non-contractual liability of the EU, including procedural and substantive law aspects; to present a brief comparative analysis of selected national legal systems and their role in the regarding the general principles common to the laws of the Member States (and vice versa to reflect on the influence of EU non-contractual liability and its' possible role in the europeanization of administrative law); to contextualise non-contractual liability of the EU (with regard to constitutional, international and national aspects) and to consider compensation for damages caused by the EU as a tool for (un)effective judicial protection of individuals. Research methods are content analysis and comparison. This thesis is divided into seven chapters. The first chapter is introductory and defines the subject of research, the methods used and terminology. The second chapter deals with an analysis of the current state of professional debate on non-contractual liability of the EU. The main part of the thesis focuses on the identification of problems connected to non-contractual liability of the EU and contextualization of those problems. In that regard...
|
|
|
Contractual and non-contractual liability to damages (a comparison with foreign legislation)
Černý, Štěpán ; Elischer, David (advisor) ; Dvořák, Jan (referee)
Contractual and non-contractual liability to damages (a comparison with foreign legislation) In theory tort and contractual liability might seem to draw clear boundaries. The first one arises from breach of contract whereas tort being unrelated to any contractual obligation. However it is known that some legal systems, like the Czech law, do not differentiate between them and do not provide them with different rules. Does it only mean the differentiation is useless in these legal systems or does it suggest that there might be no reasonable grounds for distinction in other legal systems? How do tort and contractual liability differ? Differences have to be weighed when area between tort and contract is considered. They are of significance when it comes to possibility or impossibility of choice in case of concurrence of tort and contract and they are important for liability to third parties of a contract. I researched following legal systems: Czech law, German law, French law, Spanish law and Italian law. In each of them I examined these areas: contractual liability, liability to third party, tort liability, liability for behaviour contrary to bonos mores, and selected elements of tort liability with some remarks to some special rules for contractual liability: wrongfulness, fault, causation, damage and its...
|
guest ::
