https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14178/900 2026-05-22T09:34:58Z 2026-05-22T09:34:58Z Drápal, Jakub Cioffi, Vanessa Adriana Vanča, Tomáš Kubů, Ondřej https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14178/3811 2026-05-22T07:41:28Z 2024-01-01T00:00:00Z

Podmíněný trest odnětí svobody: Převládající, nepopsaný, nepřiměřený Drápal, Jakub; Cioffi, Vanessa Adriana; Vanča, Tomáš; Kubů, Ondřej Kniha zkoumá, proč je podmíněný trest odnětí svobody, navzdory kritice a obavám z nespravedlnosti, tak často využívaným nástrojem soudů. Autorský tým pod vedením Jakuba Drápala přináší nový pohled na problematiku a klade důraz na potřebu reformy současné právní úpravy.Publikace rozebírá historický vývoj podmíněného trestu a zasazuje jej do kontextu kriminologických teorií i právní praxe, přičemž čerpá z rozhovorů s třiceti soudkyněmi a soudci. Díky detailní analýze ukazuje, jak rozdílné může být rozhodování soudů v praxi oproti teoretickým principům, což vede k řadě paradoxů. Kniha propojuje pohledy práva a kriminologie a nabízí návrhy, jak problematiku podmíněných trestů upravit, aby lépe plnila svůj účel ve spravedlivém systému.; The suspended prison sentence is the most frequently imposed form of sentence in Czechia, accounting for more than half of all sentences. As a result, it dominates the penal landscape. Despite its prevalence, there is a surprising scarcity of scholarly analysis concerning its historical development, justification, practical application, or the challenges associated with its imposition and revocation. Czechia is not the only European country in this respect: there is a notable lack of recent comprehensive studies on suspended prison sentences across continental Europe, particularly within post-communist countries, where this sanction is very frequently imposed.This book addresses these gaps by offering a comprehensive examination of the suspended prison sentence. First, it explores the evolution of this sentence-by examining provisions, jurisprudence, and judicial practices-to understand how it became the predominant form of punishment. It then scrutinizes the current legislative framework and judicial decision-making processes, revealing problems linked to the imposition of suspended sentences and decisions regarding their revocation. Additionally, it presents the perspectives of judges on the various elements of suspended prison sentences.The detailed discussion of the historical context, legal provisions, practical applications, and judicial opinions reveals systemic issues inherent in the use of suspended prison sentences. These issues are further examined through the lens of sanction systems theory and by experimental testing of sentencing inflation (the imposition of longer suspended prison sentences instead of shorter non-suspended prison sentences). The book discloses-from multiple perspectives-that the current form of suspended prison sentences, as implemented in most continental European countries, is fundamentally flawed. It proposes a detailed reform, advocating for the transformation of the suspended prison sentence into a suspended sentence that would explicitly not be a modality of a prison sentence and would be governed by a different set of principles.

2024-01-01T00:00:00Z Bakó, Beáta Csilla https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14178/3810 2026-05-22T01:00:20Z 2026-01-01T00:00:00Z

Who cares about the rule of law? Citizens’ rule of law priorities in Hungary and the Czech Republic Bakó, Beáta Csilla This article presents a representative empirical study where, instead of rating the importance of specific elements of the rule of law, respondents were asked to set up an order of priority between elements of democracy (majority rule) and the rule of law (counter-majoritarian institutions). The survey was conducted both in Hungary and the Czech Republic: these two countries represent the two extremes within the Visegrád Group regarding the rule-of-law-situation, Hungary being the worst and Czechia the best. In Hungary we can observe a deep tension in terms of priorities, and this basically translates into the government-opposition division: pro-government voters prioritize majoritarian arguments, while most opposition voters prefer counter-majoritarian institutions. In Czechia, on the contrary, counter-majoritarian and majoritarian features of the democratic system are seen in a more balanced way: even voters of populist and far-right parties highly appreciate the prevention of power abuse and a functioning constitutional court.

2026-01-01T00:00:00Z Málek, Ondřej https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14178/3808 2026-05-21T01:00:19Z 2026-01-01T00:00:00Z

Beneficial Ownership and the Look-Through Approach Málek, Ondřej

2026-01-01T00:00:00Z Beran, Karel https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14178/3793 2026-05-04T01:00:21Z 2020-01-01T00:00:00Z

The Concept of Juristic Person Beran, Karel The monograph aims to explain the concept of juristic person. It therefore first deals with the question of what it means to be a person under the law and how such a person should be approached in methodological terms. A question follows what the difference is between the concept of a person in civil law and in the Anglo-American (common-law) system. Since a human being and a person are not one and the same concept, the process of getting to know (or studying) a human being cannot be confused with analysing a "person". To learn about a person, one has to analyse the legal order in which the person exists in normative terms, i.e. is valid. Based on analysis of the applicable (positive) law, it can be concluded that a person represents a "point of imputation". If we look at a person as a point of imputation, we will have to face the question of what should be imputed to a person and why. The fact itself that a person represents a point of imputation clarifies in no way whether and why legal personhood should be granted to a juristic person and, on the same note, what legal consequences this will have. Providing an answer to these questions was the objective of various theories of juristic persons, where the most important were the following: the theory of legal fiction; the organic theory; the theory of interest; and the combined theory of juristic persons. These theories are still the subject of discourse, and we need to consider not only their historical significance, but primarily the importance they may carry at the present time. Attempts to provide a theoretical explanation for a juristic person were also closely linked to the views of pure theory of law, as well as postmodern legal concepts. The last group of mutually interconnected issues pertain to the substance of personhood vested in a juristic person, the substance of its legal capacity and the substance of juristic person's liability for a wrong. The answers to all these questions then make it possible to distinguish a juristic person from a mere legal entity, and thus lay down the defining elements of a juristic person.

2020-01-01T00:00:00Z