et sine fraudatione – imposing limitations.pptx

In:FUNDAMINA, vol. 17, p. 1-13, ISSN: 1021-545X, 2011

Biscotti Curare bona. Tutela del credito e custodia del patrimonio tra creditori e debitore (2008); Biscotti "The safeguarding of credit, bankruptcy in history, and regulating tendencies: The Italian experience" in 2010 2 (120) Jurisprudencija (Jurisprudence) 1. 2

PRÁVNĚHISTORICKÉ S TUDIE, 2018

Among many fundamental rules relating to the functioning of a democratic rule of law, which do not have a Roman provenience belong famous Latin maxim in dubio contra fiscum. At the level of content, the oldest document which includes an officially expressed willingness to resolve doubts in favour of the taxpayer is the letter from King Theoderic to his treasury administrator Marcellus. The document is little-known and is usually overlooked in the world of science. The king instructs his advocatus fisci to strictly adhere to the letter of the law and win cases only on the basis of fair-play game. At the same time, when in doubt, he is obliged to acquiesce to the claims of the citizens and give up.

Studia Prawnicze KUL , 2019

The article analyses the constitution issued by Emperor Honorius in the year 416, concerning the perpetrators of offences qualified as crimen as the exemption from criminal liability, in a situation when such actions were undertaken during the barbaric invasions, escape from such invasions or the rule of the usurpers. The act governs that an action perpetrated for fear of one’s life cannot be seen as crime. The article analyses specific terms used in the above-mentioned legal act, especially in the context of the contemporary legal terminology of the epoch. Moreover, it presents the historical backdrop behind the issuing of the consti-tution, together with other regulations regarding collaboration with the enemy, both volitional and under coercion.

The actio libera in causa doctrine, as originally formulated by various Enlightenment philosophers, concerns the imputation of responsibility to actors for actions unfree in themselves, but free in their causes. Like our Enlightenment counterparts, contemporary philosophers of criminal law, as well as most Western legal systems (both common law and civil), allow that persons can be responsible for acts that are not free when performed, provided they were free in their causes. The actio libera doctrine allows us to impute unfree actions to persons, provided they were responsible for causing the conditions of unfreedom that characterizes those actions when performed. This doctrine seems to be instantiated in a great many actual legal practices. But I argue that we must distinguish between two importantly different understandings of the doctrine itself and its application in law. On the one hand, the actio libera doctrine allows us to waive the voluntariness requirement that is generally needed for criminal liability. On the other hand, it disallows defendants to appeal to defences they would otherwise be entitled to use to block liability, if they culpably created the conditions of their own defence. The first case involves rules of imputation, while the second concerns culpability, and justifying the actio libera doctrine therefore faces different challenges in the two cases. This is a collection of original essays on the topic of actio libera in causa and its relations to other areas of substantive criminal law and doctrines in the general

Philosophical Foundations of International Criminal Law: Correlating Thinkers, 2018

In this paper I explore the intriguing relationship between the two poles that underpin this reflection, namely ‘just war’ (bellum iustum in Latin) on the one hand, and ‘enemy criminal law’ (Feindstrafrecht in German) on the other. This relationship can be characterised as a specular one, for one mirrors the other. ‘Just war’ renders the enemy a citizen who can be submitted to trial, implying that there is a common law binding on States. On the other side, Feindstrafrecht renders the citizen an enemy who is not to be protected by the same law as the rest of the citizens

Roman criminal law, as majority of ancient legal systems, is commonly considered cruel and intolerant. Most of these negative views is based on the fact that the Romans created and used a great variety of painful and severe penalties, very often accompanied by different kinds of torture or disgrace. Although such opinions derive from legal and literary sources, occasionally in their context a very important factor seems to be missing. Sometimes in the process of evaluation of foreign or historical legal systems researchers make a mistake and use modern standards, both legal and moral, and from this point of view they proclaim their statements. This incorrect attitude may lead to ascertainment that no legal system before 20th century should be judged positively in this aspect. However, the goal of this paper is not to change those statements, as they are based on sources, but rather to give examples and to underline some important achievements of Roman criminal law which, sometimes forgotten or disregarded, should be considered in the process of its historical evaluation.

Studia canonica, 2020

The promulgation of the 1983 Code marked a significant step forward in the struggle for the juridic protection of fundamental human rights in the Church. The last twenty-five years have witnessed a number of significant steps backward in this regard, particularly with respect to the principle of penal legality. In order to evaluate the current status of this principle, this article describes the essential elements of this principle according to the maxim nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege and the disposition of the 1983 Code; and it identifies and classifies the derogations from this principle in the ius vigens. The author concludes that these derogations have gravely undermined the principle of penal legality and, as such, present a significant threat to the protection of fundamental human rights.

Philosophical Approaches, 2000

Zeszyty Prawnicze

The aim of this article is to examine the importance of interest for an applicant’s right to legal protection in Roman civil procedure. I establish a connection between the interest of the authorized person and his right to sue or apply for an interdict by reviewing the sources of Roman law concerning a claim for theft or on the grounds of a contract of mandate or actio ad exhibendum, as well as interdicts on the protection of posession. This enables me to define the persons with a right to enjoy these forms of procedural protection thanks to having a proven interest. Thus, the contractor who is robbed of the subject of his contract had the right to sue for theft, since he was responsible for the safekeeping of the thing. So, too, was the creditor of a pledge, since he had an interest in owning the subject of the pledge. The applicant for a right to actio ad exhibendum needed to have an interest in the presentation of the thing, regardless of whether he was its owner. The person ent...