Les entreprises sont situées au centre d’un réseau quasi-illimité de relations juridiques et d’intérêts économiques, sociaux et politiques. A ce titre, le sauvetage d'une entreprise viable s'opère dans l'intérêt du plus grand nombre de ses partenaires. Les législateurs anglais et français ont dans cette optique engagé des réflexions sur la création de nouvelles procédures et/ou techniques permettant d’aider les entreprises en difficulté et participent en ce sens au courant de la « rescue culture ». Cette culture du sauvetage est devenue un objectif européen en raison notamment du développement des échanges économiques au-delà des frontières. C’est le règlement européen n°1346/2000 du 29 mai 2000 qui régit la matière. En décembre 2012, la Commission a proposé des dispositions modifiant ledit règlement afin notamment de prendre en compte les priorités actuelles de l’UE et des pratiques nationales relatives à la législation sur l’insolvabilité, notamment les actions visant le redressement des entreprises en difficulté. La problématique qui peut être soulevée ici est de savoir en quoi le règlement peut être un outil au service du sauvetage de l’entreprise. La réponse à celle-ci ne peut se faire sous l’angle purement national car il se veut être un instrument au service de la reconnaissance et de l’exécution des décisions en matière d’insolvabilité pour l’ensemble des Etats signataires. Il a donc fallu trouver un angle d’approche plus large. L’analyse comparative entre le droit anglais et le droit français est d’un grand intérêt, puisqu’elle permet de mettre en avant les similitudes et divergences de deux systèmes de droit, habituellement opposés. / The enterprises are in the center of a quasi-unlimited network of legal relations and economic, social and politic interests. As such, the rescue of a viable enterprise is done in the interest of the majority of its partners. The English and French legislators, have in this goal started thinking about the creations of new proceedings and/or new techniques which permits to help the enterprises in difficulty and participate to the “Rescue Culture”. This Rescue Culture is also become an European target because of the development of the economics exchange beyond the national borders. This is the European Insolvency Regulation n° 1346/2000 which governs this subject matter. In December 2012, the Commission has proposed dispositions which amend this regulation to take into account both the present priorities of the European Union and National practices in insolvency, especially the actions for the rescue of enterprises in difficulty. The problem which may be discussed is to know how the insolvency regulation may be an instrument for the enterprises rescue. The answer can’t be given under a single national point of view because this regulation is an instrument of recognition and execution of decisions regarding insolvency proceeding for the member states of the European Union. It was necessary to find a larger point of view. The comparative analysis between the English Law and the French Law has a high interest for this topic, because it allows to put forward the similarities and the differences of two different systems of law, usually opposed.

The dissertation examines the enforcement of monetary claims in cases of intellectual property rights infringement. It focuses on the Act n. 221/2006 Sb. on the enforcement of intellectual property and on the directive 2004/48/EC of the European parliament and of the Council. The main aim is to evaluate the extent of monetary claims especially with regard on possible overlap or mutual consumption of the claims.The second aim is the analysis of English terminology in relation to the nearest Czech equivalents. The dissertation uses methods of logic induction and abstraction and the international multilateral comparative method, where the use of language plays a crucial role. The exact method of modelling combined with mathematical game theory is used. The dissertation progressively explains terms and relevant enactments. It introduces existing ambiguities. It tries to clarify them by analysing the EU legislation, the implementations in different member states, the statutory and common law in the USA. Consecutively it focuses on unjust enrichment in English law, then in the USA and in the continental system, where this institute is set negatively -- as the unjustified enrichment. Within the whole thesis the analysis takes place in relation to intellectual property rights infringement. In the penultimate chapter, TRIPS and ACTA are compared with the directive 2004/48/EC to provide further explanations. The dissertation concludes that a parallel award of damages and infringer's profits theoretically is possible, when it is not a single flow of value which is concerned by the infringement. The dissertation negatively replies to the question if damages and infringer's profits may be awarded concurrently in two separate lump-sum amounts according to § 5 (2) or (3) of the Act n. 221/2006 Sb. The reason is that the rate of the royalty is applied to sales of the infringer. These sales relate to the unjust enrichment of the infringer. If damages were again calculated by applying the same rate to the same sales, that would be double recovery. But theoretically this possibility cannot be excluded. A real-world example is very hard to find, even in the non-lump-sum form. Collateral sales awarded with lost profit in US law may serve as one. From the EU documents it seems, that infringer's profits is equalled to unjust enrichment and that is translated as unjustified enrichment. But English theory distinguishes restitution of unjust enrichment and gain-based recovery for wrong, the latter encompassing the award of infringer's profits in the form of damages. The broader Czech notion of unjustified enrichment is not to be equalled to unjust enrichment in the pure English notion, because the former encompasses also intentional wrongs. With regard to the restitution of infringer's profits based on unjust enrichment, the intent plays a role. The broader notion of unjust enrichment relevant to intellectual property rights infringement is called interceptive unjust enrichment, where enrichment "from the property of the plaintiff" is at stake and it is also possible to claim profits gained by the infringement. Focus is on the enrichment "from the property", not on the wrong. The dissertation examines the terms "account of profits", apportionment of profits", "disgorgement" and impure negotiorum gestio with regard to intellectual property infringement. In several countries reasonable royalty is regarded as good measure of net gain from the infringement of intellectual property. When the infringement was not innocent or wilful, it's possible to claim not only the objective enrichment but also the subjective enrichment -- profits of the infringer. In Czech law, that is represented by the emoluments from the enrichment. The aim of the last chapter is to evaluate, in the context of the operation of other relevant elements of legal environment, the preventive function of the double royalty claim introduced by the Act n. 221/2006 Sb. By construing a game theory model and using simulation, the thesis concludes that in lower royalty intervals, where attorney's costs are a high burden, the effect of the double royalty is insignificant. Where "more significant infringements" are at stake, and the royalty passes a given frontier, the application of the double royalty heightens the preventive function of the Act. Those "more significant infringements" have two intervals -- with the highest effect of the double royalty and with the "stabilized effect of the double royalty". But overall, in cases of "more significant infringements", the application of the double represents a heightening of the preventive power by a third and fifth respectively, and this is true only in the case, where the prospective infringers would try to calculate the effect of their infringement before infringing.

This thesis investigates whether institutional journalism should receive special treatment at the hands of the law. Special treatment encompasses the affording of benefits to and the imposition of liabilities on journalistic institutions and the individuals who work for them. The arguments against special treatment are pragmatic and theoretical: pragmatic arguments emphasise, inter alia, the difficulty of providing a definition of journalism, and theoretical arguments emphasise the difficulty in explaining why special treatment can be coherent. The former can be addressed by describing how special treatment is already afforded to institutional journalism, both liabilities and benefits, to individuals and institutions, and showing that some of the problems foreseen by the pragmatic arguments have not proved as difficult as they appear. The arguments that special treatment is incoherent can be addressed by arguing that the credibility and assessability of institutional journalism still provide a prima facie rationale for special treatment irrespective of the rise of public speech on the Internet, when combined with the integral nature of journalism to democracy. Two basic arguments are advanced why this is so. The first, the free speech values argument, is a consequentialist account that holds that special treatment is appropriate when (or because) institutional journalism contributes to free speech values. It is attractive, but presents difficulties, both when considered in the abstract and when applied to the free speech value of democracy. The second, a rights-based argument, based on the notion that freedoms of speech and of the Press are distinguishable, can be based on either on Dworkin’s theory of rights as trumps or Raz’s theory of rights as interests. Raz’s account is preferable, as it complements the free speech values thesis in explaining the coherence of special treatment.

Internet intermediaries facilitate a wide range of conduct using services supplied over the layered architecture of modern communications networks. Members of this class include search engines, social networks, internet service providers, website operators, hosts, and payment gateways, which together exert a critical and growing influence upon national and global economies, governments and cultures. This research examines who should face legal responsibility when wrongdoers utilise these services tortiously to cause harm to others. It has three parts. Part 1 seeks to understand the nature of an intermediary and how its liability differs from the liability of primary defendants. It classifies intermediaries according to a new layered, functional taxonomy and argues that many instances of secondary liability in English private law reflect shared features and underlying policies, including optimal loss-avoidance and derivative liability premised on an assumption of responsibility. Part 2 analyses intermediaries’ monetary liability for secondary wrongdoing in two areas of English law: defamation and copyright. It traces the historical evolution of these doctrines at successive junctures in communications technology, before identifying and defending limits on that liability which derive from three main sources: (i) in-built limits contained in definitions of secondary wrongdoing; (ii) European safe harbours and general limits on remedies; and (iii) statutory defences and exceptions. Part 3 examines intermediaries’ non-monetary liability, in particular their obligations to disclose information about alleged primary wrongdoers and to cease facilitating wrongdoing where it is necessary and proportionate to do so. It proposes a new suite of non-facilitation remedies designed to restrict access to tortious internet materials, remove such materials from search engines, and reduce the profitability of wrongdoing. It concludes with several recommendations to improve the effectiveness and proportionality of remedies by reference to considerations of architecture, anonymity, efficient procedures, and fundamental rights.

L’objectif de cette étude est d’analyser comparativement le droit contractuel d’auteur dans quatre systèmes juridiques de l’Union Européenne, à savoir les droits allemand, anglais, espagnol et français, et de s’interroger sur les perspectives d’harmonisation européenne en la matière. Seront tout d’abord explorés les points communs et les particularités des dits systèmes à propos d’un certain nombre d’éléments fondamentaux du droit contractuel d’auteur ; ensuite seront formulées des propositions de rapprochement pouvant constituer une base de discussion dans le cas d’une éventuelle harmonisation européenne. L’étude prend en compte le droit d’auteur, le droit commun des contrats, le droit des biens, le droit commun de la personnalité, les droits fondamentaux, la théorie du droit comparé, et certains projets scientifiques européens. / The objective of the present study is the comparative analysis of contract law relating to copyright in four legal systems of the European Union, which are German, English, Spanish and French law, and to analyse the resulting prospects of European harmonization on this subject. First, the similarities and specificities of the aforementioned legal systems will be explored on a certain number of fundamental issues of copyright contract law. Then, propositions of convergence will be formulated, which could provide a basis for discussions in the case of a possible European harmonization. The study considers aspects from copyright law, general contract law, property law, personality rights, fundamental rights, comparative law theory, as well as some European scientific projects.

Law / LL.M.

Law / LL.M.

Le gouvernement d’entreprise a subi une modification radicale en Europe à partir des années 1990. Le changement est aujourd’hui consolidé et il fait partie du droit des sociétés modernes. Le droit brésilien s’est toujours inspiré des législations européennes. Notre étude pose la question de savoir, à partir d’une vue comparative, si le droit brésilien des sociétés se rattache au gouvernement d’entreprise européen. On se centre en Europe sur le droit allemand, le droit anglais, le droit français et le droit communautaire. Notre analyse dépasse le cœur du gouvernement d’entreprise et inclut des parties qui relèvent du droit des marchés de capitaux et du droit de l’environnement, qui ont évidemment aussi un lien avec le gouvernement d’entreprise et le droit des sociétés. Pour comprendre le cœur du gouvernement d’entreprise, à savoir l’organisation des organes d’administration de la société anonyme cotée sur un marché réglementé, il faut s’appuyer sur l’analyse du traitement juridique de sujets à la fois accessoires et rattachés, comme le régime de la responsabilité des administrateurs. Le gouvernement d’entreprise se partage principalement en gouvernements d’entreprise interne et externe. Le gouvernement d’entreprise interne est celui qui traite l’organisation des organes d’administration, les relations entre les administrateurs et les actionnaires. Il se préoccupe surtout des affaires internes des sociétés anonymes. Le gouvernement d’entreprise externe a plutôt à voir avec la société anonyme et ses relations externes, dans le cadre du droit des marchés de capitaux et du droit de l’environnement. La réglementation brésilienne n’a pas accompagné les évolutions du gouvernement d’entreprise interne, sauf par rapport à certains mécanismes de base, comme la publicité. Il y a une plus grande synchronicité dans le gouvernement d’entreprise externe, qui relève de sujets majoritairement poussés en priorité par un consensus international. Le Brésil devra, en fonction de l’évolution de la déconcentration de la structure de l’actionnariat, s’appuyer sur le droit européen et introduire davantage de concepts du gouvernement d’entreprise moderne. / Corporate governance has undergone a radical change in Europe since the 1990s. Change has now consolidated and is part of the company law. Brazilian law has always been inspired by European legislation. Our study asks, from a comparative perspective, if the Brazilian corporate law relates to the European corporate governance. In Europe, we focus on German law, English law, French law and Community law. Our analysis goes beyond the heart of corporate governance and includes parts of capital markets law and environmental law, because they obviously also have a connection with corporate governance and company law. The understanding of the core of corporate governance, which is the organization of administrative bodies of the listed company on a regulated market, depends on the analysis of the legal treatment of incidental subjects, but related, as the regime of liability.Corporate governance is divided into internal corporate governance and external corporate governance. Internal corporate governance deals with the organization of administrative bodies, the relationship between directors and shareholders. It is primarily concerned with the internal affairs of corporations. External corporate governance has rather to do with the corporation and its external relations, under capital markets law and environmental law. Brazilian law did not follow changes in the internal corporate governance, except with respect to certain basic mechanisms such as disclosure. There is a greater synchrony in the external corporate governance, whose main topics are first driven by an international consensus. Brazil will have to measure the evolution of shareholding structure. If the shareholding turns less concentrated, Brazil will have to rely on European law and introduce more modern concepts of corporate governance. / Corporate Governance hat einen radikalen Wandel in Europa seit den 1990er Jahren durchgemacht. Der Wandel ist konsolidiert und ist nun Teil des Rechts der modernen Aktiengesellschaften. Brasilianisches Recht wird immer durch die europäische Gesetzgebung inspiriert. Unsere Studie fragt, aus einer vergleichenden Sicht, ob sich das brasilianische Unternehmensrecht auf die europäische Corporate Governance bezieht. Wir konzentrieren uns in Europa auf das deutsche Recht, das englische Recht, das französische Recht und das europäische Recht. Unsere Analyse geht über die Herzen der Unternehmensführung und umfasst Teile, die dem Kapitalmarkt- und dem Umweltrecht angehören, da sie selbstverständlich auch eine Verbindung mit der Corporate Governance und dem Aktienrecht haben. Das Verständnis des Kerns der Unternehmensführung, welcher die Organisation der Verwaltungsorgane der börsennotierten Aktiengesellschaft ist, hängt von der Analyse der rechtlichen Behandlung von Neben-Themen, die aber verwandt sind, ab, wie die Regeln über die Haftung. Corporate Governance ist vor allem in interne und externe Corporate Governance unterteilt. Interne Unternehmensführung beinhaltet die Organisation der Verwaltungsorgane und die Beziehung zwischen Direktoren und Aktionäre. Sie ist in erster Linie die innere Angelegenheit der Konzerne. Die externe Unternehmensführung umfasst eher das Unternehmen und seine externen Beziehungen nach dem Recht der Kapitalmärkte und des Umweltrechts.

With the increased global infringement of personal rights, it is necessary to be aware of the protection in the different legal systems, especially Anglo-American. Even if the consequences are to be felt in the domestic legal order, the enforceability is recognized under the foreign legal order. The protection is worldwide and through the case law from the European Court of Human Rights the two legal systems - Common law and the Civil Law are penetrating the legislation and the case law in respect of the institute of the protection of personal rights. The doctorate thesis presents the complex introduction to the area of protection of personal rights in the Common law, especially in English law, Commonwealth countries and USA that has not been presented yet for the Czech legal professionals. The thesis explains theoretical concept of the Common law and its background for the purpose of explanation of differences of examined legal orders. The institute is explained on the key historical case law that led to establish the Common law principles. The thesis uses the current and topical legal cases and problems that the orders face in the 21st Century.

The aim of the thesis was to critically compare termination of contracts in South Africa, England and the CISG. It was found out that South Africa prefers to use the term cancellation because it is a remedy of last resort. The problem with cancellation is that is a drastic step of bringing the transaction to an abrupt and premature end, which is only used when a material breach occurs. English law uses the term discharge as it refers to the ending of the obligations under the contract when a breach occurred and represents the point at which one party is no longer bound by its’ contractual obligations and claims damages. Chapter 3 argued that though discharge goes beyond cancellation it does not cater for diverse domestic rules which need uniform international laws. Chapter 4 discussed and argued that avoidance is a term that was chosen by the CISG to end a contract when a fundamental breach occurs. There were problems on interpretation of terms and use of diverse domestic rules. The advantage of the term avoidance is that it is a technical term adopted and given a uniform meaning in the CISG where interpretation of terms and diverse domestic rules did not apply. Avoidance furthermore comprised concepts of rescission and termination. From the above it was argued that South Africa needs to develop new terms for termination of a contract and create new laws along the lines of the CISG. / Private Law / LL. M.