This diploma thesis deals with questions on value added tax of municipalities. In the first chapter is defined the term public body. The second chapter describes the most important provisions of the VAT Code, focusing on specificities of municipalities. This chapter also describes the main characteristics of the proposed solutions which are analysed in the Copenhagen Economics study. The practical part is focused on concrete examples of application of the VAT Code and analyses impact of the selected change on the tax liability of municipality.

The topic of this dissertation thesis is collection, analysis and evaluation of information about investment decisions making within public administration bodies. The investment decision making is examined in relation to allocation of public funds on investment activities and projects. The main goal of this thesis is to analyze and evaluate the current status of the investment decision making within the public sector. Subsequently the goal is to offer new or updated knowledge related to these issues, and bring recommendations to improve the investment decision making of public administration bodies. At first, there are described current knowledge in the field of investment decision making. This is followed by an analysis of assessment methods used for evaluation and selection of investment projects. The work is completed by recommendations for investment decisions making in the form of a normative model. The model should increase benefits of public investment expenses for society. There are used data obtained through a questionnaire survey of 430 subsidized firms, 169 state organizational units and state funds and 130 cities, boroughs and counties. Another important source of information was secondary data of selected ministries and agencies, legislation and literature.

`Organ of state' as a constitutional concept was first introduced by the 1993 Constitution, in which it was defined as including any statutory body or functionary. In their interpretation of this notion, the courts and academic writers invoked the tests developed at common law in order to determine its meaning. The commentators, on the one hand, used a variety of tests. The courts, on the other hand, subscribed to what has come to be known as the `control test'. The 1996 Constitution followed with a comprehensive definition of `organ of state'. This notion is also employed in other laws by direct reference or incorporation of the definition in section 239 with slight adjustments. Regrettably, the limited approach developed by the court in their interpretation of the notion of `organ of state' for the purposes of the 1993 Constitution has spilled over to the interpretation of the concept under the 1996 Constitution. The question is whether this is justifiable. The constitutional definition of `organ of state' makes it clear that other institutions and functionaries are organs of state on the basis of what they are and others by virtue of the functions they are engaged in. Therefore strict adherence to the control test or any other test could unjustifiably limit the application of the Constitution. / Jurisprudence / LL.M.

`Organ of state' as a constitutional concept was first introduced by the 1993 Constitution, in which it was defined as including any statutory body or functionary. In their interpretation of this notion, the courts and academic writers invoked the tests developed at common law in order to determine its meaning. The commentators, on the one hand, used a variety of tests. The courts, on the other hand, subscribed to what has come to be known as the `control test'. The 1996 Constitution followed with a comprehensive definition of `organ of state'. This notion is also employed in other laws by direct reference or incorporation of the definition in section 239 with slight adjustments. Regrettably, the limited approach developed by the court in their interpretation of the notion of `organ of state' for the purposes of the 1993 Constitution has spilled over to the interpretation of the concept under the 1996 Constitution. The question is whether this is justifiable. The constitutional definition of `organ of state' makes it clear that other institutions and functionaries are organs of state on the basis of what they are and others by virtue of the functions they are engaged in. Therefore strict adherence to the control test or any other test could unjustifiably limit the application of the Constitution. / Jurisprudence / LL.M.

Le critère organique en droit administratif est un instrument de qualification juridique qui repose sur la présence d’une personne publique dans un rapport de droit. Il trouve ses origines à la fin du XIXème siècle dans la subjectivisation des droits de puissance publique dont l’Etat est investi et l’admission de la distinction entre les personnes publiques et les personnes privées. Confondu avec le critère du service public au début du XXème siècle, le critère organique acquiert son autonomie à l’heure de la « crise » de la notion juridique de service public dans les années 1930-1940. Le critère organique, qui témoigne de la logique institutionnelle à laquelle le droit administratif français est attaché, sert de support à la construction des notions-cadres de ce droit.Depuis de nombreuses années, le critère organique fait cependant l’objet d’une vive contestation. D’une part, le mouvement de « banalisation » qui traverse le droit des personnes publiques renforce l’insuffisance de ce critère dans la détermination du droit applicable. D’autre part, les transformations contemporaines du modèle administratif français provoquent une régression de la référence à ce critère. Alors que la personnalité publique apparaissait hier comme le mode privilégié de prise en charge de l’action publique, l’administration est incitée à externaliser ses activités. En dépit d’un phénomène de « privatisation » de l’action administrative, le juge et le législateur maintiennent l’application de règles exorbitantes en l’absence du critère organique.Alors que le phénomène administratif se déploie aujourd’hui au-delà des seules personnes de droit public, la définition du critère organique en droit administratif demeure fermement arrimée à la notion de personne publique. Plusieurs facteurs invitent toutefois à reconsidérer la définition de ce critère. La fonctionnalisation de l’action publique ne dissimule qu’imparfaitement les liens qui s’établissent au sein de la « sphère publique » entre les personnes publiques et certaines personnes privées, qui demeurent sous étroit contrôle public. C’est donc sur la base de la notion de « contrôle public » que peut être entreprise une redéfinition de ce critère en droit administratif. / In French administrative law, the organic criterion is an instrument of legal qualification dependent upon the presence of a public body in a legal relationship. Its origins date back to the 19th century in the subjectivation of the rights of public power of which the State is invested and the differentiation of the public and private bodies. Misconstrued with the criterion of public service at the beginning of the 20th century, the organic criterion gains its autonomy at the time of the "crisis" of the notion of public service which consecrates the dissociation of notions of public body and public service. This criterion, which bears witness to the institutional logic to which administrative law is associated, serves as the foundation for the construction of notions.However, the organic criterion has been the subject of strong opposition for many years. On the one hand, the "trivialization" movement which affects rights of public bodies reinforces the inadequacy of this criterion in determining the applicable law. On the other, as a result of contemporary changes to the French administrative model, the reference to this criterion has diminished. While the public body appeared in the past as the preferred mode for public action, the administration is encouraged nowadays to "outsource" its activities. Despite a phenomenon of "privatization" of administrative measures, the judge and the legislator maintain the application of special rules in absence of the organic criterion.While the administrative phenomenon now extends beyond public law, the definition of the organic criterion in administrative law remains firmly linked to the notion of public body. Several factors, however, call for a redefinition of this criterion. The functionalization of public action only partially conceals the relation between public and certain private bodies within the public sphere which nevertheless remain under close public control. It is on the basis of the notion of "public control" that a redefinition of this criterion can be undertaken in administrative law.

1 Abstract The public administration itself is bound by applicable legal provisions. Therefore, in case of breach of individual rights stemming from the legal system of the Czech Republic, every person is guaranteed a strict legal procedure with corresponding legal mechanisms, which aim to remedy the status caused by unlawful action or inaction of the public administration. The object of this dissertation focuses, in particular, on analysis of individual means of protection of rights in public administration (i.e. the issue of the protection of public subjective rights) and their mutual relationships between them at level of legal regulation de lege lata. However, certain space had to be dedicated also to the procedures of public administration in matters related to private subjective rights as even the public administration decides on certain matters of private law. As regards the protection of private rights by public administration I mentioned the dualism of the review of decisions of public bodies and certain examples of public administration deciding on matters of private subjective rights. Further I stressed the issue of civil liability related to the conduct of public administration, i.e. liability for damages caused by unlawful decision and unlawful procedure. Pursuant to the act on liability for...