Le règlement n°2015/848 est-il applicable aux procédures d’insolvabilité présentant un lien avec un État tiers comme la Suisse ? D’un côté, la CJUE répond par l’affirmative concernant le principe vis attractiva concursus. D’un autre côté toutefois, le règlement n°2015/848, plus encore que le règlement n°1346/2000, a été conçu par le législateur européen pour les situations intra-européennes. La décision Schmid (CJUE, 16 janvier 2014, C-328/12) est une boîte de Pandore, car très peu de dispositions pourront en réalité être étendues à l’international. Le chapitre IV assure p. ex. l’égalité de traitement aux seuls créanciers étrangers européens.Comment les autorités suisses vont-elles réagir ? Le chapitre 11 de la LDIP suisse a récemment été révisé, afin de simplifier la reconnaissance des décisions étrangères de faillite. La réciprocité n’est plus requise, et un nouveau chef de compétence internationale indirecte a fait son apparition : le COMI du débiteur. De plus, la faillite ancillaire devient optionnelle. Cela étant, la protection des créanciers locaux reste la priorité : le juge suisse luttera toujours contre les discriminations subies par les créanciers locaux, et refusera la reconnaissance des décisions annexes rendues contre un défendeur domicilié en Suisse. L’applicabilité des règles européennes aux situations relatives aux États tiers serait par conséquent incohérente, et risquerait de paralyser l’entraide internationale avec la Suisse. / Is Regulation 2015/2018 applicable to insolvencies linked with third States such as Switzerland ? On the one hand, the CJEU extends the vis attractiva concursus principle beyond European borders. But on the other hand, Regulation 2015/848, even more than Regulation 1346/2000, is designed for intra-EU insolvencies. The Schmid decision (CJEU, 16th January 2014, C-328/12) is a Pandora’s box, because very few provisions may in fact be extended to extra-EU cases. Chapter IV e.g. focuses on the equal treatment of European foreign creditors. How are the Swiss authorities going to react ? Chapter 11 of the Swiss PILA has recently been modified, in order to simplify the recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings. Exit the requirement of reciprocity, and welcome to a new ground of international indirect jurisdiction : the COMI of the debtor. Moreover, the opening of an ancillary proceeding in Switzerland becomes optional. However, the protection of local interests still comes first : no to discriminations of local creditors, and no to recognition of insolvency-related decisions if the defendant lives in Switzerland. Applying Regulation 2015/848 to insolvencies linked with third States would thus be incoherent, and cooperation with Swiss authorities may come to an end.

From the very outset of the EU data protection legislation, and hence from the 1995 Directive, international data transfer has been subject to strict requirements aimed at ensuring that protection travels with data. Although these rules have been widely criticized for their inability to deal with the complexity of modern international transactions, the GDPR has essentially inherited the same architecture of the Directive together with its structural limitations. This research aims to highlight the main weaknesses of the EU data export restrictions and identify what steps should be taken to enable a free, yet safe, data flow. This research first places EU data transfer rules in the broader debate about the challenges that the un-territorial cyberspace poses to States’ capabilities to exert their control over data. It then delves into the territorial scope of the GDPR to understand how far it goes in protecting data beyond the EU borders. The objectives underpinning data export restrictions (i.e., avoiding the circumvention of EU standards and protecting data from foreign public authorities) and their limitations in achieving such objectives are then identified. Lastly, three possible “solutions” for enabling data flow are tested. Firstly, it is shown that the adoption by an increasing number of non-EEA countries of GDPR-like laws and the implementation by many companies of GDPR-compliant policies is more likely to boost international data flow than internationally agreed standards. Secondly, the role that Article 3 GDPR may play in making data transfer rules “superfluous” is analysed, as well as the need to complement the direct applicability of the GDPR with cross-border cooperation between EU and non-EU regulators. Thirdly, the study finds that the principle of accountability, as an instrument of data governance, may boost international data flow by pushing most of the burden for ensuring GDPR compliance on organizations and away from resource-constrained regulators.

v anglickém jazyce The aim of this thesis named Development aspects of the relationship between judicial system and administrative structure in Czechoslovakia (1918-1938) considering the development of the German administrative justice is to analyse the basic development aspects of the relationship between executive and judicial power in Czechoslovakia. The capstones of the thesis are particularly state administration of the courts, territorial scope and administrative justice. Moreover, a comparative part describing the administrative justice and the gradual elimination of the separation of powers in Germany in the thirties was added. The thesis is composed of five chapters. The first one introduces the matter. The second chapter defines the essential terms like separation of powers, executive and judicial power, state and public administration, judicial system, as well as state administration of the courts, territorial scope and administrative justice. The third chapter deals with the history of the relationship between administration and judicial system in Austria and Austro-Hungarian Empire in the second half of the 19th century. The following, most important chapter describes the constitutional development after the establishment of Czechoslovakia in 1918. The fourth chapter is divided into...