Globally, the justice system has set up courts to respond to complaints of a criminal and civil nature. Courts also respond to complaints which require swift relief by way of shortened procedures, in the form of motion proceedings. In all these complaints, courts have to respond in a manner that leaves litigants with a feeling of satisfaction that justice has been done. To the end of ensuring that there is legal certainty, justice systems in all jurisdictions have established a hierarchy of courts, with lower courts being bound by the decisions of higher courts in their jurisdiction. There has been no problem in the application of this principle called stare decisis, or judicial precedent, in disputes of law. However, in disputes of constitutional interpretation, courts have demonstrated a marked shift from observing the rule of judicial precedent. The disregard for this rule manifests itself particularly in the adjudication of cases surrounded by controversy. It is argued herein that constitutional interpretation is no different from legal interpretation, in that the rule of judicial precedent which characterises court decisions in legal disputes, should characterise court decisions in constitutional interpretation disputes. The Constitutional Court of South Africa itself, though it is the highest arbiter in constitutional matters, is bound by its own previous decisions, unless its previous decisions have become manifestly wrong. Three constitutional rights are analysed. The right to life in its three manifestations, namely, the right to life of the unborn child, the right to life of the convicted criminal not to be hanged, and the right of the terminally ill to continue living by receiving medical care at state expense. The other two rights are the right to privacy, and the right to culture. The right to privacy is the right that has been claimed in political controversies. In isolated instances, specifically mentioned herein, the Constitutional Assembly and the drafters of the Constitution have also contributed to the resultant inconsistency in constitutional interpretation. This is especially so with regard to the right to practise one‘s culture. / Constitutional, International and Indigenous Law / LL.D.

Dissertation deal with custodianship of adult persons who are, on the ground of court order, limited their own no legal competention. The main purpose is to describe and explain institutional care adjustment to persons who are limited their legal capacity, and thus give an explanation of public custodianship in the Czech Republic. Custodianship of adult person is set in Civil Code, num. 89/2012, which has brought changes into assessment of legal competention of adult persons. In case, there is no family member who is able to care of no legal competention person, the court enact the village, where is person's permanet address, to be his carer. Public custodianship legislation has been missing up to now, the only document that has been given to help self -government clerks is methodical manual. Besides describing no legal competention care of persons in ny dissertation, I engage in identification problems and putting public custodianship into practise. I identify daily problems of administration workers relating to public custodianship. In empirical part, using qualitative form of research, I interview workers in Liberec district, who work in area of local custodianship.

La législation actuelle permet la prise en compte du temps de détention présentencielle dans la détermination de la peine. Le paragraphe 719(3) du Code criminel encadre la comptabilisation du crédit sur la peine de ce type de détention. Depuis l’entrée en vigueur de la Loi sur l’adéquation de la peine et du crime en 2010, le Code criminel stipule que le juge doit appliquer un crédit de un jour sur le temps de la peine pour chaque jour passé en détention présentencielle. Un maximum d’un jour et demi pour chaque jour de détention présentencielle peut être accordé lorsque les circonstances le justifient. Cette loi, qui s’inscrit dans un durcissement des politiques pénales, apporta un resserrement législatif en circonscrivant le pouvoir judiciaire quand au calcul du crédit pour le temps déjà passé sous garde. L’objectif de l’étude est de comprendre l’application et l’interprétation de la Loi sur l’adéquation de la peine et du crime par les acteurs judiciaires entre 2010 et 2016. Pour ce faire, une analyse d’arrêts de la Cour du Québec et de l’arrêt Summers (2014) de la Cour Suprême du Canada a été réalisée. Les motifs évoqués par les juges quant au calcul du crédit ont été mis en lumière. Il ressort que les conditions de vie en détention présentencielle et que le comportement de l’accusé appuient les décisions des juges. En effet, les résultats de l’étude indiquent que la difficulté des conditions de détention est un motif qui contribue à l’octroi d’un crédit majoré. Ce motif repris par les juges fait appel à un argument de la jurisprudence antérieure aux changements législatifs de 2010. De plus, le « mauvais comportement » de l’accusé peut amener les juges à calculer le crédit à la baisse. Nous concluons que les acteurs judicaires ont résisté face à la politique pénale de 2010, mais aussi qu’une sévérité pénale teinte le calcul du crédit. / Current legislation allows for pre-sentence detention time to be taken into account in sentencing. Subsection 719 (3) of the Criminal Code regulates the accounting of the credit for the penalty for this type of detention. Since the Truth in Sentencing Act came into force in 2010, the Criminal Code stipulates that the judge must apply on the sentence a one-day credit for each day spent in pre-sentence detention. A maximum of one and a half days for each day of pre-sentence detention may be granted when the circumstances warrant. This law, which would be part of a punitive turn of criminal policies, brought in legislative tightening by circumscribing the judicial power when calculating the credit for the time already spent in custody. The objective of this study is to understand the application and interpretation of the Truth in Sentencing Act by judicial actors between 2010 and 2016. To do so, an analysis of judgments of the Court of Quebec and R.v. Summers (2014) of the Supreme Court of Canada has been carried out. The reasons given by the judges for the calculation of the credit have been highlighted. It appears that the living conditions in pre-sentence detention and that the behavior of the accused support the judges' decisions. Indeed, the results of the study indicate that the difficulty of the remand conditions is a reason which contributes to the granting of increased credit. This reason taken up by the judges draws on an argument from the case law prior to the legislative changes of 2010. In addition, the “bad behavior” of the accused may lead the judges to calculate the credit downwards. From this, we conclude that the judicial actors partly resisted the penal policy of 2010, but also that a penal severity tints the calculation of the credit.

The thesis „Legal Context of Night-time Road Accidents with Pedestrian „deals with the interpretation of legal decisions on traffic accidents caused by the vehicle during the night and where the other participant was a pedestrian. The main aim of this thesis is to find the established limits for the assessing of blame in comparable accident situations in cases of traffic accidents of the vehicle and the pedestrian at the reduced visibility with emphasis on the assessing in relation to the circumstances of the cases from the technical and legal point of view and in relation to the health consequences. Legal interpretations of the law are defined within the theoretical part of the thesis with emphasis on the ones which appear repeatedly in the judicial decisions. Approximately 1530 judicial decisions were studied and analysed in the analytical part, of which 56 were selected, that corresponds to the requirements of this thesis. There are also 5 expert evidences provided by the Institute of Forensic Engineering of Brno University of Technology. In the above mentioned cases there were defined the limits for the assessing of accidents based on which the judicial decision was predicted in context with the defined established limits for the judicial decisions at the top of the court hierarchy.

What does it mean when there is nothing behind the façade? The schism between Russia and the international society reached a new level of depth as of February 2022. Тhis predicament was facilitated by events and developments prior to it, and this build-up also saw itself reflected in the sphere of international law. There was a crucial moment in 2015 when the Russian Constitutional Court passed decree 21-P. This decision was the culmination of a long legal struggle between the Russian Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights. The conclusion was that if a judgment of an international court is incompatible with the Russian Constitution, then the execution of measures foreseen in the judgment of its legal order can be prevented. This thesis seeks to delineate in what way key aspects of legal scholar Mikhail Antonov’s dissertation Formalism, Realism and Conservatism in Russian Law are found manifest in the linguistic properties and legal methodology applied by the Constitutional Court in decree 21-P. The document concerning decision 21-P was subjected to a three-step assessment including an analysis of the document’s quantitative properties, a discourse analysis, as well as an analysis of the court’s legal methodology. The research results indicate that Antonov’s conception of the Russian legal system expresses itself in a diffuse multi-dimensional system in decision 21-P. It is a multifaceted pattern where different elements can elicit formalism, realism, or both simultaneously, with different degrees of prevalence. / Eсли за фасадом ничего нет, что это значит? Раскол между Россией и международным сообществом достиг нового уровня после февраля 2022 года. Этому затруднительному положению способствовали предшествующие ему события и эта эскалация нашла отражение и в сфере международного права. Переломный момент был в 2015 году, когда Конституционный Суд РФ принял постановление № 21-П. Это решение стало кульминацией длительной правовой борьбы между Конституционным судом России и Европейским судом поправам человека. Был сделан вывод о том, что в случае несовместимости решения международного суда с Конституцией РФ исполнение предусмотренных в решении мер его правопорядка может быть предотвращено. В данной диссертации делается попытка определить, каким образом ключевые аспекты диссертации профессора Михаила Антонова «Формализм, реализм и консерватизм в российском праве» проявляются в лингвистических свойствах и правовой методологии Конституционного Суда РФ в постановление № 21-П. Документ Был подвергнут трехступенчатой оценке, включающей анализ количественных характеристик документа, дискурсивный анализ, а также анализ правовой методологии суда. Результаты исследования показывают, что концепция российской правовой системы Антонова выражается в многоаспектной системе в решении № 21-П. Это многогранный паттерн, в котором разные элементы могут вызывать формализм, реализм или и то, и другое одновременно, с разной степенью преобладания. / Vad betyder det om det inte finns något bakom fasaden? Schismen mellan Ryssland och det internationella samhället nådde en ny nivå i februari 2022. Denna splittring förutsågs av händelser som ägde rum i förväg och finns även återspeglade inom internationell rättssfär. Det fanns ett avgörande ögonblick 2015, när den ryska författningsdomstolen antog dekret 21-P. Detta beslut var kulmen på en lång rättskamp mellan den ryska författningsdomstolen och den europeiska domstolen för mänskliga rättigheter. Slutsatsen var att om en dom från en internationell domstol är oförenlig med den ryska konstitutionen, kan implementeringen av åtgärder som förutses i bedömningen av dess rättsordning förhindras. Detta arbete syftar till att utforska vilket sätt de centrala aspekterna av rättsforskaren Mikhail Antonovs avhandling Formalism, Realism and Conservatism in Russian Law manifesteras i de språkliga egenskaper och den juridiska metodik som tillämpas av författningsdomstolen i dekret 21-P. Det officiella dokumentet rörande beslut 21-P genomgick en trestegsanalys som inkluderar en granskning av textens kvantitativa egenskaper, en diskursanalys samt en analys av domstolens juridiska metodik. Forskningsresultaten indikerar att Antonovs uppfattning om det ryska rättssystemet uttrycker sig i ett diffust flerdimensionellt system i beslut 21-P. Det är ett mångfacetterat mönster där olika element kan framkalla formalism, realism, eller båda samtidigt, med olika grader av prevalens.