in English This thesis deals with the legal regime of land-related waters. The initial part of the thesis explores relations pertaining to water and land. The main part of the thesis concentrates on legal aspects of land-related waters, powers of watercourse managers in respekt of such land and the legal regime of land connected with water structures, with an emphasis placed on the current legislative aspects of ponds and wells. Furthermore, the thesis deals with the general water protection in respect of land, in particular with water-resource protection zones and vulnerable areas. The last part of the thesis is dedicated to land-related issues of anti-flood protection, especially to limitations applicable to owners of property in flood zones.

The Commercial contract of purchase (law and perspectives) The contract of purchase is one of the most concluded contracts between artificial persons as well as between natural legal persons. It is surely appropriate to analyse modifications related to New Civil Code that is being drafted and means one of the biggest legislative changes that is being made in almost fifty years in the Czech private law. Therefore, the purpose of my thesis is to analyze both an effective law of the commercial contract of purchase including the international level, and forthcoming changes first and foremost related to liability for defects, consequences for the attainment of the ownership from the wrongful proprietor in general as well as in connection with real estate. I divided the thesis in two main parts; the first one is dealing with an effective law of the commercial contract of purchase, the second one is dealing with legal regulation in New Civil Code according to contract of purchase. Each of these parts is divided into minor chapters for better lucidity. In the first part I describe International sale of goods regulated by United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods and its application, then by effective law of the commercial contract of purchase in Czech Republic. Within the...

Pastaruoju metu galima pastebėti tendencingą prekių ženklo reikšmės didėjimą tiek vietinėje, tiek regioninėje, tiek ir tarptautinėje prekyboje, todėl kiekvienas prekių ženklo savininkas yra skatinamas skirti vis didesnį dėmesį tinkamam savo prekių ženklo valdymui bei apsaugai. Bendrijos prekių ženklo apsaugos sistema suteikia registruotam prekių ženklui apsaugą visoje Europos Sąjungos teritorijoje. Žymeniui, galinčiam tapti prekių ženklu ir naudotis Bendrijos prekių ženklo sistemos garantuojama apsauga, yra keliami gana aukšti grafinės išraiškos ir skiriamojo pobūdžio reikalavimai. Šie reikalavimai yra tenkinamai, jei žymens grafinė išraiška yra aiški, apibrėžta, išbaigta, lengvai prieinama, suprantama, ilgalaikė ir objektyvi, o žymens skiriamasis pobūdis leidžia aiškiai identifikuoti prekių ar paslaugų kilmę. / Recently it is possible to notice the tendentious increase of trade mark’s importance in local, regional and international market, therefore every trade mark proprietor shall be motivated to pay more and more attention to proper management and protection of their trade mark. Community Trade Mark’s Protection System provides the protection for the registered trade mark within the entirely territory of the European Union. Sign, capable of being a trade mark and using the guaranteed protection of the Community Trade Mark Protection System, shall follow the high requirements of graphical representation and distinctiveness. These requirements are fulfilled provided that the graphical representation is clear, precise, self-contained, easily accessible, intelligible and objective, where the distinctiveness of the sign allows clearly identify the origin of goods and services. Community Trade Mark proprietors may be every natural or legal person, including authorities established under public law. The rights of Community Trade Mark proprietor may be divided into the following main groups: (1) exclusive rights; and (2) ownership rights to the trade mark. The exclusive rights of the proprietor allows to prohibit all third parties without the permission of the proprietor from using in the course of trade the sign, which is identical or similar to the Community Trade Mark and which may confuse a consumer. When providing the proprietor of the trade mark with the respective rights, it is... [to full text]

Under senare tid har allt fler företag börjat utöva verksamhet där mark nyttjas för olika aktiviteter med stöd av allemansrätten. HD har bedömt att sådant nyttjande; kanalisering, är tillåtet med stöd av allemansrätten, men uttalade i NJA 1996 s. 495 (”Forsränningsmålet”) samtidigt att nyttjandet bara är tillåtet så länge marken inte skadas. Eftersom skadeståndsfrågan aldrig har prövats i samband med allemansrätten har föremålet för denna uppsats varit att utreda möjligheterna att utfå ersättning för skador via allmänna skadeståndsrättsliga regler, skadestånds- och avhjälpandeansvaret i miljöbalken samt för intrång i äganderätten via expropriationslagen och möjligheten att få ersättning ur en försäkring. Expropriationsalternativet kan inte användas idag, eftersom marknyttjande med stöd av allemansrätten är ett icke ersättningsgillt intrång i äganderätten. Möjligheterna till att betrakta en skada på marken som en sakskada är stora. Det finns emellertid omständigheter som skapar komplikationer för båda skadeståndsansvarsformerna. En allmän skadeståndstalan kräver att culpa hos skadevållaren kan bevisas, vilket kan vara svårt när många människor vistas på en plats samtidigt. Kanalisatören kan betraktas som culpös enligt principerna om kumulativ eller anonym culpa, enligt vilka en principal blir ansvarig, trots att de individer han ansvarar för inte, var och en för sig, varit culpösa. Det miljörättsliga skadeståndsansvaret bygger på ersättning för störningar som inte är orts- eller allmänvanliga. När det gäller allemansrättsligt nyttjande torde många störningar betraktas som just orts- eller allmänvanliga. Avhjälpandeansvaret i miljöbalken bygger på ersättning för miljöfarlig verksamhet, och det är tveksamt om det kan tillämpas på kanalisatörens verksamhet. Expropriationsersättning på grund av allemansrättsligt nyttjande tillerkänns inte markägaren enligt gällande rätt, vilket kan tyckas märkligt eftersom många nyttjandeformer som påminner om allemansrätten, t.ex. servitut, medför sådan ersättningsrätt. Det finns vissa möjligheter att ersätta markskador ur försäkringar. Dock är de flesta skador följden av invasionsproblematik, som är mycket svårt försäkra. Samtliga ersättningsformer har visat sig otillräckliga för att ersätta skador som är estetiska och ideella, eftersom sådana skador inte kan beräknas i pengar. Beroende på hur marknyttjande med stöd av allemansrätten betraktas har man olika åsikt om i vad mån kanalisatören borde ersätta markägaren för skador på marken. Om nyttjandet uppfattas som någonting som finns vid sidan av markäganderätten är endast konkreta skador ersättningsgilla. Om man anser att nyttjandet är ett intrång i äganderätten och en förmögenhetsöverföring från markägaren till kanalisatören bör emellertid redan rätten att nyttja marken föranleda ersättning. Den ersättningsform som bäst tillgodoser markägarens intresse av att få skador på marken åtgärdade och få ersättning för ekonomisk förlust är avhjälpandeansvaret. Endast det ansvaret reparerar till fullo skador på miljön. Det krävs emellertid ett domstolsavgörande för att slutligen klargöra avhjälpandeansvarets tillämplighet. / Recently, more and more companies have come to exercise activities under the right of public access on land that belongs to whomever. The High Court has assessed that such use of land; channeling, is permitted, but in NJA 1996 s. 495 (“The Rafting Case”) also announced that this use is only allowed as long as the land remains unharmed. Since the question of damages in the context of the right of public access has not yet been treated in jurisprudence, the object of this thesis has been to investigate the possibilities to obtain restitution for damages via tort law, liability under the environment act as well as for proprietary intrusions under the expropriation act and restitution via insurance. Expropriation, however, cannot currently be made use of, since the right of public access is an intrusion which does not entail restitution. There are extensive possibilities for considering damage to the land as damage to property. However, there are ramifications for both the legal options for damages: the tort law and the environmental act. The tort law requires tortuous behaviour from the tortfeasor to be established, which is difficult when several persons stay at one place simultaneously. The canalizer may be considered tortuous under the principle of vicarious liability and cumulative or anonymous tort. According to these principles, the canalizer is responsible for the actions of certain individuals, even though they have not, individually, been negligent. The environmental liability for damage is based on restitution for disturbances that are not common to the place nor to the general public. This fact is difficult to establish in the context of the right of public access. The remedial responsibility of the environmental act is constructed for operations that are harmful to the environment, which is why it is dubious whether the responsibility is applicable to the canalizer’s activities. Currently, compensation for expropriation cannot result of use of land under the right of public access. This is peculiar, since many usufructs reminiscent of the right of public access, i.e. the easement, result in such compensation. Some forms of damage to the land can be insured. Although, most damage in this context arise from invasion, a cause of damage which is nearly impossible to insure. All forms of restitution have proven insufficient for compensating damage that is esthetic or otherwise non-pecuniary. Depending on if the right of public access is regarded as proprietary intrusion or something that exists alongside the right to property, one comes to different conclusions about the extent of compensation for damage. In the former case, only substantial damage is compensable. In the latter case, even the right to use the land occasions compensation. The liability which best meets the needs of the proprietor: compensation and restoration of damage to his property, is the remedial responsibility of the environmental code. This responsibility alone fully restores harm to the environment. However, the applicability of the remedial responsibility needs to be established in jurisprudence.

The focus of this case study inquiry was to explore the influence of school proprietors on the roles and responsibilities of the School Boards (SBs) in church-owned secondary schools in Maseru. The samples consisted of SBs chairpersons, school principals, parents’ representatives, and teachers’ representatives in the SBs and educational secretaries from three church-owned secondary schools. Interviews were used to collect data. The findings of this study revealed that the perceived roles of proprietors were to develop the learners holistically including religious values and morals. The SBs managed human resources, physical infrastructure, and school funds, and policy implementation. The relationship between proprietors and SBs was both positive and negative. The proprietors influenced SBs through promoting religious values and morals and by ensuring achievement of their academic goals. The proprietors’ sense of ownership and the desire for maintaining quality education motivated them to monitor the functions of SBs’ in their schools. / Educational Leadership and Management / M. Ed. (Education Management)