Premises of expropriation in the light of the provisions of the Constitution

The institution of emitent domain is a relatively new element of the legal system, but it is currently used in most democratic countries. Due to its importance and uniqueness, the rules of emitent domain are determined in the constitutional acts of each country. Emitent domain causes complete or partial reduction of deprivation of property, it is therefore necessary to introduce appropriate safeguards in national law and international law. Legislator in art. 21 and 64 of the Constitution protects property. On the other hand, polish constitution allows emitent domain, but limits usage of this institution through the obligation to indicate a specific public purpose, as well as the payment of fair compensation. The proper interpretation of the terms “fair compensation” and “public purpose” is very important for the institution of emitent domain. According to the art. 21 paragraph. 2 of the Constitution these are two main premises to conduct a process of lawful emitent domain. Case law of administrative courts, the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights allows you to define them. Especially the issue of just compensation has already been, in my opinion properly defined. In contrast, because of the constantly changing economic and political situation public purposes must be constantly redefined. This duty belongs to the legislator, who should know best the needs of the country and citizens at the time.

The purpose of the article is to conduct an axiological reflection using the notion of public interest, on preparation and the procedure for amending the constitution. The article provides a theoretical attempt to capture and place public interest in the broadly socially and publicly understood process of constitutional change. This attempt is not dictated solely by the desire to conduct theoretical – legal and intellectual speculation. This is supported by the increasing voices of the need to amend the existing constitution, which are often superficial, populist and de facto formulated from the position of the supremacy of the state over the individual. The time-varying connotations of the general public interest clause are related to the axiology of selected constitutional principles. The public interest, understood at a given moment in the development of social life, should be a determinant of the process broadly, i.e. both the social and the legislative sense of the constitutional amendment. Similarly, the very direction of constitutional changes should be an expression of social interest.

Cyberspace seems to be ubiquitous. It coexists with the real world and it constitutes its coded zero-one reflection. However, it deprives us of privacy, our constitutional right. Even more, the modern technology allows our fingerprint to be traced forever. Problems with maintaining online privacy in the face of the phenomenon of identity theft for criminal purposes, or the use of our data for property purposes in the broadly understood internet marketing.

The Journalist’s Obligation of Special Care and Diligence in Collecting and Using Press Materials

The aim of the article is to establish the content of the concept of special diligence indicated in art. 12 sec. 1 of the Press Law, the obligation to exercise due diligence in collecting and usage press materials. The content of Art. 355 § 2 of the Civil Code as specifying what the diligence is expected from professionals. It was considered whether the exercise of “due diligence” in collecting the materials would exclude the unlawfulness of the journalist’s actions, if it turned out that, despite this diligence, false information was provided. The effects of failure to exercise due diligence in the matter of journalist’s liability were discussed, based on the analysis of jurisprudence that due diligence is required at all stages of collecting and usage press materials. The problem of due diligence was confronted with the journalist’s actions in defense of an important social interest.

Legal issues associated with the implementation of digital terrestrial television is not only important because of the assessment of their effectiveness. It also tips about what future regulators, based on the experience that we gain today analyzing the administrative and legal convergence in connection with the introduction of new technologies. Their importance is crucial to the debate on the concept of public interest and related restrictions, as well as to analyze the role of public administration in its protection. An example characterized by a change in the understanding of the public interest in the regulatory area of audiovisual media is primarily the sphere of market control and rationing. In the light of the development of new technologies and enlarging coverage market forces should be emphasized that for the sake of proportionality, the objectives of public interest and private purposes, and the rights and freedoms need a more flexibility with regard to rules governing conventional audiovisual media services without negation proven and still existing standards.

Comparative Study of Subject Matter Committees of Inquiry. What in the Public Interest?

The article presents a outline of the tasks performed by committees of inquiry in three countries with a parliamentary system of government and a well-established model of functioning of executive control instruments: Italy, Germany and Poland, also taking into account the context of other European countries. The research concerns the functioning of the commission, and the practice, as well as the effects of its activities. In particular authors analyze subject matters of committees of inquiry in selected countries, regulated in very general way in constitutional law. The conclusions drawn from this comparison can become a contribution to the analysis of the changing functions of parliament and accountability relations.