The article deals with limitation of claims in Poland, Ukraine and Germany. The authors made a conclusion that the most liberal solution in the area of contractual regulation of limitation is provided in the German Civil Code, which allows shortening and prolonging the statutory limitation period, whereas the most severe is provided for in the Polish Civil Code, prohibiting it altogether. An indirect solution has been adopted by the Ukrainian Civil Code, which allows only the extension of the statutory limitation period. These different legislative solutions demonstrate that the national legislators are partially different in their view of the reasons justifying the statute of limitations. Newer prescription regulations, to which the German and Ukrainian ones belong, are largely similar to each other. The same can be said about the Polish academic project of the general section of the civil code. The Principles of European Contract Law have had a significant impact on teaching of civil law, as well as on national legislators.
, civil decision no. 465/27 June 2017, file no. 6802/30/2016/a1 2. According to art. 1673 Civil Code of 1864, „The fidejussor, without having paid, may claim indemnification from the debtor: 1. when he is sued in Court to pay; 2. when the debtor is bankrupt or in a state of insolvency;; 3. when the debtor has indebted itself in order to release him from warranty within a specified period and that period has expired; 4. when the debt became payable by the arrival of the due date specified; 5. after 10 years, when the main obligation has no fixed due date, but the
The interface between securitization law and insolvency law is the central legal concern in designing securitization transactions. The complex structure of these transactions under the Securitization Act of 2004 should be understood within a specific legal context: the possible bankruptcy, insolvency, or liquidation of the “originator” (i.e. the entity requiring securitization financing), which may jeopardize the claims of asset-backed security investors. It is a solution to the risk that security holders with claim to specific assets may end up being subordinated to the interest of preferred creditors and ranked pari passu with, or even lower than, unsecured creditors in a rehabilitation or liquidation proceeding. Under present law, this risk may arise through the “substantive consolidation” and “clawback” provisions of the Financial Rehabilitation and Insolvency Act (FRIA) of 2010. This risk is mitigated through the creation of a bankruptcy remote vehicle and true sale of receivables, and it is the lawyer’s principal role in the securitization process to isolate or ring-fence assets beyond the reach of creditors, and making them an exclusive claim of investors. How this works in theory and practice is the subject of this paper.
Bibliography 1. Avery, M. Paying for Silence: The Liability of Police Officers under Section 1983 for Suppressing Exculpatory Evidence. Temp. Pol. & Civ. Rts. L.Rev, 2003, 13 , 1. 2. Avery, M. Obstacles to Litigating Civil Claims for Wrongful Conviction: An Overview. BU Pub. Int. Lj , 2008, 18 , 439. 3. Bernhard, A. When Justice Fails: Indemnification for Unjust Conviction. University of Chicago Roundtable , 1999, 73 (6). 4. Bernhard, A. Justice Still Fails: A Review of Recent Efforts to Compensate Individuals Who Have Been Unjustly Convicted and Later
endowed with full
decision-power over the people) –, consciously chose to depart from the option of a
presidential political regime and rationally limited its alternatives to a
parliamentary regime or a semi-presidential regime.
The distribution of power in the reborn Romanian state, through the principle of
separation of powers and through the development of a system of checks and
balances, claimed as a starting point the head of state (president) institution.
Therefore, the question What do we not want? received a clear answer: an
Courts of the United Kingdom Relating to Foreign Judgments and Parties Out of the Jurisdiction (London, W. Clowes and Sons, 2nd Ed., 1884). 99. Polaroid Corporation v Eastman Kodak Co  RPC 379. 100. Plucknett, T., A Concise History of the Common Law (Indianapolis, Liberty Fund, 5th ed. 1956). 101. Plunkett, J., Imogen Thomas “Vindicated’ after Footballer Drops Blackmail Claim” (The Guardian 15 December 2011). 102. Prosser, W., “Privacy” (1960) 48 California Law Review 3, 383. 103. Prince Albert v Strange (1849) 41 ER 1171, 1 Mac & G 25 at 47. 104. Practice
have been (as is well-known) and will remain an outspoken enemy of
attacks and criticisms brought to the judicial activities in the case instrumentation
phase. Such actions constitute interferences with the judging activity. But to make
a taboo of and prohibit de plano any comment (possibly critical) regarding
solutions entered in res judicata, claiming that this affects the independence of
justice, is an exaggeration.
While participating, as President of the Constitutional Court, at the celebration of
anniversary of the Federal Constitutional Court
developments must be viewed as an essentially political project by the judiciary in
response to the issues raised in this essay. Accordingly, I wish to end this essay
with these remarks from Sir Shridath Ramphal  relating to the importance of
law in a free and democratic society:
The rule of law has been a critical civilising influence in every free society. It
distinguishes a democracy from a tyrannical society; it secures liberty and and
justice against repression; it elevates equality above dominion; it empowers the
weak against the unjust claims of the strong