The authors explore different models of transfer of industrial property on a comparative basis. The article demonstrates that these models differ on a country level and several models may be in use in one legal system. The authors analyze strengths and weaknesses and legal implications of these models in the three Baltic States both at the regulatory level and at the practical level through case studies. The authors conclude that would be preferable to use the model under which the register is vested with negative publicity and the transfer of ownership of industrial property is not made dependent on its recordation.
The report informs that due to historical ties to the German legal culture, the most influential model for reconstruction of the Estonian legal order after the restoration of independence was German law, including when drafting the 1992 Constitution. However, with regard to EU law, a different approach was chosen: a
The European Commission has initiated infringement proceedings against virtually half of the Member States, accusing many of, inter alia, failing to take the necessary measures to ensure that racist and xenophobic hate crimes are effectively criminalised. The article looks at the right of a Member State to limit prosecution for incitement of violence or hatred to acts that are carried out in a manner likely to disturb the public order. The authors argue that application of the ‘risk to public order’ criterion if interpreted appropriately, will in most cases reduce the threat of ‘taking it too far’. They argue also that there is a risk of confusion between ‘public order’ and ‘public nuisance’, due to the national criminal courts being more familiar with the latter. This could lead to unreasonably loose application of criminal punishments and pose a risk breaching the nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege certa principle. Perhaps because of having suffered censorship and absence of fundamental rights under the Soviet Union, Estonian society voices strong concerns about criminalisation of hate speech. In the authors’ view, these concerns may be reduced by narrow interpretation of the ‘risk to public order’ notion.
General principles of law, treaties, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, regulations, directives, framework decisions and other sources of EU law have their distinctive nature, which is reflected in their effects on legal relationships. This article focuses on the interrelationship between national and EU law, primarily focusing on the various impacts of directives and framework decisions. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has clarified that directives may, in certain situations, have both a vertical direct effect and, in some limited cases, also a de facto incidental horizontal direct effect on a legal relationship. In addition, directives can have a decisive role in interpreting national law. These tools to deal with national and EU law inconsistencies are analysed in detail. The chapter aims to establish a comprehensive understanding of the topic and add the Estonian perspective by providing an insight into the practice of the Estonian courts, which has so far not been available to English- speaking legal scholars.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.