C-β-d-Glucopyranosyl pyrrole derivatives were prepared in the reactions of pyrrole, 2-, and 3-aryl-pyrroles with O-peracetylated β-d-glucopyranosyl trichloroacetimidate, while 2-(β-d-glucopyranosyl) indole was obtained by a cross coupling of O-perbenzylated β-d-glucopyranosyl acetylene with N-tosyl-2-iodoaniline followed by spontaneous ring closure. An improved synthesis of O-perbenzoylated 2-(β-d-glucopyranosyl) imidazoles was achieved by reacting C-glucopyranosyl formimidates with α-aminoketones. The deprotected compounds were assayed with isoforms of glycogen phosphorylase (GP) to show no activity of the pyrroles against rabbit muscle GPb. The imidazoles proved to be the best known glucose derived inhibitors of not only the muscle enzymes (both a and b) but also of the pharmacologically relevant human liver GPa (Ki = 156 and 26 nM for the 4(5)-phenyl and -(2-naphthyl) derivatives, respectively). An X-ray crystallographic study of the rmGPb-imidazole complexes revealed structural features of the strong binding, and also allowed to explain the absence of inhibition for the pyrrole derivatives.

Aryl substituted 1-(β-d-glucosaminyl)-1,2,3-triazoles as well as C-β-d-glucosaminyl 1,2,4-triazoles and imidazoles were synthesized and tested as inhibitors against muscle and liver isoforms of glycogen phosphorylase (GP). While the N-β-d-glucosaminyl 1,2,3-triazoles showed weak or no inhibition, the C-β-d-glucosaminyl derivatives had potent activity, and the best inhibitor was the 2-(β-d-glucosaminyl)-4(5)-(2-naphthyl)-imidazole with a K value of 143 nM against human liver GPa. An X-ray crystallography study of the rabbit muscle GPb inhibitor complexes revealed structural features of the strong binding and offered an explanation for the differences in inhibitory potency between glucosyl and glucosaminyl derivatives and also for the differences between imidazole and 1,2,4-triazole analogues.

Článok sa zameriava na komparáciu služieb hromadného financovania založeného na požičiavaní, známeho aj ako peer to peer lending v kontexte prijatého Nariadenia Európskeho parlamentu a Rady EU 2020/1503 zo 7. októbra 2020 o európskych poskytovateľoch služieb hromadného financovania pre podnikanie a jeho neregulovanou alternatívou – peer to peer lendingom, kde na pozícií dlžníka vystupuje fyzická osoba nepodnikateľ. Článok analyzuje a komparuje vybrané inštitúty v rámci oboch obchodných modelov s cieľom identifikovať najvýznamnejšie problémy v kontexte absentujúcej právnej úpravy.

Comenius University Bratislava, Faculty of Law organizes on 12 and 13 September 2022 (Monday and Tuesday) under the auspices of the Alumni Club of Comenius University in Bratislava, Faculty of Law the eighth year of the international academic conference “Bratislava Legal Forum 2022”.

The exchange and provision of information on taxpayers generally pursue different objectives. According to the provisions of tax law, the main purpose of obtaining information on taxpayers was to implement effective tax administration. Subsequently, other tasks have been added to this objective, including prevention of tax evasion, tax avoidance and related tax crime detection and investigation. The provision and exchange of information between the tax administration authorities and other legal entities, especially the national supervisory authority or national central bank, is subject to a strict regulatory regime, based on an explicit legal mandate to utilise the information. The reason is that the subject of the provision and exchange is often information that has a special secrecy protected by the law, such as banking secrecy, professional secrecy or protected information regarding securities. The authors identify and analyse the legal regime for providing information for the purposes mentioned, especially in the conditions of the Slovak Republic. The legal regime in the Slovak Republic is also more or less affected by legal acts adopted at global (OECD) level and EU level, so the authors take into account, to some extent, these legal acts when dealing with the automatic exchange of tax information between the tax administration of EU and non-EU member states. In this context, the authors differentiate according to whether the provision of information takes place under vertical or horizontal institutional relations. Following that, the aim of the paper is to identify how the related authorities/persons interact in horizontal institutional relations and vertical institutional relations.