When using natural language in a domain of a special discipline, which is fundamentally based on its use (for example, language of law), we are led on the one hand by the need for precision and unambiguity and on the other hand by the need for brevity and efficiency. A specific semantic problem for texts expressing a system of normative rules for the regulation of actions is the question of their efficient applicability in new situations. Herbert Hart came up with a suggestion on how to solve these dilemmas in the field of law and was loosely inspired by the theory of open texture of concepts. He saw the solution in an inevitable defeasibility of a rule, which, in his view, is caused by the open texture of the goal pursued by the rule. However, extensive use of the instrument of open texture of a concept or a rule can be fuel for the fire of subjectivism in semantic practice. It is necessary to distinguish the phenomenon of open texture of concepts from the polysemy of natural language expressions and the phenomenon of so-called privative modification. Applicative flexibility and effectiveness of normative theory is aided by a more appropriate generality of concepts, which is achieved, for example, by recodification of law, rather than by artificially extending the scope of concepts on the basis of their fuzziness.

In the context of considerations concerning justice in the punishment of criminal offenders it is necessary to focus on the issue of individualisation of the sentence. Through this process the court determines the offender's particular kind of punishment and sentence. The punishment should subsequently be an expression of society's idea of the state's fair reaction to the offence committed. The authors have focused on the process of individualisation of punishment in the case of sentencing offenders in insolvency crime. The theory of rational choice and ideals of restorative justice are of crucial importance in the authors' thinking. In reflection of the object of the criminal activity and the element of reciprocity (presuming rationality of the perpetrator) we come down to the suitability of the more common imposition of pecuniary penalty on these perpetrators. The text analyses both the advantages and disadvantages of pecuniary penalty, not just in relation to insolvency offenders.

Reflecting on the analysis of the criminal offence of law in terms of criminal law theory, the authors present this article, by which they advance on their previous conclusions and deepen their reflection on the issue of effective apartment buildings management and prevention of fraudulent behaviour. The authors concentrate on the analysis of owners´ obligations according to the Act on ownership of apartments and non-residential premises with special focus on the yearly settlement of overpayments and arrears. The previous theoretical approach is being applied on a case study -fraudulent behaviour in the process of division of common costs (expenditures) between the owners in the apartment building and subseqent settlement (in conditions of Slovak republic). The basis for the division of these costs is the proportionality of the use of the common parts and common facilities of the apartment building, which is expressed in the so called person months (metric unit for settlement). By not reporting the true number of personmonths to the administrator, an owner may gain material benefit (achieve higher overpayments and lower arrears) and this illegal financial benefit needs to be covered and compensated by other owners in the same apartment building. In terms of criminal law, the owner is committing fraud (a related offence to insolvency crimes). Subsequently the attention is paid to the efficiency of owners´ rights protection in relation to the insolvency of an owner and to the provision of recommendations de lege ferenda, which would bring a higher level of legal certainty, more effective way of apartment building management, settlement of arrears and overpayments, insolvency issues and sanctioning of perpetrators.

No abstract

The authors examine the content of the terms access to the court and access to justice. These terms can be considered identical in a system based on the material rule of law (material legal state), that respects its principles. Social reality, sometimes, however, proves the opposite. The successfulness of ensuring (guaranteeing) the access to justice is determined, first and foremost, by the quality of the personal substrate of the judicial authorities – mainly judges themselves. The authors identify which personal characteristics are crucial in this regard. These include the judge´s level of professionalism (due professional care), moral integrity and communication competence. In order to consider the judicial decision-making process as the process (procedure) leading to justice, all of these requirements must be met at the same time.