In 2014, a fundamental reform of private law took place in the Czech Republic. It was a revolution in private law. The reform of Czech private law was also to some extent contributed to by the pressure of the neighbouring more advanced legal systems in which the Czech legislator sought inspiration, especially the ABGB and its basic principles. Czech private law has been influenced since at least 1811 by the ABGB; this regulation affected Czech private law even in the first half of the twentieth century. This paper aims to answer the question how the ius-naturale conception of ABGB affected the Czech Civil Code of 2012 (the reform of private law in 2012) in the field of compensation for non-pecuniary damage, and to what extent and in which institutes this influence manifested itself. The area of compensation for non-pecuniary damage was deliberately chosen – this area is related to the protection of human personality. Personality rights then reflect the theory of natural law, which was suppressed in Czech private law during the second half of the twentieth century.

The aim of the paper is to describe the so-called protective purpose of the contract, by demonstrating the liability of experts for damage caused by an imperfect expert opinion, incorrect advice, or information. The comparative method will be used in conjunction with analyzing the Czech, Austrian, and German arrangements – their continuities and differences. Criteria for assessing whether this is a protective purpose of the contract and how these criteria vary in different legal frameworks are discussed in detail. The conceptual features of the expert as well as the assumptions of their responsibility for providing advice or information regulated in the individual jurisdictions are argued as well. The article concludes that the protective purpose of the contract is demonstrated accurately in the case of the liability of the expert for damage which has been established on the basis of a contract. These are in particular cases where an expert draws up an opinion on behalf of the parties on the basis of a contract which is, however, concluded with merely one party. In the event of a breach of the contract, the expert is also responsible for the damage caused to a party that has not concluded the contract with an expert.

Nanocellulose is a broader term used for nano-scaled cellulosic crystal and/or fibrils of plant or animal origin. Where bacterial nanocellulose was immediately accepted in biomedicine due to its “cleaner” nature, the plant-based nanocellulose has seen several roadblocks. This manuscript assesses the technological aspects (chemistry of cellulose, nanocellulose producing methods, its purity, and biological properties including toxicity and suggested applications in final drug formulation) along with legal aspects in REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and Restriction of Chemicals) regulation by the European Union, EMA (European Medicine Agency). The botanical biomass processing methods leading to the nanoscale impurity (lignin and others) on nanocellulose surface, along with surface modification with harsh acid treatments are found to be two major sources of “impurity” in botanical biomass derived nanocellulose. The status of nanocellulose under the light of REACH regulation along with EMA has been covered. The provided information can be directly used by material and biomedical scientists while developing new nanocellulose production strategies as well as formulation design for European markets.

No abstract

Personal data protection is one of the important areas of the EU’s operation and the general public is especially aware of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). However, personal data protection has been an issue in the EU for a long time. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) plays a major role in personal data protection as their function is to interpret EU law and thus also EU legislation related to personal data protection. Until now, research papers have tackled specific issues related to interpreting EU legislation or analyses of specific decisions made by the CJEU. However, no comprehensive empirical legal study has been published so far which would evaluate the decision-making of the CJEU in the area of personal data protection using a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. Therefore, no analysis has been carried out to determine how many decisions of the CJEU have been related to personal data protection, how their number has increased, or which participants and from which areas have participated in the proceedings. The results of the analysis presented here can be used as a basis for studying the future development of the CJEU’s decision-making in the area of personal data protection in relation to digitization and especially to the COVID-19 pandemic, which undoubtedly has contributed to a significant increase in online communication, posing new challenges towards a more efficient personal data protection in the online world.