Nature of Charge for Breach of Budgetary Discipline from Czech Perspective

Tomáš Sejkora

doi:10.2478/wrlae-2020-0003

.blurhash-client-img { display: none !important; }

Nature of Charge for Breach of Budgetary Discipline from Czech Perspective

Wroclaw Review of Law, Administration & Economics

Volume 10 (2020): Issue 1 (December 2020)

By: Tomáš Sejkora

Open Access

|Jun 2021

Act No. 218/2000 Col., on budgetary rules, as amended.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Act No. 280/2009 Col., Tax Procedure Code, as amended.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Act No. 134/2016 Col., on public procurements, as amended.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Engel and Others v. The Netherlands App no 5100/71, 5101/71, 5102/71, 5354/72 et 5370/72 (ECHR, 8 June 1976).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bendenoun v. France App no 12547/86 (ECHR, 24 February 1994).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Stephen Andrew Benham v. the United Kingdom App no 19380/92 (ECHR, 29 November 1994).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Jussila v. Finland App no 73053/01 (ECHR, 23 November 2006).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
SergeyZolotukhin v. Russia App no 14939/03 (ECHR, 10 February 2009).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Nicoleta Gheorghe v. Romania App no 23470/05 (ECHR, 3 April 2012).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kapetanios and Others v. Greece App no 3453/12, 42941/12 et 9028/13 (ECHR, 30 April 2015).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
A and B v. Norway App no 24130/11 et 29758/11 (ECHR, 15 November 2016).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Willem Bastiaan van Bockel, The ne bis in idem principle in EU law. A conceptual and jurisprudential analysis(1st edn, Ipskamp Drukkers, Amsterdam 2009) 308.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
European Court of Human Rights, ‘Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Right to a fair trial (criminal limb)’ (2014) <https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_6_criminal_ENG.pdf> accessed 7 January 2018.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kateřina Frumarová et al, Správní trestání (1st edn, Leges, Prague 2017) 400.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Generální finanční ředitelství, ‘Dotazy a odpovědi. Odvody za porušení rozpočtové kázně’ (2013) <http://www.financnisprava.cz/cs/dane-a-pojistne/odvody-za-poruseni-rozpoctovekazne/dotazy-a-odpovedi> accessed 7 January 2018.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Marie Karfíková et al, Teorie finančního práva a finanční vědy (1st edn, Wolters Kluwer ČR, Prague 2017) 356.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Roman Seer and Anna Lena Wilmset al, Surcharges and Penalties in Tax Law (1st edn, IBFD, Amsterdam 2016) 854.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Office for the Protection of Competition: ÚOHS-R370/2014/VZ-37230/2015/321/Oho.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Opinion of advocate general Case C-489/10 Bonda [2012] ECR.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Supreme Administrative Court:3 As 57/2004 – 39.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Supreme Administrative Court:1 Afs 53/2013 – 33.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Supreme Administrative Court:4 Afs 210/2014 – 70.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Authors

Metrics

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/wrlae-2020-0003 | Journal eISSN: 2084-1264

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 36 - 47

Published on: Jun 19, 2021

Published by: University of Wroclaw, Faculty of Law, Administration and Economics

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Publication frequency: 2 issues per year

Keywords:

budgetary rules,

charge for breach of budgetary discipline,

non bis in idem,

criminal charge,

subsidies

Related subjects:

Law,

Public law,

Public law, other

© 2021 Tomáš Sejkora, published by University of Wroclaw, Faculty of Law, Administration and Economics
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Volume 10 (2020): Issue 1 (December 2020)