This article explores the legal aspects of the copyrightability of AI-assisted works in the U.S., China, and the EU, within the context of a fundamental principle shared across these jurisdictions: only creations involving meaningful human creative choices are eligible for copyright protection. The article also presents comparative insights from court rulings – including those in China and the U.S. – that reinforce the requirement of human authorship for copyright protection and the legal and ethical implications of using generative artificial intelligence (AI) in academic work, with a focus on academic integrity, authorship, and copyright compliance. It analyzes recent developments in legislation, case law, and internal university regulations in jurisdictions including the European Union, the United States, China, and selected EU Member States. The central thesis is that AI-generated content cannot be regarded as an outcome of independent scholarly work if it replaces the creative process – particularly the development of a research concept and first draft. While AI tools offer efficiency and support in technical tasks such as grammar correction or literature searches, their unauthorized or undisclosed use in substantive academic writing constitutes a breach of academic ethics and may lead to the invalidation of academic degrees. Moreover, it emphasizes the growing need for universities to adopt AI detection policies that respect the presumption of innocence and align with data protection law. Ultimately, the article argues for preserving academic authorship as an intellectual process that cannot be outsourced to machines – lest scientific credibility itself be undermined.

This article examines the contrasting legal status and functional roles of customs officers in the European Union and Ukraine. It highlights how the absence of law enforcement powers and procedural independence in the Ukrainian system limits the effectiveness of its customs personnel. Drawing on judicial practice and comparative models from EU member states, the study proposes concrete institutional reforms, including empowering specialized customs units with enforcement authority. These steps, it argues, are critical for aligning Ukraine’s customs administration with EU standards and strengthening its capacity to address illicit trade. In several EU member states, such as Poland and Hungary, customs authorities have an enforcement mandate, and their employees are granted a special status, which includes carrying weapons, having official titles, the right to independently investigate customs crimes, and procedural autonomy. In contrast, in Ukraine, customs officers are civil servants without law enforcement status, which limits their effectiveness in combating smuggling and customs violations. Although Ukrainian customs officials hold special ranks, this becomes an additional obstacle when it comes to pension allocation, as the Ukrainian Pension Fund does not recognize customs officers as public servants, arguing that there is no rank assigned to their public service position. The methodological framework of the study is based on comparative, formal-legal, and systemic methods. Based on the analysis of legislation, public institutions, and judicial practices, the author concludes that Ukrainian customs authorities possess low procedural autonomy and face a high level of legal uncertainty, particularly in the area of service under contract. Examples of judicial decisions provided confirm the common practice of dismissing customs officers without proper legal justification. In conclusion, the study suggests revisiting the regulatory approaches to the status of customs officers in Ukraine, taking into account European experience, particularly regarding granting law enforcement powers to specific customs units. Such a shift would strengthen the institutional capacity of the customs service and lay the groundwork for a more resilient and responsive system of financial and border security, better suited to the challenges of European integration.

This article discusses the question of whether the right to die is likely to emerge under the European Convention on Human Rights. In recent decades, several member states of the Council of Europe have changed their legal frameworks by decriminalizing the offences of physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia. This development is particularly significant for individuals with terminal illnesses who, in these jurisdictions, are granted the possibility to choose when and how to die with dignity. For this reason, this article focuses on the implications of these trends for the European Convention. Following an analysis of provisions of the Convention and its case law, this article concludes that a right to die cannot emerge under Articles 2 and 8 of the Convention.

The article analyzes actions taken by the Polish, Swedish and Greek Ombudsmen to protect fundamental rights of persons seeking international protection and irregular migrants, which is of particular importance in the context of the ongoing migration crisis and the war in Ukraine. Research theses presented here state that the Ombudsman is an institution that fills the lacunae in legal protection exercised by courts and administrative bodies of the Member States and that the existing procedural standards of protection of migrants’ rights are not effective in practice and require strengthening. The article proposes a 4-pillar model of the Ombudsman’s conduct, which involves dealing with individual complaints (1st), systemic actions to combat maladministration (2nd), activities for the “domestication” of international law (3rd), as well as advocacy and soft competences supporting the civil society (4th). The methodology used includes investigation of the law in force, legal comparison and, to some extent, the statistical method and the analysis of non-legal sources.

As artificial intelligence (AI) increasingly contributes to the creation of original content, legal systems are under pressure to determine whether and how such outputs can be protected by copyright. While much of the academic debate focuses on future legislative reforms, courts and existing legal frameworks are already being tested by real disputes. This paper examines how different jurisdictions, namely, the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Australia, and China, approach the copyright protection of AI-generated works, both at the level of underlying legal doctrine and through judicial interpretation. The first part of the paper outlines the key principles of copyright law in each system, including definitions of authorship, standards of originality, and relevant exceptions or limitations that may apply to AI training and output. The second part shifts to case law, examining how courts have applied or challenged these principles when addressing AI-generated work. In doing so, the paper focuses on three core legal issues: whether AI-generated works can meet originality thresholds, how authorship and ownership are assigned, and how the expression–idea dichotomy is interpreted in this context. It is within this judicial context that the present study situates its analysis, using case law as the primary lens to examine how legal systems are grappling with the growing presence of AI in creative processes. By comparing these legal systems and judicial approaches, the paper demonstrates that while human authorship remains a consistent requirement, some courts have begun to accommodate more nuanced forms of human–machine collaboration. Ultimately, the study argues that in the absence of clear legislative reform, courts are actively shaping the emerging boundaries of copyright in the age of generative AI. In addition, this paper contributes to the growing literature on AI and copyright by providing a doctrinal analysis grounded in case law, revealing not only how courts are applying traditional concepts to new technologies, but also where doctrinal tensions are beginning to emerge.

Banking secrecy is an institution that is well known in many European legal systems, as its regulation is an important element of the creation of a legal framework for the protection of individual data of national citizens. The method of regulating the described secrecy is always referring to some type of compromise between the public and the private interest of the economic actors in the given national system. The purpose of this article, in which the authors use the dogmatic, historicaldescriptive method and, above all, the comparative method, will be to compare the way and scope of introducing the definition of banking secrecy in French and Czech law. The comparative analysis will allow for the drawing of a number of conclusions in the discussed scope, including the response to the question if despite European Union regulations, we can observe some important differences in that field at the national level. Another issue is related to the technological neutrality of the language that is being used, as an element that could give the response about the compatibility of national regulations to current technological evolution. The different ways of regulating banking secrecy in France and in the Czech Republic, presented in this paper, can be an interesting element of a broader discussion of the changes that may be needed in other national systems of EU member states.

This paper offers a comprehensive and rigorous analysis of the feasibility of establishing a European federal treasury from a legal, institutional and comparative perspective. Based on a study of established federal tax systems, such as those in the United States of America, Germany and Switzerland, it identifies the structural elements necessary for the EU to develop its own tax structure: direct taxing power, a significant budget, borrowing capacity and effective mechanisms for redistribution and stabilization. The analysis is complemented by an examination of the EU’s legal framework, the limitations imposed by the Treaties and the case law of the German Federal Constitutional Court. Finally, recent proposals for tax reform aimed at introducing new own resources and institutionalizing the issuance of common debt are evaluated. The central thesis argues that a European federal treasury is not only desirable but essential to safeguard the EU’s strategic sovereignty, internal cohesion and capacity to act at the global level.

Crucial financial topics have been debated during the latest International Conference on Financing for Development. After taking stock of different stakeholders’ input, their contributions within the tax field are systematized, and the outcome document is critically assessed. The renewed framework for Domestic Resource Mobilization (DRM) comprises stronger tax policies and administrations, tax reforms based on smart use of context-specific data, and the improvement of specific categories of taxes. It addresses progressivity, solidarity and international tax cooperation, taking into consideration human rights. African countries have relied on their own efforts to strengthen DRM capacity but call for support in the fight against illicit financial flows. They are simultaneously working collectively to shape the UN Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation and its protocols. In any reconfiguration of the domestic or international financial architecture, the oversight by audit institutions should be reinforced. Despite wishes to quickly put into practice several commitments with The Sevilla Platform for Action, the Compromiso de Sevilla may fall short regarding taxation.

In EU legislation, the protection of ichthyofauna as an element of diversity takes place in the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC. The purpose of the article is to present the legal status and legal instruments for the protection of ichthyofauna in Natura 2000 sites in the EU and Poland. The considerations were undertaken in the context of the ecological disaster in the Oder River. Analyzing the legal status of ichthyofauna protection, strengths and weaknesses were identified. The former include the establishment of a network of Natura 2000 sites, categories of priority species, strict, active and in situ species protection, prohibitions on fishing, trade and habitat destruction, and a program for the restoration and protection of fish stocks. However, a problematic issue has been the lack of procedures for dealing with threats to ichthyofauna, as exemplified by the ecological disaster in the Oder River. Although a law has been passed to revitalize the Oder River, it focuses on investments to regulate the riverbed and not on restoring the state of ichthyofauna and natural habitats.