At Access to Justice in Eastern Europe (AJEE), our mission remains steadfast: to enhance global understanding of Eastern Europe’s legal, social, and political landscapes, and to advance open science and research ethics in scholarly publishing. We believe in promoting rigorous, interdisciplinary inquiry that not only illuminates the realities of legal systems in transition but also shapes constructive dialogue on achieving just and equitable outcomes for individuals and communities. Our commitment extends to nurturing the next generation of legal scholars, ensuring that new voices are heard, and that high-quality research is accessible to readers around the world, free of charge. As always, I would like to take this opportunity to extend my deepest gratitude to our Managing Editors, Peer Reviewers, Language Editors, and Production Service teams, whose dedication, expertise, and meticulous efforts ensure the scholarly integrity and overall quality of AJEE. Their tireless work—ranging from rigorous review processes to careful editorial oversight—has been essential in bringing this issue to fruition and upholding our publication standards. We are delighted to present our new cover, created by Alona Hrytsyk, which visually resonates with the cyclical patterns of existence—generations come and go, the sun rises and sets, and the wind traces its circular routes. In contemplating the reflections from Ecclesiastes on these unceasing cycles, I am reminded that while life’s patterns often repeat, we also encounter moments of profound transformation. This concept lies at the heart of a paradigm shift: as we navigate well-worn paths, our fundamental understanding can—and must—change. In recent days, as reality has formed a new paradigm for our lives, I have found that embracing the idea of such a shift may be key to our ability to adapt. We extend our sincere thanks to Alona Hrytsyk for capturing this delicate interplay between constancy and disruption. May her design serve as a reminder that, even amid life’s familiar rhythms, the potential for radical renewal is always present—and perhaps the very essence of the answer we seek. At the same time, it is crucial to uphold our most fundamental principles, ensuring we preserve what we have so that we may continue to live—and pass on a strong foundation to future generations. Finally, we are delighted to announce updates to our Editorial Board and the expansion of our network of Section Editors. By welcoming new members with diverse specializations, we continue to refine our peer-review procedures and foster interdisciplinary collaboration, all with the aim of delivering the highest-quality content to our readers. We are committed to growing and adapting in order to remain a leading forum for cutting-edge legal scholarship, and we look forward to the insights this expanded team will bring in future issues of AJEE.

Background: This paper focuses on the works and innovations accomplished by artificial intelligence (AI) and how current laws and regulations address these innovations within the framework of copyright law. It examines the challenges faced by legal systems in the UAE, Egypt, and France concerning the copyrights of intellectual works produced through AI systems, such as ChatGPT. The study highlights the issue of defining "author" in copyright law, particularly given that AI lacks the personal characteristics associated with human creators. Methods: The paper employs a comparative legal analysis, focusing on the legal frameworks of the UAE, Egypt, and France. It examines how each jurisdiction currently addresses AI-generated intellectual property and whether existing laws adequately account for AI's role in creative processes. The study also explores the possibility of granting AI systems "legal capacity" and the need for a specific Code of Ethics to regulate AI use in a manner consistent with human and ethical values. Results and Conclusions: The study concludes an urgent need to review and amend existing laws to create a legal framework that effectively addresses copyrights related to AI-generated innovations. This framework should balance the promotion of innovation with the protection of legal rights, ensuring that AI developments are ethically regulated and legally recognised.

Background: This paper addresses key issues related to the tools used to approximate the definitions of selected crimes within specific areas of the fight against organised crime. Despite the pursuit of communitarisation, some legal constitutions have remained rooted in an intergovernmental approach. Accordingly, this article examines individual international documents that served as the basis for selected international criminal offences incorporated into the Slovak Criminal Code. As with any process of harmonisation involving the legal regulations of individual states, aligning European Union law with Slovak Criminal Law was not easy, and many application problems arose. In this article, we focus on these challenges and explore possible solutions. Methods: In this contribution, standard methods commonly employed in the processing of scientific and professional texts focused on "European" criminal law were applied. The dominant method was the so-called analytical method, mainly used to examine current legislation related to the discussed issue. Additionally, a content and functional analysis of the most important institutes, which were contained in relevant international documents and important court decisions, was carried out. In the case of comparisons between Slovak and European legislation, a comparative method was used. Subsequently, conclusions were formulated using the synthetic method, the aim of which was to present proposals to eliminate shortcomings and improve the current legislation. Results and Conclusions: Through the analysis and comparison of relevant legal frameworks, several findings emerged. Specifically, we have found that the Slovak Criminal Code understands the concept of "organised criminal group" significantly more broadly than the relevant Framework Decision. This fact could cause problems in the recognition of decisions by other states. Additionally, the absence of a uniform definition of the concept of "terrorism" within the European Union is problematic as it may lead to inconsistencies that interfere with fundamental human rights and freedoms. In the field of drug trafficking, while no significant application problems were found in connection with the application of European Union law and the Criminal Code, disparities across the entire European Union, particularly in the criminalisation/decriminalisation of selected types of drugs and the varying severity of sanctions imposed by Member States. For arms trafficking, flaws were identified in the implementation of the relevant protocol into Slovak law, particularly in the definition and treatment of firearms parts and components. In cases of trafficking in human beings committed by a legal entity, the Criminal Code fails to meet the requirements of the relevant directive regarding the punishment of legal entities. Finally, the directive on environmental crimes contains vague terms which may cause application problems when approximating the provisions of the directive in relation to other states.

Background: The essence of a constitutional system lies in two key aspects: limiting state power and ensuring the supremacy of rights, particularly the protection of human rights and freedoms. Without mechanisms to limit state power, the state inevitably encroaches on society and the private lives of individuals, threatening their rights and freedoms. The evolution of constitutional systems in liberal-democratic countries has been closely tied to strengthening civil society and developing tools for controlling state power. Historically, this evolution has moved from an absolute state, where the state was the sole owner and source of power, to a liberal-democratic state, where the state serves the people and civil society. Alongside this historical shift, there has been a transformation of individuals from being mere cogs in the machinery of state power to becoming citizens of a constitutional state, demanding that the state exercise restraint to safeguard individual freedom. One of the central ideas of constitutionalism is the principle of limited government. This article aims to analyse the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine concerning the doctrine of limited government. In particular, it explores how the Court interprets key elements of this doctrine, such as the rule of law, the separation of powers, the rights of individuals and citizens, and the doctrine of constituent power. These and other related issues form the core of the research presented in this article. Methods: The study employed several methods to examine the doctrine of limited government, its elements, and the legal positions related to this issue. The system-structural method was used to characterise the concept and content of the doctrine of limited government and its key elements, including the principle of the rule of law, the principle of separation of powers, the rights of individuals and citizens, and the doctrine of constituent power. The logical-legal method facilitated an understanding of the perspectives of scholars on the formation and development of the doctrine of limited government, as well as their views on the content of its elements. Additionally, legal methods such as examining constitutional texts, primary legislation, and case law were employed to analyse the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. Results and Conclusions: The study examines the historical development and current state of the concept of limited government, exploring its connections with the doctrine of constituent power, the principle of the rule of law, the concept of human rights and freedoms, and the principle of the separation of powers. The primary conclusion is that the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine regarding the doctrine of limited government, a key pillar of modern Ukrainian constitutionalism, have been systematically reviewed. It has been established that the Constitutional Court of Ukraine has consistently affirmed the essential elements of the doctrine of limited government from its inception. These elements form the doctrine of constituent power and the fundamental principle of constitutionalism, emphasising the necessity of limiting state power to safeguard human rights and freedoms. Furthermore, the Court upholds the view that the organisation and exercise of state power based on the division into legislative, executive, and judicial branches is not an end in itself but is intended to ensure the protection of individual rights and freedoms.