In almost all sectors, online services play a much larger role than a few years ago. Data-driven platform models combine an ever greater degree of market power. The associated concentration effect leads to the displacement of medium-sized companies from the market. When looking at the large platforms of this new digital economy their success model is based almost exclusively on generating data and extracting economically useful information from this data. In relation to trading platforms, the use of data serves among other things to increase efficiency. The so-called data sharing offers numerous advantages that can be leveraged in connection with e-commerce platforms. Due to this, we will first take a closer look at e-commerce and the special economic characteristics of the business model of digital platforms (especially Amazon). The next chapter discusses the current legal framework and focus on the antitrust claims of retailers against online platforms. Then, we will deal with the legal-political approaches to the digital platform economy. The study concludes with various options for action which can be derived from the legal and economic explanations outlined in the previous chapters.

Background: The principle ne bis in idem is a traditional principle relevant to criminal proceedings in European states. While in the past, crime had a primarily national dimension, these days, it has an international dimension as well. The Europeanisation of law also occurred in criminal law, including criminal proceedings. Thus, an understanding of ne bis in idem as a modern guarantee involving the international dimension is needed. Methods: The basic sources used for the elaboration of the paper are scholarly sources (monographs, textbooks, studies, and scientific papers, etc.), legislative instruments (international agreements, etc.), and case-law (of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union). The materials used here also include the available explanatory memorandums. The author uses traditional methods of legal scientific (jurisprudential) research – general scientific methods as well as special methods of legal science (jurisprudence). The general scientific methods used in the paper are predominantly logical methods, namely, the method of analysis, the method of synthesis, and the method of analogy, as well as the descriptive method. The descriptive method has been used to familiarise the reader with the current legal regulation of ne bis in idem. The method of analysis has been used as regards relevant provisions and case-law. The method of synthesis has also been used, as has the method of analogy. The special methods of legal science used here predominantly include methods belonging to a group of interpretative methods, namely, the teleological method, the systematic method, the historical method, and the comparative method. The teleological method has been used as regards the explanation of the purpose of legislative instruments. The systematic method has been used in the classification of the principle of ne bis in idem. The historical method has been used as regards the genesis and historical aspects of ne bis in idem. The comparative method has been used to examine the relationship between legislative instruments. Results and Conclusions: The principle of ne bis in idem is one of the oldest norms in western civilisation. Since the Europeanisation of law also occurred in criminal law, including criminal proceedings, the principle of ne bis in idem became a part of international legal documents. The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocol No. 7, introduced a new right – the ‘right not to be tried or punished twice’. In addition, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which is the first bill of rights developed explicitly for the EU, also introduced the principle of ne bis in idem as the ‘right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence’. However, its understanding in the Charter has no additional significance. In principle, it is the same. Despite the fact the primary purpose of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement is to facilitate the free movement of persons between member states of the EU by removing internal border controls, several measures have been introduced which focus on police and judicial co-operation, including the principle of ne bis in idem, in the provision entitled ‘Application of the ne bis in idem principle’. This provision is considered the most developed expression of an internationally applicable ne bis in idem. Ne bis in idem also occurs in extradition proceedings and surrender proceedings. Its operation under the European Convention on Extradition prevents the double prosecution of the same person for the same offence in different jurisdictions. As regards the new procedural system introduced by the Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant, based on the surrender proceedings as a special kind of criminal proceedings, there is no absolute obligation to execute the European arrest warrant. The Framework Decision, in its core text, includes grounds for non-execution of the arrest warrant in the executing state – and one of them is the principle of ne bis in idem

The recodification of criminal law realised in the Slovak Republic in 2005 brought several new elements to criminal proceedings. One of them was the expansion and significant strengthening of the discretion of the public prosecutor in criminal proceedings. However, this authority of the public prosecutor’s office is, in many cases, perceived sensitively and controversially in Slovak society, especially in connection with many cases and scandals, when the prosecutor simply stated that ‘the act did not occur’. One of the related problems is the fact that the injured party in the Slovak Republic has essentially no powers that would, independently of the prosecutor’s office, ensure the control of the prosecutor’s discretionary powers directly through an independent and impartial court. This situation also stems from the fact that the public prosecutor’s office has a prosecution monopoly in Slovak criminal proceedings. However, the current prosecution monopoly of the prosecutor’s office is not a rational consequence of its historical development in our territory but a consequence of the coup d’état in 1948 and the subsequent onset of the communist regime. The possibility for other entities (e.g., the injured party) to exercise their rights through criminal law institutions has thus been minimised. Based on the above, the aim of this paper is to examine the existing scope of the discretion of public prosecutors in Slovakia, analyse the possibilities of controlling the exercise of these powers, and answer the question of how to improve the current possibilities of the control.

The specialization of public prosecution offices has been a growing international trend, particularly in addressing complex forms of crime such as corruption, economic crime, and organized crime. Many countries have established specialized prosecution bodies to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of law enforcement in these areas. However, Slovakia has recently taken a different approach by abolishing its Office of the Special Prosecution, a decision that contrasts sharply with prevailing global tendencies. This paper explores the reasons behind this shift, analyzing the political and legal arguments presented by both proponents and opponents of the abolition. The paper examines whether this move aligns with the rule of law and international legal obligations and considers its potential consequences for the effectiveness of criminal justice in Slovakia. While the paper is based on legal principles and comparative methods, it acknowledges the inherently political nature of decisions concerning the structure of prosecution services.

1. Introduction to Hate Crimes and Hate Speech: A Part of Extremism. – 2. Conceptual and Legal Issues of Extremism in the Slovak Republic: Finding the Borders of Allowed Speech. – 3. Criminal Law Aspects of Extremism. – 4. Administrative Law Aspects of Extremism. – 5. Practical Problems of Punishment of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Related to Subsidiarity of Criminal Law. – 6. Sanctioning of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech. – 7. Conclusions and Recommendations.

Counterfeiting of means of payment is one of European crimes. The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union lists counterfeiting of means of payment as one of the areas of particularly serious crime with a cross-border dimension. At the European Union level a brand-new legislative instrument harmonising counterfeiting of means of payment has been adopted – the Directive (EU) 2019/713 on combating fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment. This Directive establishes minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the areas of fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment. Moreover, it facilitates the prevention of such offences, and the provision of assistance to and support for victims. The Directive is addressed to the Member States of the European Union. They shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 31st May 2021. The contribution deals with criminalisation of the misuse of contactless payment cards with Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) technology. It is divided into three sections. The first section focuses on definition of Radio-Frequency Identification and payment cards with Radio-Frequency Identification. The second section focuses in detail on a new European Union approach to combat counterfeiting of means of payment addressed to its Member States – i.e. the Directive (EU) 2019/713 on combating fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment. The last third section is focused on non-legislative prevention possibilities.