<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> The real estate transfer tax was introduced by the Habsburgs in the 19th century and has remained an integral part of the tax system of almost all countries historically belonging to their Danube monarchy. One century after the monarchy’s collapse, their common roots as well as national particularities can be observed. The goal of this paper is to confirm or reject the proposed hypothesis that the real estate transfer tax and its rate in post-Danube monarchy countries reflects more general public policies and preferences than neutral fiscal needs as suggested by GDP, GDP/capita, government debt/GDP, tax revenue/GDP, etc. The critical, genesis reflecting and comparative meta-analysis of the information about the dynamics of the evaluating regimes of the real estate transfer tax leads to the conclusion in the form of the confirmation of the proposed hypothesis, especially regarding the Czech Republic, making real estate transfer tax conceptually more a political than a fiscal instrument and posing a set of Socratic style questions inviting further research.</abstract>

The Danube Dynamics of the Real Estate Transfer Tax

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> The removal of administrative barriers (RAB) is a constant policy at both European Union (EU) and national levels. Initially, RAB has been seen as a part of economically-driven Regulatory Impact Analysis, while lately a more interdisciplinary approach dominates, through Smart Regulation and Public Administration Reforms programs. Slovenia and Croatia, as »new« EU members, address the respective goals of streamlining mostly by amendments in sector-specific laws. Additionally, there is an open question regarding the implementation of these amendments. The aim of the article is to address the legally set procedural dimensions of red tape reduction in comparative and competitive settings. Hence, this article tackles the topic with analyses of the most recent procedural changes in recent years in selected Slovene and Croatian laws covering key administrative areas relevant for entrepreneurs, based on the World Bank’s Doing Business rank, i.e. the registration of entrepreneurs, tax procedures and the issuing of construction permits. The results reveal that RAB in Slovenia and Croatia still highly lacks a systematic approach, and is mainly focused only normatively and in piecemeal manner. Consequently, we face an implementation gap. This study shows that the Slovene and Croatian examples can also serve as an illustration for other countries on how to improve their RAB policies, among others by introducing the modernisation of the Administrative Procedure Act as a leading administrative simplification measure.</abstract>

Removal of Administrative Barriers Through the Recent Procedural Simplifications in Slovenia and Croatia

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> The decision about the deactivation of a pacemaker must be the result of a multicriteria decision-making process where the legal, ethical and effectiveness aspects must be taken into account and delicately balanced, while also considering the risk of managerial failure. Academic as well as professional discussion is necessary because there is a whole range of question marks on this topic and all the aspects mentioned above. The aim of this paper is to contribute to the debate by presenting the views of Czech physicians about the possibility of deactivation of the pacemaker in patients in terminal states. Based on the results of our research, the following steps are recommended to enable the deactivation of pacemakers in the Czech environment. Before the patient’s own indication of pacemaker therapy, treatment should be discussed with the patient in detail, including complications and deactivation options. Czech ethical consultant services should be set up in Czech hospitals. And last but not least, they should take an opinion on this issue as well as the professional society.</abstract>

Deactivation of Pacemaker: Ethical Approach or Managerial Failure?

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> In the event of the breakdown of the original family, institutional care has for many decades been the preferred alternative to family substitute care or aid to the original family. The origins of this practice can be traced to the 1950s, when foster families were cancelled by the communist regime and the ideology of collective upbringing triumphed. The objective of this essay is to determine how substitute child care in the Czech Republic has changed in the last ten years. The unfortunate practice of giving preference to institutional care in the event of the breakdown of the original family is changing: between the years 2005-2016 the number of children in institutional facilities for the youngest children (up to three years of age) has decreased by 30%; a similar trend may be observed in older children assigned to institutional or protective care. In contrast, the number of children in foster care has increased by 2.5 times since 2004. In 2016 40% more children lived in all forms of formal family substitute care compared to 2009. The problem remains the fragmented nature of legislation among the various ministries and the inadequate support of families in danger of social exclusion. A disproportionate number of children continue to be placed in substitute care due to non-existent public housing and inadequate networks of outpatient, field, and support services.</abstract>

Substitute Child Care As a Current Problem of Social Care in the Czech Republic

AHEAD OF PRINT

Volume 15 (2024): Issue 1 (March 2024)

Volume 14 (2023): Issue 4 (December 2023)

Volume 14 (2023): Issue 3 (September 2023)

Volume 14 (2023): Issue 2 (June 2023)

Volume 14 (2023): Issue 1 (March 2023)

Volume 13 (2022): Issue 4 (December 2022)

Volume 13 (2022): Issue 3 (September 2022)

Volume 13 (2022): Issue 2 (June 2022)

Volume 13 (2022): Issue 1 (March 2022)

Volume 12 (2021): Issue 4 (December 2021)

Volume 12 (2021): Issue 3 (September 2021)

Volume 12 (2021): Issue 2 (June 2021)

Volume 12 (2021): Issue 1 (March 2021)

Volume 11 (2020): Issue 4 (December 2020)

Volume 11 (2020): Issue 3 (September 2020)

Volume 11 (2020): Issue 2 (June 2020)

Volume 11 (2020): Issue 1 (March 2020)

Volume 10 (2019): Issue 4 (December 2019)

Volume 10 (2019): Issue 3 (September 2019)

Volume 10 (2019): Issue 2 (June 2019)

Volume 10 (2019): Issue 1 (March 2019)

Volume 9 (2018): Issue 4 (December 2018)

Volume 9 (2018): Issue 3 (September 2018)

Volume 9 (2018): Issue 2 (June 2018)

Volume 9 (2018): Issue 1 (March 2018)

Volume 8 (2017): Issue 4 (December 2017)

Volume 8 (2017): Issue 3 (September 2017)

Volume 8 (2017): Issue 2 (June 2017)

Volume 8 (2017): Issue 1 (March 2017)

Volume 7 (2016): Issue 4 (December 2016)

Volume 7 (2016): Issue 3 (September 2016)

Volume 7 (2016): Issue 2 (June 2016)

Volume 7 (2016): Issue 1 (March 2016)

Volume 6 (2015): Issue 4 (December 2015)

Volume 6 (2015): Issue 3 (September 2015)

Volume 6 (2015): Issue 2 (June 2015)

Volume 6 (2015): Issue 1 (March 2015)

Volume 5 (2014): Issue 4 (December 2014)

Volume 5 (2014): Issue 3 (September 2014)

Volume 5 (2014): Issue 2 (June 2014)

Volume 5 (2014): Issue 1 (March 2014)

Volume 4 (2013): Issue 4 (December 2013)

Volume 4 (2013): Issue 3 (September 2013)

Volume 4 (2013): Issue 2 (June 2013)

Volume 4 (2013): Issue 1 (March 2013)

DANUBE

 DANUBE is an international professional journal referring to the tradition of the humanities-oriented periodical of the same title, which was first published in Vienna as early as 1923. Just as the Danube River connects European capitals, the DANUBE Journal creates a strong network of links between European researchers who have dedicated their professional lives to the social sciences and humanities. The journal also welcomes authors from other regions, as long as they respect the Aims &amp; Scope of the journal. The journal has been published by the De Gruyter, a prestigious publisher with a history of almost 270 years, since 2021 in collaboration with the PRIGO University. It is printed, but in particular it is published and distributed as an electronic Open Access resource. It is listed in most key citation databases, while it has been listed in the Scopus database since 2010.  Only anonymized manuscripts containing high-quality original research that strictly respect Aims &amp; Scope of the Journal and the Instructions for authors may be submitted, solely via Editorial Manager.  Rejection Rate   48%   Archiving  Sciendo archives the contents of this journal in Portico - digital long-term preservation service of scholarly books, journals and collections.  Plagiarism Policy  The editorial board is participating in a growing community of Similarity Check System's users in order to ensure that the content published is original and trustworthy. Similarity Check is a medium that allows for comprehensive manuscripts screening, aimed to eliminate plagiarism and provide a high standard and quality peer-review process. 