Background: Parole research across Council of Europe member states has long debated which model to adopt: discretionary, mandatory, or mixed. Yet, this framing misses a more consequential variable: how deeply any model is institutionally embedded. In terms of justice, insufficiently institutionalized parole risks reducing early release to a formal entitlement detached from fair decision-making, whereas robust institutional design enables it to function as a corrective mechanism against disproportionate punishment and as a practical expression of fairness in the execution of sentences. Method: The study employs a multi-method comparative legal approach combining documentary analysis, index construction, and non-parametric statistical testing. Standardized data for 2010–2024 were drawn from the World Prison Brief and SPACE I (Annual Prison Statistics of the Council of Europe — Statistiques Pénales Annuelles du Conseil de l’Europe) reports. We selected eight jurisdictions to maximise institutional variance: Kazakhstan, France, England and Wales, Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, and Georgia. The IIP was constructed as a five-criterion composite instrument: standardized risk assessment tools, formalized decision-making body, court–probation coordination, mandatory post-release supervision, and institutionalized reintegration programmes, each scored 0–2 (composite range 0–10). Cohen's kappa (a statistical measure of agreement among independent appraisers) was used to assess inter-rater reliability. The Spearman rank correlation was used to test the association between IIP scores and average prison population rates. Formal model type (discretionary, mandatory, or mixed) served as an independent variable for comparative benchmarking. Results and Conclusions: A comparative analysis of eight Council of Europe jurisdictions for the period 2010–2024 shows that IIP indicators exhibit an inverse association (rₛ = −0.76, n = 8), exceeding the critical threshold at α = 0.05; given the small sample size, this result is considered preliminary. A robustness check on a core subgroup of four jurisdictions (France, England and Wales, Sweden, and Kazakhstan) yielded a weaker inverse association (rₛ = −0.63). These preliminary findings are consistent with an institutional model of parole effectiveness in which outcomes may be more closely associated with the organization of procedures than with the legal framework for release. For Council of Europe member states and the ongoing discussion within the CEPEJ (European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice – Commission européenne pour l’efficacité de la justice), these findings suggest that the question of reform may concern not only which model to adopt, but also the depth of its procedural implementation.
Background: In 2018, Saudi Arabia enacted a new Bankruptcy Law, shifting its insolvency framework from a liquidation-oriented regime to one prioritising corporate rescue. By introducing preventive settlement and financial restructuring procedures, alongside mechanisms like automatic and conditional moratoriums, the law aims to balance business continuity with creditor protection. Despite these developments, there is a lack of research evaluating these mechanisms against global standards. This study addresses this gap by analysing how Saudi Arabia's restructuring procedures balance stakeholder interests and promote economic stability. Method: This study employs doctrinal, comparative, and case study methods. The doctrinal approach examines primary and secondary legal sources. At the same time, the comparative analysis contrasts Saudi Arabia’s corporate restructuring rules with those of the UK, the UAE, and the EU. The theoretical framework is underpinned by institutional theory, which explains the adaptation of national legal systems to global standards, and the creditor-debtor agency theory, which is used to assess the balance of stakeholder interests within insolvency proceedings. Results and Conclusions: The findings reveal that while Saudi Arabia successfully aligns with international restructuring practices, its system remains overly court-centric and discretionary compared to EU frameworks. For legal practitioners and businesses, the court’s rigorous approach requires strict compliance with procedural requirements but ultimately boosts investor confidence. To effectively manage complex restructurings, the study recommends limiting court intervention by making moratoriums non-discretionary. Furthermore, the Saudi framework should introduce class-based voting to prevent minority obstruction, establish standardised rules for prioritising new financing, and broaden debt discharge provisions.
Background: Article 98 and Annex III (10) of the EU’s Directive 2006/112/EC permit reduced VAT rates for “the supply, construction, renovation and alteration of housing, as part of a social policy”. While the provision grants Member States discretion, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) requires strict interpretation and compliance with the principles of legal certainty and proportionality. Slovenia applies a reduced VAT rate based almost exclusively on technical parameters such as maximum floor area, without income thresholds, formal certification or links to national housing policy. This raises questions about the coherence of the Slovenian regime with EU requirements and comparative practice. Method: This article applies a doctrinal and comparative legal methodology. At the EU level, it examines Article 98 and Annex III (10) of the VAT Directive, as well as relevant CJEU case law, to determine the requirements of legal certainty, proportionality, and targeted social policy implementation. At the national level, it analyses the Slovenian Value Added Tax Act and the Rules on the Implementation of the VAT Act. The comparative component covers twelve Member States and the United Kingdom, focusing on eligibility criteria, social targeting mechanisms, and administrative certification. Results and Conclusions: The analysis shows that Slovenia’s technically elaborate reduced VAT regime lacks a coherent social policy focus. Undefined legal concepts, reliance on construction-law classifications, ambiguous treatment of appurtenant parts and leisure facilities, and the absence of income-based or certification mechanisms undermine legal certainty and targeting. In contrast, Member States such as France, Spain, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, and Romania employ income thresholds, administrative certification, value caps or claw-back mechanisms, while Slovenia and Hungary rely exclusively on technical parameters. Slovenia thus satisfies formal legal certainty but fails to meet the substantive requirements of proportionality and social targeting under the VAT Directive. This article recommends income-based eligibility criteria, administrative certification, clearer statutory definitions, and closer alignment with national housing policy objectives.
This issue of Access to Justice in Eastern Europe presents a collection of research from a diverse international cohort of scholars representing Bulgaria, Jordan, Kazakhstan, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, Slovenia, the United Arab Emirates, Ukraine, and Vietnam. This issue explores the evolving landscape of contemporary justice through four primary lenses: the intersection of law and emerging digital technologies (including AI and predictive policing); the reinforcement of criminal justice, anti-corruption, and procedural safeguards; the evolution of alternative dispute resolution and mediation; and the pursuit of social justice within family, property, and environmental law. By bridging historical perspectives with future-oriented legal analysis, this issue underscores the journal's commitment to advancing the rule of law and fostering global scholarly dialogue amidst a shifting legal paradigm. This issue of Access to Justice in Eastern Europe exemplifies our commitment to international scholarly exchange, bringing together diverse perspectives from across the globe. We are proud to feature contributions from esteemed researchers based in Bulgaria, Jordan, Kazakhstan, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, Slovenia, the United Arab Emirates, Ukraine, and Vietnam. This geographical breadth ensures a rich, comparative dialogue on the most pressing legal challenges facing our regions today. The variety of topics is broad but clearly addresses the fundamental challenges of humanity. Our contributors navigate the complexities of modern governance by exploring the intersection of law and emerging technologies, from the ethical integration of artificial intelligence to the regulation of digital transformation and predictive policing. Furthermore, the issue delves into the intricacies of specialized legal regimes, examining alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, procedural safeguards in criminal law, and the nuances of international and property law. Together, these studies provide a critical lens through which we can better understand the ongoing transformation of legal systems in a world characterized by both rapid innovation and persistent conflict. As always in my introductory remarks, I would like to highlight the specific contributions that define the scholarly depth of this issue and have particularly caught the attention of the editorial team and invited experts during our work. I would like to specifically recommend them in my opening words. In the article “Strengthening Environmental Protection Through Criminal Law in Europe: Normative Shifts and Enforcement Implications,” Libor Klimek provides a comprehensive look at how environmental protection is increasingly reliant on robust criminal justice mechanisms. The author analyzes the normative shifts within European frameworks, offering a vital perspective on how legal systems must adapt to enforce environmental standards effectively and hold violators accountable. The practical challenges of alternative dispute resolution are further explored in “Building a Compulsory Mediation Pathway: Bulgaria as a Live Experiment in Dispute System Design?” by Yuliya Radanova. By examining Bulgaria’s implementation of mandatory mediation, the study offers valuable insights into the delicate balance between compulsory procedural requirements and the fundamental right to access justice, serving as a live experiment for future dispute system designs globally. Addressing the human rights implications of technological advancement, Phuc G. Dao presents “The Right to Remain Offline in the Digital Transformation Era: A Comparative Study of Vietnam and the European Union.” This timely research tackles the blurred boundaries between professional and personal life in an increasingly hyper-connected world. Through a comparative lens, the author advocates for deeper integration and a systematised framework to bridge the gap between digital progression and the effective protection of individuals' well-being and privacy. Special attention in this issue is given to a topic that serves as a logical continuation of our Special Issue "AI and Law 2025," published at the end of last year. I am referring to the Afterword and Guest Editorial by Costas Popotas, “AI and Judicial Independence: A Critical Analysis.” This contribution acts as an intellectual bridge between our previous work and the current discourse, offering a profound reflection on how the rapid integration of intelligent systems correlates with the fundamental principles of justice. The author provides a critical analysis of the risks and opportunities that artificial intelligence presents to the autonomy of the judicial branch, emphasizing that digital transformation must unfold without compromising judicial independence, which remains the unshakable foundation of the rule of law. Finally, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to our editorial team and our reviewers for their exceptional professionalism and objective assessment. In an era where the complexity of legal scholarship continues to evolve, their rigorous peer review remains the cornerstone of our publication's quality. I am confident that our authors trust our opinion and recognize that every critique is offered as a collaborative effort to refine their work and elevate the legal discourse. Together, we strive to ensure that the findings presented in these pages—ranging from institutional integrity to the transformation of legal culture—serve as reliable foundations for both theoretical advancement and practice-oriented solutions. It is through this shared commitment to excellence that we continue to foster a deeper understanding of justice in an increasingly interconnected world.
Background: Recent years have seen a growing interest in bankruptcy law, both domestically in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and globally. A significant and concrete step in the larger legal and economic changes in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was the passage of the bankruptcy law in 2018. A key step is to understand how these relatively new rules are enforced in Saudi courts, as this offers insight into the practical legal processes that companies seeking to enter the Kingdoms' market and scholars studying commercial law need to consider. This study aims to explore how bankruptcy law is implemented in the Saudi legal system and to outline the strategies Saudi judges use to interpret and enforce it when resolving conflicts. Method: The study employs an inductive and analytical approach to examine judicial practices and rulings under Saudi Arabia's bankruptcy law and relevant legal texts. These methods enabled the collection and systematisation of relevant materials, including legal texts and bankruptcy cases stored in the Judicial Scientific Portal, which were carefully examined by top judicial authorities. The method used facilitated the division of bankruptcy cases into two distinct groups: procedural and substantive matters, drawing on the framework underpinning the Saudi Bankruptcy Law. The advantage of this two-pronged approach is that it thoroughly examines judicial rationales in both procedural and substantive areas before developing recommendations. Results and Conclusions: Examining and analysing the cases and procedures used in Saudi bankruptcy courts confirms the significance of uniform judicial application of bankruptcy law and the crucial role of specialised bankruptcy chambers in promoting procedural efficiency and consistency. The study highlighted that the unified judicial application of the bankruptcy law and its regulations should be reflected in upcoming legal updates to ensure consistency with judicial interpretation and the system's objectives. The research suggests that continuing to publish court rulings and decisions on bankruptcy cases contributes to understanding the applicable law and to developing solutions for emerging bankruptcy cases.
