Public administration reform often involves personnel turnover. Legislators have created a special mechanism for this purpose: the so-called “termination of employment relationships.” This mechanism terminates the employ­ment of employees of a public administration organiza­tional unit if they do not receive or accept a new employ­ment offer. The aim of this article is to examine whether the so-called “termination of employment relationships” as part of the public administration restructuring can be considered a genuine termination of employment rela­tionships, or whether it is merely a disguised termination of employment. The regulations analysed may prove to be a false construct, as they more closely resemble amend­ment notices or collective layoffs than a true termination of employment. In practice, the legal solutions discussed serve state authorities to exercise discretion in the area of employment. Termination provisions are a political tool that allows governments to bypass labour protection mech­anisms. As a result, these provisions are used to replace administrative personnel rather than to neutrally regulate employment relationships. Therefore, the legal construct of the so-called termination of employment relationships does not meet the criteria for termination in the legal sense and should be replaced with transparent rules for terminat­ing employment relationships.

Public administration reform often involves personnel turnover. Legislators have created a special mechanism for this purpose: the so-called “termination of employment relationships.” This mechanism terminates the employ­ment of employees of a public administration organiza­tional unit if they do not receive or accept a new employ­ment offer. The aim of this article is to examine whether the so-called “termination of employment relationships” as part of the public administration restructuring can be considered a genuine termination of employment rela­tionships, or whether it is merely a disguised termination of employment. The regulations analysed may prove to be a false construct, as they more closely resemble amend­ment notices or collective layoffs than a true termination of employment. In practice, the legal solutions discussed serve state authorities to exercise discretion in the area of employment. Termination provisions are a political tool that allows governments to bypass labour protection mech­anisms. As a result, these provisions are used to replace administrative personnel rather than to neutrally regulate employment relationships. Therefore, the legal construct of the so-called termination of employment relationships does not meet the criteria for termination in the legal sense and should be replaced with transparent rules for terminat­ing employment relationships.

Public administration reform often involves personnel turnover. Legislators have created a special mechanism for this purpose: the so-called “termination of employment relationships.” This mechanism terminates the employ­ment of employees of a public administration organiza­tional unit if they do not receive or accept a new employ­ment offer. The aim of this article is to examine whether the so-called “termination of employment relationships” as part of the public administration restructuring can be considered a genuine termination of employment rela­tionships, or whether it is merely a disguised termination of employment. The regulations analysed may prove to be a false construct, as they more closely resemble amend­ment notices or collective layoffs than a true termination of employment. In practice, the legal solutions discussed serve state authorities to exercise discretion in the area of employment. Termination provisions are a political tool that allows governments to bypass labour protection mech­anisms. As a result, these provisions are used to replace administrative personnel rather than to neutrally regulate employment relationships. Therefore, the legal construct of the so-called termination of employment relationships does not meet the criteria for termination in the legal sense and should be replaced with transparent rules for terminat­ing employment relationships.

According to the wording of Article 968 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the purchaser may set off his own claim or part thereof against the price if it is covered by the purchase price. The subject may cause problems in its practical application. It is not clear from the real estate foreclosure regulations who the purchaser is who is entitled to credit the claim against the purchase price. In addition, the legislator has not specified how the claim covered by the purchase price is to be understood. The manner and form of crediting a claim against this price, including a claim secured by a mortgage, is also not concretized. Also disputed in the doctrine is the question of the legal consequences of the buyer of real estate paying too low a purchase price following the improper crediting of a claim against this price. The purpose of the article will be an attempt to resolve the mentioned research problems. An attempt will also be made to assess whether the current wording of Article 968 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure sufficiently defines the rules for an auction purchaser to take advantage of the institution in question.