Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 August 2014
This article represents an attempt to assess the degree of legal certainty in post-February 1948 Czechoslovakia and, more specifically, the intervention of political bias in the work of the courts. This conflict will be viewed and evaluated through an analysis of the class struggle, a process most appropriate for testing the interaction between political pressures and judicial integrity. The study of basic laws, published court decisions, and legal literature support the contention that the Communist Party has not given up the discriminatory concept of class justice which subordinates law to politics, and that the absence of legal “definiteness” is a conditio sine qua non of a totalitarian mode of government. It should be added that my first hand experience with the Czechoslovak judicial system is limited to the period 1953–1959. As far as the sixties are concerned (Part VI), it has been necessary to rely exclusively on the published and available sources. Without benefit of “hard evidence,” the conclusions in that section must be regarded as merely interpretative and inferential.
I should like to thank my colleagues Walter Filley and Paul A. Smith for their helpful criticism of an earlier draft of this paper.
1 In 1953, after graduating from the law school of Charles University in Prague, I was appointed Assistant District Judge in Plzen, and in 1956, District Judge in Plzen and Stribro respectively. Three years later, at the age of twenty-nine, I left Czechoslovakia.
2 Krylenko, N. V. quoted in Berman, Harold J., Justice in Russia, (New York: Random House, 1963), p. 36.Google Scholar
3 Knapp, Viktor, Predmet a system ceskoslovenskeho socialistickeho prava obcanskeho (The Object and System of the Czechoslovak Socialist Civil Law), (Prague: NCSAV, 1959), p. 29.Google Scholar
4 Cf., the campaign of criticism in 1963, below. The extent to which the Party tolerates (or demands) the outright intervention of the apparatchiki in adjudication is impossible to assess without the benefit of inside experience. I had to participate between 1958 and 1959 in weekly meetings at the District Party Secretariat to discuss the “state of socialist legality in the area.” The “consultations” in variably turned into the pressures (third level bias) upon the judges with respect to their specific adjudication. This policy, promulgated in 1958, was uniform for the entire country.
5 Cf., “Volime soudce a soudce z lidu lidovych a krajskych soudu” (We Elect the Judges and the Lay Assessors for District and Regional Courts), Socialisticka zakonnost, No. 8 (1957), p. 478.
6 Act No. 150 of 1948 Sbirka zakonu a narizeni (Collection of Laws and Ordinances, hereafter Coll.), Sections 158, par. 1; 159, par. 1, 2. Act No. 241 of 1948 Coll.
7 Gottwald, Klement in Rude pravo, May 26, 1949.Google Scholar
8 Chalupa, Vlastimil, Rise and Development of a Totalitarian State (Leiden: Kroese, 1959), pp. 185–186 Google Scholar; Schmidt, Dana A., Anatomy of a Satellite (Boston; Little, Brown, 1950), p. 157 Google Scholar; Vyskovsky, Eduard (ed.), Deset let lidove demokratickeho Ceskoslovenska (Ten Years of the People's Democratic Czechoslovakia), (Prague: Orbis, 1955), p. 52.Google Scholar Acts Nos. 78 and 79 of 1952 Coll.; Kabes, J. in Prace, December 12, 1952.Google Scholar
9 Decree of the Ministry of Domestic Trade of January 14, 1953, No. 6, Uredni list (Official Gazette).
10 Monetary Reform Act of May 30, 1953, No. 43 of Coll. J. Pucik in Rude pravo, January 23, 1954. Zivot strany, No. 9 (May, 1958), p. 487.
11 Uredni list, February 14, 1952, p. 89. Until 1954 instead of “kulak” the term “village rich” (venkovsky bohac) was used.
12 Instead of “confiscation” the state called it an “obligatory purchase of agricultural machinery.” The term “purchase” is probably not the correct one for the description of a peculiar contractual relationship in which the farmer was ordered to sell his machinery to the state and the state never paid for what it purchased. Chalupa, op. cit., p. 191, states that five percent of purchase costs were paid by the state. This writer, however, never heard of one case in the period from 1948 to 1959 of any compensation whatsoever. Act No. 27 of 1949 Coll., Sect. 6; Ordinance of the Ministry of Agriculture, No. 612 of 1949 Official Gazette. Fabry, Valer, “The Development of Agricultural Legislation,” Bulletin de droit Tchecoslovaque, Nos. 3–4 (1952), p. 446.Google Scholar On forcible exchange of land, cf., Blazke, Jaromir in Socialisticka zakonnost, No. 3 (1956), pp. 133–146 Google Scholar, and No. 4 (1956), pp. 197–206. Rude pravo, January 15, and February 11, 1949. Governmental Ordinance No. 57 of 1952 Coll. Act No. 77 of 1952 Coll; Slovinsky, A., “Nova uprava polnohospodarske dane” (New Reform of the Agricultural Tax) Pravny obzor, No. 10 (1959), p. 599.Google Scholar
13 Rude pravo, June 19, 1958 and May 14, 1961. Karnik, F., “Boj proti kulactvu—neoddelitelna soucast za vybudovani socialismu na nasi vesnici” (The Struggle against the Kulaks—the Indivisible Part of the Struggle for Building up Socialism in Our Villages), Nova mysl, No. 10 (1955), p. 970.Google Scholar
14 Rude pravo, December 6, 1953.
15 Acts and Decrees Nos. 46, 95 of 1948 Coll., 217–222 of 1949 Coll. The struggle was predominantly directed against the Roman Catholic Church which was the strongest, most influential and most courageous, compared with other churches which offered a mere token resistance. Cf. Haida, Jan (ed.), A Study of Contemporary Czechoslovakia (Chicago: University of Chicago, prepared for the Human Relations Area Files, Inc., 1955), p. 196.Google Scholar
16 Ibid., p. 94. On the first massive transfer to manual work involving 77,500 individuals, cf., Uredni list, July 19, 1951. Another impressive purge took place in 1958. Antonin Novotny in Rude pravo, June 19, 1958.
17 Cf., Taborsky, Eduard, Communism in Czechoslovakia, 1948–1960 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961), pp. 119–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Pravda (Bratislava), February 9, 1960.
18 Meyer, Alfred G., Communism (New York: Random House, 1963), p. 130.Google Scholar
19 Slansky, Rudolf in Lidove noviny, May 27, 1949 Google Scholar, on the social composition of the Party. Concerning purges, cf., Korbel, Pavel, Purges in the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia (New York: FEC, 1952), p. 6 Google Scholar; Rude pravo, July 2, 1950.
20 Rude pravo, December 5, 1951 and May 27, 1952. Lidove noviny, April 27, 1951. Vestnik Ministerstva skolstvi; (Circular of the Ministry of Education), November 25, 1954, No. 126.
21 Act No. 54 of 1956 Coll., Sects., 14, 30; Governmental Ordinance No. 22 of 1953 Coll.; Act No. 40 of 1958 Coll.
22 Acts No. 247 of 1948, No. 92 of 1949, Nos. 88, 89 of 1950, No. 67 of 1952 Coll. Bilek, Ferdinand, “Nove trestni pravo spravni” (The New Administrative Criminal Law), Vestnik ministerstva vnitra (The Bulletin of the Ministry of Interior) Nos. 2–3 (June, 1950), p. 136.Google Scholar United Nations, Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Forced Labour, (Geneva: ILO, 1953), pp. 217, 219.Google Scholar Carlton, Richard K. (ed.), Forced Labor in the People's Democracies, (New York: Praeger, 1955), pp. 35, 123–124.Google Scholar
23 I recall a story mentioned in 1951 in the class room of the law school in Prague by my teacher who simultaneously held an important post with the Ministry of Interior. He referred to a decision of a District People's Committee in the Prague province that sentenced the widow of former Prime Minister Beran to four years of deprivation of liberty despite the legal maximum of two years. The Committee reasoned that in case of such an important enemy (III-B) restrictions set by the law should be disregarded.
24 Bartuska, Jan, “Denne upevnovat socialisticky stat a zakonnost” (The Daily Strengthening of the Socialist State and Legality), Socialisticka zakonnost, No. 9 (1957), p. 532.Google Scholar
25 Cf., “Diskuse: O zakonnosti v trestnim pravu a rizeni” (Discussion: Legality in Criminal Law and Proceedings), Pravnik, No. 7 (1963), comment by Boguszak, p. 589.
26 Acts Nos. 86, 87 of 1950 Coll.
27 Trestni zakon a trestni rad (Penal Code and Code of Penal Procedure), (Prague: Orbis, 1951) p. 48; cf., Gadourek, Ivan, The Political Control of Czechoslovakia (Leiden: Kroese, 1953), p. 66.Google Scholar
28 Criminal Code (Act No. 86), Section 19, par. 1, Section 21, lit. f.
29 “Volime soudce,” op. cit., p. 477.
30 For example, the penalty called “corrective measures at liberty,” during which time the person sentenced suffers deduction from his pay in favor of the state: cf. Kabes, Vladimir, Socialist Legality in Czechoslovakia, (The Hague: International Commission of Jurists, 1953), p. 17.Google Scholar
31 Plank, Karol, “Viac presnosti pri uverejnovani sudnych rozhodnuti ceskoslovenskych sudu” (More Accuracy in Publishing Decisions of Czechoslovak Courts), Pravny obzor, No. 1 (1959), p. 51.Google Scholar
32 Out of ninety-three cases not even one dealt with kulaks.
33 Reg. C. Prague, December 22, 1949, To I 397/49; Coll. Dec, Crim., No. 123 (1950) pp. 178–180 concerning a couple (the husband was a white collar employee with university education) who attempted to send abroad a letter to their friends.
34 Supr. C., March 2, 1950, (when the case is considered secret, no number of its file is given); Coll. Dec., Crim., No. 113 (1950) pp. 161–163.
35 Supr. C., August 15, 1957, 1 Tz 122/57; Coll. Dec., Crim., No. 82 (1957), pp. 195–197.
36 Reg. C. Bratislava, January 16, 1952, 4 Tk 751/51; Coll. Dec., Crim., No. 117 (1952), pp. 237–239.
37 For recent criticism of these practices see, the editorial “Ucinne pomahat upevnovani zakonnosti” (The effective Help in Strengthening the Legality), Pravnik, No. 7 (1963), p. 522.
38 Reg. C. Prague, December 16, 1949, To II 225/49; Coll. Dec., Crim., No. 18 (1950), pp. 25–26.
39 Supr. C., March 4, 1956, (no number); Coll. Dec., Crim., No. 34 (1956), pp. 80–83. This was a murder case with strong political overtones. The crime occurred in an unidentified village in Slovakia. The accused M. I. was not a kulak but “before the war he spent six years in Canada, where he got acquainted with the capitalist style of life, with making undeserved profit….” (It should be mentioned that this reasoning was not very imaginative. Before the war Czechoslovakia had exactly the same evil capitalism as Canada so that the accused did not have to cross the ocean in order to acquire reprehensible habits.) Although the crime was committed under heavy influence of alcohol, the Supreme Court concluded that “the hatred of the accused M. I. toward J. T. originated from the fact that the victim was a man of splendid character and progressive attitudes who gave himself entirely to the service of the people and worked tirelessly for the socialization of the village.” Hence, the court concluded that the defendant “murdered J. T. because of his activity in the Local People's Committee and in the socialization of the village.” Under normal circumstances the defendant would have been sentenced to loss of liberty for 15–25 years, ace. to Sect. 216, par. 1, P. C. In this case however the crime was adjudged to be a so-called “qualified murder” under especially aggravating circumstances, under Sect. 216, par. 1, 2, lit. c, P. C. The death penalty resulted.
40 Explanatory memorandum to the Penal Code of 1950.
41 Supr. C., December 17, 1954, 1 Tz 260/54; Coll. Dec., Crim., No. 13 (1955). Supr. C., October 17, 1952; Coll. Dec., Crim., No. 67 (1953), pp. 112–4.
42 Supr. C., April 20, 1950, Tz I 73/49; Coll. Dec., Crim., No. 234 (1950), pp. 350–2. Vydra, V. and Vymetal, O. “Nepricetnost pri alkoholickych otravach” (Irresponsibility Caused by Alcoholic Intoxication), Socialisticka zakonnost No. 10 (1956), p. 614.Google Scholar
43 Minister of Information Vaclav Kopecky in Rude pravo, June 12, 1952.
44 State Court, January 10, 1950; Coll. Dec., Crim., No 67 (1950), pp. 97–98. State Court, January 19, 1950; Coll. Dec., Crim., No. 116 (1950), pp. 168–169. Supr. C., November 19, 1949, To 201/49; Coll. Dec., Crim., No. 1 (1950), pp. 1–2.
45 Supr. C., September 30, 1949, To 144/49; Coll. Dec., Crim., No. 51 (1949), pp. 66–75. Reg. C. Nitra, March 29, 1949, To 52/49; Coll. Dec., Crim., No. 15 (1949), pp. 20–21.
46 Vaclav Skoda in Rude pravo, July 21, 1958. Jan Bartuska in Rude pravo, September 20, 1961. Zemedelske noviny, April 26, 1961.
47 Supr. C., July 11, 1958, 1 Tz 152/58; Coll. Dec., Crim., No. 88 (1958), pp. 224–225. Cf., ibid., pp. 69–53, 81–83.
48 Ochrana socialistickeho vlastnictvi. Sbornik pravnich predpisu (Protection of Socialist Ownership: Collection of Legal Provisions), (Prague: Orbis, 1960), pp. 49, 53. “The Pilfered Treasury: Crimes against ‘Socialist’ Property,” East Europe, No. 1 (1959), pp. 14–25.
49 The term “non-punitive” seems to be more suitable because the Civil Code no longer regulates matters of family, labor, etc.
50 Cf. Chalupa, op. cit., p. 243: “The civil judiciary and that part of criminal judiciary which has no political aspect, stand in the background of the interest of the communist state.”
51 Act No. 141 of 1950 Coll., effective as of January 1, 1951.
52 For the theoretical difficulty in this respect cf. Stajgr, Frantisek and Boura, Ferdinand, Prokurator v obcanskem soudnim rizeni (The Prosecutor in the Civil Law Procedure), (Prague: Orbis, 1955), p. 65 Google Scholar; Provaznik, Vitezslav, “K pravidlum socialistickeho souziti a zasadam slusnosti ve vztahu k obecnemu zajmu” (The Rules of Socialist Community Life and Principles of Equity in Relationship to Common Interest), Socialisticka zakonnost, No. 7 (1957), pp. 796–806.Google Scholar
53 Komentar k obcanskemu soudnimu radu (The Commentary of the Code of Civil Procedure), (Prague: Orbis, 1957), p. 29. Act No.142 of 1950 Coll., effective as of January 1, 1951.
54 Knapp, Viktor, Splneni zavazku a jine zpusoby jejich zaniku, (Fulfillment of the Obligations and Other Forms of Their Termination), (Prague: NCSAV, 1955), p. 173.Google Scholar
55 Supr. C., June 13, 1958, Cz 222/58; Coll. Dec., Civ., No. 94 (1958), pp. 206–8; cf., Coll. Dec., Civ., No. 90 (1951), No. 7 (1953), Nos. 44, 113 (1956). Normovac denotes a white collar employee who sets up the output norms for the workers.
56 Reg. C. Plzen, April 18, 1958, 5 Co 188/58; Coll. Dec., Civ., No. 95 (1958), pp. 208–209. Komentar, op. cit., p. 561. Cf., Coll Dec., Civ., No. 86 (1953).
57 “Volime soudce,” op cit., p. 469.
58 Reg. C. Karlovy Vary, July 3, 1951, Co Ok 66/51; Coll. Dec., Civ., No. 144 (1951), pp. 204–205.
59 Cepicka, Alexej, New Family Legislation in Czechoslovakia (Prague: Ministry of Information, 1950), p. 7.Google Scholar Act No. 265 of 1949 Coll.
60 Stajgr, Frantisek in Pravnik (June 1959)Google Scholar quoted in “Discrimination,” East Europe, (December, 1959), p. 6.
61 Reg. C. Usti n. L., 7 OK 93/52, quoted in Andrlik, J. et al., Komentar k zakonu o pravu rodin nem (Commentary of the Code of Domestic Relations), (Prague: Orbis, 1954), p. 117.Google Scholar
62 Reg. C. Pardubice, 5 OK 32/52; ibid.
63 Reg. C. Ostrava, May 8, 1951 11 OK 34/51; Coll. Dec., Civ., No. 7 (1952), pp. 11–12.
64 Reg. C. Ceske Budejovice, 6 OK 140/51; cf. Reg. C. Banska Bystrica, OK 50/51; Andrlik, op. cit., pp. 154–155.
65 Reg. C. Prague 17 OK 23/52; Reg. C. Ceske Budejovice, 6 OK 136/51; ibid, p. 152.
66 Distr. C. Policka, February 24, 1950, P 138/46; Coll. Dec., Civ., No. 9 (1951), pp. 16–18.
67 Distr. C Decin, 3 P 23/52; cf., Reg. C. Zilina, 5 OK 92/51; Andrlik, op. cit., pp. 152–4.
68 Komentar, op. cit.; Among the sixteen authors the most prominent was Ferdinand Boura. Boura, at the age of 32, became Dean of the Law School of Charles University in Prague. Incurably ill, he died in 1957. His obituary is found in Socialisticka zakonnost, No. 3 (1957), pp. 145–147.
69 Komentar, op. cit., pp. 14, 24.
70 Skoda, Vaclav in Socialisticka zakonnost, No. 7 (1958), pp. 404–411.Google Scholar
71 Supr. C., May 22, 1958, Cz 198/57; Coll. Dec., Civ., No. 85 (1958), pp. 187–189. Italics mine.
72 Supr. C., April 29, 1958, Cz 71/58; Coll. Dec., Civ., No. 97 (1958), pp. 211–212.
73 Cf., Jicinsky, Zdenek and Levit, Pavel, “Strana-organizatorka vystavby socialistickeho statu” (The Party, Organizer of the Construction of a Socialist State), Pravnik, No. 9 (1961), p. 744.Google Scholar
74 Bartuska, Jan, “Upevnenim socialisticke zakonnosti k zvysene ochrane naseho zrizeni a vymozenosti lidu” (Through Strengthening Socialist Justice to the Increased Protection of Our Regime and Of Achievements of the People), Socialisticka zakonnost, No. 1 (1958), p. 9.Google Scholar
75 Stajgr, Frantisek, “The Courts and the Office of the Prosecutor Under the New Constitution,” Bulletin of Czechoslovak Law, XVIII (1960), p. 105.Google Scholar
76 Litera, Josef, “Za dalsi upevnovani socialisticke zakonnosti a zlidoveni soudnictvi” (Towards Further Strengthening of Socialist Justice and Popularization of the Judiciary), Socialisticka zakonnost, No. 1 (1961), p. 4.Google Scholar
77 Civil Code, Section 35, par. 2; cf., Section 39 and Article VI. New legislation: Constitution, Act. No. 100 or 1960 Coll; Criminal Code, Act No. 140 of 1961 Coll; Civil Code, Act No. 40 of 1964 Coll.
78 Socialisticka zakonnost, No. 6 (1961), p. 335.
79 “Typicke zavady v obcansko pravnim rizcni” (Typical Shortcomings in the Civil Law Procedure), Socialisticka zakonnost, No. 8 (1961), pp. 478–492. On page 484 there is a reference to a typically Stalinist decision No. 95, Coll. Dec., Civ., (1958), still a binding guide.
80 Rude pravo, December 5, 1962.
81 Karol Bacilek, the then Minister of Security, in Rude pravo, December 18, 1952.
82 Rude pravo, August 22, 1963.
83 Ulč, Otto, “Czechoslovakia's Restive Jurists,” East Europe (December, 1965), pp. 19–25.Google Scholar
84 Editorial “K aktualnim otazkam ideologicke prace” (Urgent Problems of Ideological Activities), Pravnik, No. 4 (1964), p. 301.
85 Hatala, Vojtech, “Kult osobnosti a niektore noeticke a eticke problemy nasho trestneho prava” (Cult of Personality and Some Noetical and Ethical Problems of Our Criminal Law), Pravny obzor, No. 2 (1964), pp. 66, 67, 69.Google Scholar
86 Editorial “K vysledkum XII. sjezdu KSC” (On the Results of the Twelfth Congress of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia), Socialisticka zakonnost, No. 1 (1963), pp. 2–3.
87 “K aktualnim,” op. cit., p. 319.
88 “Kainovo znameni” (Cain's Stigma), Socialisticka zakonnost, No. 2 (1964), p. 45.
89 Literami noviny, January 25, 1964.
90 Civil Code, Sections 125–135.
91 Klima, Ivan in “Anketa,” Socialisticka zakonnost, No. 5 (1964), p. 6.Google Scholar
92 Schubert, Ladislav, “K principu dodrzovania socialistickej zakonnosti” (About the Principle of Maintaining Socialist Legality), Pravny obzor, No. 6 (1963), pp. 323–325.Google Scholar
93 Lakatos, Michal, “K otazce nezavislosti soudcovskeho rozhodovani” (Problem of the Independence of Judicial Decision-Making), Pravny obzor, No. 2 (1964), p. 89.Google Scholar
94 Brestansky, Jozef, “Porusovanie procesno-pravnych predpisov a jeho hmotnopravne dosledky” (Violation of Procedural Rules and Its Substantive Law Consequence), Pravny obzor, No. 2 (1964), p. 79.Google Scholar Italics mine.
95 This is based on the writer's personal experience, as well as on their pre-1963 publications in Stat a pravo, Pravnik and Socialisticka zakonnost respectively.
96 Rude pravo, August 22, 1963.
97 Bartuska maintained that Stalin was the founding father of Czechoslovakia in 1918. ( Bartuska, Jan, Obrana nasi vlasti a boj za zachovani miru (The Defense of Our Fatherland and the Struggle for the Maintenance of the Peace), (Prague: Orbis, 1953), p. 18.Google Scholar For Bartuska's Stalinism, cf., Rude pravo, June 20, 1957 and December 14, 1960; Socialisticka zakonnost, No. 1 (1958), p. 7. For promotion of Litera, cf. Socialisticke soudnictvi, No. 4 (1963), p. 97. Josef Urvalek, who sent many innocent men to the gallows, was eulogized by the present Minister of Justice Alois Neumann as follows: “In the name of the Ministry of Justice and certainly in the name of all of us, I express the most sincere thanks for the work he [Urvalek] performed for building up our socialist judiciary and wish him much success in his new activities in the field of scientific legal research.” (Socialisticke soudnictvi, No. 4 (1963), p. 97.). Urvalek's shift to “scientific activities” is aptly ridiculed by Mnacko, Ladislav in his book Opozdene reportaze (Belated Reports), (Prague: Ceskoslovensky spisovatel, 1964), p. 51.Google Scholar For Skoda's Stalinism, cf. his articles in Socialisticka zakonnost, No. 8 (1956), pp. 449–468, and No. 7 (1958), pp. 401–416.
98 According to the personal knowledge of this writer, in 1959 all deputies of the Minister of Justice were graduates of the “Workers' Law School.” The PSP men held nineteen posts as chairmen of regional courts out of nineteen available, and eighteen out of nineteen regional prosecutor's offices, and almost all important positions at the Supreme Court, mainly in the division of criminal law. The same individuals retained their offices as of 1965. Cf., Intelligence Research Aid, Directory of Czechoslovak Officials, A 65–8 (March, 1965), pp. 20, 40.Google Scholar
99 Krizek, Zdenek in “Diskuse,” Pravnik, No. 7 (1963), p. 591 Google Scholar; cf., Brestansky, op. cit., pp. 77–78, and “K aktualnim otazkam,” op. cit., p. 302.
100 Hatala, op. cit.; Brestansky, op cit., p. 81.
101 “Adjustment of Benefits of Some Persons,” Ordinance No. 120 of 1964 Coll.; cf. “Kadrovani neboztiku” (Political Screening of the Deceased), Zemedelske noviny, January 23, 1965.
102 Ordinances Nos. 25 and 73 of 1964 Coll.
103 “Diskuse,” op. cit., p. 585, comment by Schubert; Stepan Flajzar in Socialisticke soudnictvi, No. 2 (1963), p. 34; Mach, Ludek, “Skoncovat s dogmatismem ve vychovne praci” (End to Dogmatism in the Educational Activities), Socialisticke soudnictvi, No. 11 (1963), pp. 335–7Google Scholar; Socialisticka zakonnost, No. 2 (1964), pp. 63–64.
104 Mamula, Miroslav, “Za dalsi prohloubeni boje proti kriminalite” (For Further Deepening of the Struggle Against Criminality), Socialisticka zakonnost, No. 6 (1965), p. 7.Google Scholar
105 Boguszak, Jiri and Jicinsky, Zdenek, “K problemum socialisticke zakonnosti” (Problematics of Socialist Legality), Pravnik, No. 3 (1965).Google Scholar
106 Lakatos, op. cit., cf.; Rude pravo, August 18, 1965.
107 Prucha, Milan, “O toleranci” (On Tolerance), Literarni noviny, July 17, 1965, pp. 1–2.Google Scholar His views rejected by Stanec, Miroslav and Vojnar, Jaromir, “Tolerantni nesouhlas” (Tolerant Disagreement), Rude pravo, August 25, 1965.Google Scholar
108 Prochazka, Jan, “Pohyb sveta” (Motion of the World), Literarni noviny, May 1, 1965, p. 1.Google Scholar
109 “Neverime sobe ani slibum” (We Trust Neither Ourselves Nor Any Promises), ibid., March 27, 1965, p. 7; Milos Hoznauer, “Nadseni kontra kriticnost” (Enthusiasm Versus Scepticism), ibid., January 16, 1965, pp. 1–3; Rovensky, Dusan, “Problem mlade generace nebo nas vsech?” (Problem of the Young Generation Only or of Us All?), Nova mysl, No. 3 (1965).Google Scholar
110 Kotrbaty, Karel in Kulturni tvorba, September 9, 1965.Google Scholar
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.