The Labour Act explicitly determines that the employee
who thinks that his employer has violated any of his/her rights
from the employment relation may within 15 days after the receipt
of the decision which has violated his rights, i.e. after the
date of his/her realising that the right has been violated, claim
from the employer the execution of his rights. If the employer
does not fulfil such a claim within 15 days after its receipt,
the employee has the right to claim the execution of his/her
rights at the appointed court within the period of 15 days.
These terms are classified as preclusion terms. The preclusion
is namely the loss of the right to litigation. The preclusion, as
the consequence of missing of some deadline, is so important
that the court officially supervises it.
Since the rights from the employment are mostly violated
through the notice of termination of employment, the regulations
on claims for execution of rights and litigations in such
situation are very important in practice.

When a part of some person’s property is in any way transferred
to the property of another person, and that transfer has
no basis in a legal transaction, in a court decision, or of some
other competent authorities’ or the law, the acquirer is obliged
to return it, i.e. if impossible to do so, then, to compensate
for the value of achieved benefit. It is the matter of acquiring
without foundations what represents an obligation law institute
which is, in us, regulated by means of the provisions of
the Obligation Code Act. That institute is compatible also to
labour-law relations, as if the employer who paid out wages
compensation to the employee, while he/she was not working,
succeeds, based on a final and executive court judgement,
subject to a successful revision, to have issued the judgement
that the notice of termination was permitted, then he has the
right to request the return of such resources from his former
employee but only during the time when the employee has not
worked. The employer has also right to request the return of
paid-out legal severance pay from the employee who succeeded
in obtaining the judgement that the employer’s notice of
termination was not permitted (legal), as the notice of termination
is the legal basis for the payment of a severance pay.

Incentive payments to employees is in the Croatian business
practice and labour law either a taboo or the topic of some
unfinished projects, which try to present the flexibility of employment
legislation in a declarative way, i.e. to formally satisfy
the expectations of employers or employees. The entrance into
the free market system, especially the global trends of unlimited
swapping of goods, services and workforce has imposed to
the Republic of Croatia a permanent necessity of adjustment
to the organisation of business operations and working relations,
in which the arranged economy and employment policy
lose from year to year any impact in favour of the free creation
of the rules of market competition and individualisation
of the business operations. Accordingly, to achieve favourable
business results and profit increase it is necessary to make
incentive payments to employees in order to reach the defined
goals.

The socially responsible business operations of the businessmen
have become one of the key factors of competitiveness
of the world economies. This represents a current issue
in the most EU countries, in which the socially responsible
business operations have the main role. This is all aimed at
the promotion of the Lisbon Goals – the EU intention to become
the most competitive world economy until 2010 based
on the economy of knowledge and social cohesion. In order to
realise the goals of socially responsible economy the taxation
systems have become an important instrument. A special attention
is paid to the tax treatment of donations as the activity
immanent to the socially responsible economy, as well as
to the differences in relation to sponsorship, which is usually
wrongly considered the same. The historical development of
the socially responsible economy stresses its important mediation
and determination by the tax incentives.

SOME ASPECTS OF TIMESHARING CONTRACT
In view of a timesharing contract there is a large (legal)
emptiness in the Croatian legislation. This will certainly not
prevent the development of this legal institute but will only
make it more complex and difficult. Nevertheless, it is completely
understandable that, if this is one of the ways of the
development of tourism (and it surely is) and if tourism is
recognised as an important strategic branch of the Croatian
economy (and it surely is too), timesharing contracts should be
supported. This means that the fundamental thesis is that such
contracts are legal and that they should not be avoided. Due to
the fact that there is no specific legal regulation – except the
Act on Protection of Consumers – in case of any disagreements
it will be necessary to determine in which field the particular
contract belongs to according to its characteristics.

 The statute of limitations is aimed at a stronger legal safety
and doubtlessness in the field of circulation of goods and services
as well as in the field of execution of individual rights
and legal protection of the debtor who has settled his/her debt
but has no proof of it. The statute of limitations for periodical
receivables i.e. the limitations of the right from which periodical
receivables emerge is therefore regulated in the Act on
Obligatory Relations in a satisfactory way. However, the above
stated Act does not explicitly regulate the term when the third10-year-period of limitation for the receivables determined by
the court or some other responsible entity begins.
Besides the legal regulations of the new Act on Obligatory
Relations from 2005, which refer to the statute of limitations
for periodical receivables, this article presents the court practice
based on the application of the Act on Obligatory Relations
from 1991, which is applicable in the new Act on Obligatory
Relations too, since this institute, except some adjustments to
the Croatian legal terminology, does not have any significant
changes in the contents compared to the regulations in the Act
on Obligatory Relations from 1991.

A dangerous item or a dangerous activity are very important
factors of causing damages. Therefore, the law-maker has
in specific regulations defined the responsibility for such damage.
The new Act on Obligatory Relations (similarly to the old
one) anticipates the objective responsibility for the damage
caused by a dangerous item or a dangerous activity, but includes
the cause of the damage made by a dangerous item or
a dangerous activity. In the Croatia’s law practice an issue has
arisen whether the Republic of Croatia bears the responsibility
for the damage caused by a dangerous item if the damage was
not made during military activities.
The author of this text presents various viewpoints on this
issue and argumentatively and concisely concludes that the
Republic of Croatia as the owner of a dangerous item can bear
the responsibility for the damage caused by a dangerous item
even in the case when such a damage was not made during
military activities, - referring to the general rules of the responsibility
for the damage caused by a dangerous item.

This article determines some basic amendments of the new
Takeover Act compared to the previous one. Takeover is a specific
procedure which refers to the institute of a joint stock
company defined in the above stated Act. The takeover bid is
a public tender for the purchase of all the shares that have the
right to vote in the general assembly of the target company,
under the conditions defined by this Act. The target company
may be the public joint stock company only.
The point of regulation of the Act refers to submitting the
takeover bid, takeover procedure, the rights and liabilities of
participants in the procedure, and the control over the process
for takeover, which is all interpreted and commented by the
author on scientific basis and argumentatively.
The body which regulates and supervises takeover in the
Republic of Croatia is the Croatian Agency for Supervision of
Financial Services.

In the legal doctrine and practice an issue has arisen whether
a computer programme can be protected through the regulations
on patent protection. A patent is an exclusive right which
protects the patent inventor in terms of economic use of the patent
and is recognised for each invention in any field of technical
science which is new, has the invention level and which can
be applied in the field of industry. Since the legal protection of
patents has proved to be inadequate due to its high price and
long duration, whereby its goal is to protect the invention that
represents a new technical solution of some technical problem,
which is usually not the case with computer programs, the new
Croatian Patent Act explicitly determines that computer programs
are not considered as patents. However, the Copyright
Act and similar acts determine which works can be considered
as author’s works including linguistic works like writings and
speaking works like computer programs, which subject to the
specific protection in accordance with the European Guidelines
on Protection of Computer Programs from 1991.

All kinds of goods can be brought into and out of the customs
area of the European Union by application of various
customs procedures. The transport of goods over the border is
subject to the customs supervision in order to ensure a regular
circulation of goods. This primarily includes the payment
of customs duties, but also prohibitions and limitations, trade
and measures due to political safety as well as other legal regulations
referring to the market.
The Customs Code includes the corresponding procedure for each transportation of goods over the border. The Code comprises two kinds of procedures: the procedures of noncharging
and the procedures of economic importance. The non-charging procedures enable the imports of goods into the customs area of the European Union without customs duties,
which means that import duties are not charged.
The non-charging procedures comprise the transit procedure, the procedure of customs storing, the procedure of internal
production with the application of delay system, the
procedure of processing under customs supervision and the
procedure of temporary import.

The right to good administration ensures that the institutions,
bodies and agencies of the European Union act in each
person’s case unbiased, righteously and within a reasonable
period. This right includes the right of each person to be heard
before making any specific measurement which could unfavourably
affect this person; the right of each person to access
to their documents, respecting the legitimate interests of confidentiality
as well as professional and business secrets; the
obligation of the administration to explain its decisions. Each
person has the right to indemnity by EU caused by their institutions
or their employees upon carrying out their duties
according to the general principles and mutual rights of the
member countries. Every person can contact the EU institutions
in a written form in one of the official languages of the
Constitution and has to receive the reply in the same language.
Within the framework of the European law, the destiny of this
law is indirectly regulated by the Treaty of Lisbon amending
the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the
European Community as well as the Charter of Fundamental
Rights of the European Union.