According to the last novelties of the Companies Act (2007) within the Croatian legal system of joint stock companies there is a possibility to create either a dualistic or monoistic structure of organs within a joint stock company. The EU Directive no. 2157/2001 on the statute of the European joint stock company has thus been complied with. Within the monoistic system beides the general assembly there is only one other of the company – The Board of Directors, which in view of their authorities and members differentiates from the management. Therefore, such two organs are not to be used as interchangibly. The Board of Directors leads a joint stock company in a global and strategic sense, secures financial and human resources, but is not directly engaged in operations or meetings. The Board of Directors appoints executive directors, which are not an organ of the company, but represent the company to the third parties and run business operations of the company. Taking into consideration the legal provisions and the autonomous decisions of the company according to its statute, it is inevitable that in the monoistic system there is a hyerarchy relationship between the Board of Directors and the executive directors, which is not the case within the supervisory board and the management in the dualistic system.
The issue of the informed consent of the patient to treatment is extremely important since such values are protected by the Constitution. Due to the extreme improvements in medicine today the patients have problems to understand the treatment procedures. The need to protect patients is frequently mentioned, but rarely the need to protect doctors. Due to the unclear regulations the doctors are often in the position when they do not know what kind of information they should give to their patients. The more serious problem represents the situation in the Croatian health protection. Several dozen of patients are treated by one doctor daily, doctor’s offices are over-crowded. Accordingly, doctors do not have enough time for thoroughful explanations and instructions, which is required from them, if they want to examine all the patients planned for the particular day. The author of the text offers a solution how to compromise the patients’ rights and to protect doctors in order to exercise both rights equally.
At the beginning of 2009 the Government of the Republic of Croatia adopted a new Regulation on office management, which after more than 20 years modernized this important process of regulation of the State and public administration and bodies that have public authority. The new Regulation, together with the planned new system of classification labels and numbers of authors and recipients of letters as well as the standard electronic project office operations will make up the whole of the new office management in Croatia. The previous Regulation, made in the time of the Socialist Republic of Croatia remained stylistically and linguistically captured in time, and the system of classification labels, also from that time, today is practically inapplicable for the purposes for which it was intended, which resulted in difficulties with improvement and especially applying the information technology in office operations.
The basis of this article are the provisions of the former Act on Marriage and Family Relations and the valid Family Act, which regulate the legal nature of marriage acquest i.e. the property acquired by spouses (or partners) during marriage (or quasi-marriage) cohabitation. The article deals with the effects of behaviour of spouses or partners to the third parties. The author concludes that the term of ownership in the stated acts actually refers to finances and does not include legal properties and that the proportion of property rights between spuses does not determine the ownership of specific property objects to third parties. The author criticizes some recent court decisions which have proclaimed the contracts made between one partner, partaker or co-owner with acquisition parties who perform their business with trust and in good faith and points to inconsistent court practice and bad explanations of court decisions.
Ugovori predstavljaju najčešću pravnu osnovu stjecanja prava vlasništva na nekretninama. U današnje vrijeme promet nekretnina je vrlo velik te je valjano zaključenje ugovora i valjani upis u zemljišne knjige bitan preduvjet za zaštitu prava vlasništva.Vlasništvo na nekretninama temeljem ugovora može se steći samo od vlasnika nekretnine i to od zemljišno-knjižnog vlasnika. Da bi se steklo pravo vlasništva temeljem ugovora i upisa u zemljišnu knjigu potrebno je da se poštuju odredbe svih zakona koje uređuju to pitanje. Stjecanje prava vlasništva temeljem ugovora na nekretninama uređeno je Zakonom o obveznim odnosima, Zakonom o vlasništvu i drugim stvarnim pravima i Zakonom o zemljišnim knjigama . Svi ti propisi uređuju poseban postupak kako zaključenja ugovora, tako i bitan sadržaj tih ugovora, predviđaju pisani formu kao preduvjet valjanosti ugovora te konačno upis u zemljišne knjige kao temelj stjecanja prava vlasništva na nekretninama.
The right to retention is the creditor’s right to retain the debtor’s property, which is in his possession, until collection of payment of the due receivables and to collect his/her receivables from the value of the retained property in case of non-payment. Accordingly Ius Retentioni represents a legal means of creditor protection aimed at collection of payment of cash receivables. The Act on Obligatory Relations regulates the right to retention in the articles 72-75 within the Chapter V referring to the effects of obligations, according to which the institute of retention right is recognized as a general institute in the Croatian Oligatory Law (such a right is to be specifically determined in contract clauses). In catering business there are some specific rules which deviate from the general rules. The author of the article analyses the general rules of the right to retention, the ways and conditions of its application and stresses the specifics existing in particular cases.
This article presents a specific sector in the Republic of Croatia which belongs to the public sector and is divided into separate state, local and public services and institutions, differently than in the EU and the USA. Each of these three areas of the public sector is divided and determined by specific acts. The public services employ the largest number of people, but compared to state and local employees, public servants do not have their specific act. Their labour relations are determined by the general regulations of the labour law, the basic collective agreement for employees in public services and civil servants and the Act on Salaries of Civil Servants. In order to achieve greater efficiency and to reduce the costs in the public sector the public and state services will probably be joined in the future, as it is the case in the most EU countries. The efficiency and transparency of work of these services will thus be increased together with the citizens’ trust in state institutions.
Two months ago the Act on Amendments of Takeover Act became effective. Takeover represents a specific procedure referring to the institute of a joint stock holding company regulated by the provisions of the Takeover Act. The above stated amendments of the Act are aimed at compliance with the provisions of the Capital Market Act. Accordingly, it is precisely stated which company is considered as a target company in the Takeover Act, since a public joint stock company has been cancelled. The terminology has been adjusted to the provisions of the Capital Market Act. Without considering the provisions regarding the compliance with the EU legal acquis, the Takeover Act has been changed and amended in the part referring to the provisions on violation and the application of the Takeover act provisions in the transitional period, precisely the obligation of publishing a tender for takeover, which were created in the period of the earlier Takeover Act in 2002.
The new Belgian orientation tables (Tableau indicatif, 2008) for estimate of compensation for damages show the problems arising upon determination of compensation for damages. It is essential to find a reasonable balance between the necessary protection of individual rights of the plaintiff and the possibility of the company to secure the determined compensation without major turbulences of its operations. This refers to the compensation of non-property damages especially. The basis for such a compensation is the medical determination of the consequences of the violation of the right to health. Therefore, the unique criteria for determination of such consequences should be defined. The unified tables enable determination of unique criteria of estimate of the amount of compensation for a specific non-property damage. After being amended for many times the tables now enable the standardization of the compensation of damages. Due to the similar problems in all the European countries and similar attempts of people working on processing and payment of compensation for damages in these countries the Belgian tables represent one of the ways of achieving the unique European tables for estimate of consequence of violation of individual rights and the amount for their compensation.
