In many issues of this magazine so far there have been articles on the legally set deadlines within which enterperenuers and the persons of public law are obliged to fulfil their obligations. The legal provision regarding the deadline of settlement of cash liabilities (stated in the Act on Obligatory Relations), which has untill recently had a dispositive character, was at the beginning of this year replaced by the cogent norms of the Act on Deadlines of Settlement of Cash Liabilities and afterwards by the provisions of the Act on Financial Operations and Pre-Distraint Settlement. The author of the article provides the answers to some questions which have arisen in the business practice, since such norms have considerably restricted the possibility of negotiating the deadlines of due payment of cash liabilities between the economic entities and introduced some new institutes connected to overdue payment (settlement of cash liabilities) in the legal system of the Republic of Croatia.
The author of the article analyzes the new essential provisions of the new Distraint Act as the general regulation of the distraint law, which became effective mid October, 2012.The new Distraint Act has the elements of the old Distraint Act from 1996. It has been modernized and consists of a number of essential institutes analyzed in this article.The new Distraint Act is expected to improve the liquidity in Croatia to a certain extent at least and result in the better settlement of liabilities by debtors. It is also expected that the new Distraint Act will achieve at least a part of the goals and that it will be easier to apply than the previous acts which determined the distraint process.
Due to the fact that newspapers have lately published a number of articles regarding the Tax Administration which allegedly frequently invites citizens to the official premises in order to explain the vague origin of their property. As a consequence, more than thousand persons have become the centre of attention. The author of the article explains the above stated procedures of the Tax Administration and determines the legal framework which refers to such procedures. The author stresses the shortened procedure, its deadline and the rights and obligations of tax payers and tax bodies upon determination of the facts, including the alternatives in representation at tax bodies.
Annual holiday represents one of the most essential employees’ rights which arise from the labour relation, as well as the obligation of an employer. An employer is obliged to consider such a right, since there are many violations regarding the rights to annual holiday. Accordingly, the author of the text explains in detail the provisions on annual holiday stated in the Labour Act.
The author of the article analyzes one of the unsettled issues in the provisions of the Labour Act – does an employee has the right to the compensation of salary during the stay in a detention prison? Wheras other acts which refer to the labour relations clearly determine this issue, it is not defined in the Labour Act. Such incomplete provisions of the Labour Act do not provide equal answers, which are important for an employee and employer. Due to the existence of the reasonable doubt and other conditions for determination of the detention prision, including the legal procedures of the court, it cannot be concluded that an employee is not responsible for breaking up his/her work. Accordingly, such an employee does not have the right to the compensation of the salary during his/her stay in a detention prison.
The author of the article analyzes the procedure of deleting companies from the court register and points to the consequences of the inactivity of the company in the cases when such a company does not submit its financial reports, including the possible problems which may arise due to inactivity of such a company and the lack of compliance of regulations. The recent practice has seen the cases in which the persons did not make any complaints within 6 months after the start-up of the procedure of their deleting from the court register, although the company did have a certain property. After the completion of the procedure of deleting a company from the court register the property issues have remained unsettled. Specific problems arise in the case when the registered entity had some real estate and movables which were entered in the corresponding records.
The author of the article presents the Directive on Public Procurement for the Needs of Defence and Safety. Although the title of the Directive suggests that it is to be applied strictly on the special military and similar purchases, it has a wider scope. Besides the purchase of military equipment, works, goods and services, the Directive also comprises the purchase of safety equipment and works and services for safety situations. This means that the procedures of the public procurement according to the Directive may be interesting to a large number of public bidders – for example, to those who provide the usual services (construction works and alike) within the building, which is regarded as sensitive in terms of safety.
The author of the article analyzes the issues regarding the unfair contract provision, i.e. the provision which was not separately negotiated and may cause a considerable difference between the rights and obligations of the contract parties to the detriment of consumers, which is against the principles of conscientiousness and honesty. It is namely regarded that a specific contract provision was not separately negotiated if such a provision had already been defined by the seller, due to which the consumer did not have any impact on its contents. If the seller states that the specific provision in the previously defined standardised contract was negotiated, he/she has to prove this. In such a case it is not allowed to evaluate whether the contract provisions on the subject and prices are fair, if such provisions are clear, easily comprehensive and visible. Dubious and incomprehensive provisions are interpreted on behalf of the consumer.
Throug comments on a court decision the author of the article offers the reply to the disputable question. He explains the issue, whether a person may claim an object for him/herself referring to the right to ownership, if such an object has been determined as the belongings of the inheritance of the testator in the inheritance procedure in which such a person participated as a party and did not contest that such an object belonged to the inheritance of the testator.
The author of the article analyzes some important issues regarding the Chapter 23 – Judiciary and Fundamental Rights, which is divided into four sections – Judicial Reform, Anti-Corruption, Fundamental Rights, EU Citizens’ Rights). Generally, the pre-accession negotiations require from Croatia to fulfil rather high demands, at least reagarding the above stated Chapter. None of the countries which negotiated the EU membership was faced with such demands, which were often oriented to the highest standards of the EU. As much as these requirements were demanding, they mobilized the large political powers in Croatia on the project which has brought a number of benefits to the Croatian citizens. Accordingly, the strictness of the EU should be positively valued, regardless of the motives of its acts. The European Union often insisted on the unreturnable reform processes. To which extent will the above stated changes really function, depends primarily on the processes in Croatia.
