Working in the video game industry is associated with many uncertainties, since the legal position of the worker depends on whether the work is performed on the basis of a civil law contract (self-employment) or employment contract (employment relationship). Considering that labour law imposes numerous legal obligations on an employer to protect the worker as the weaker contractual party (due to subordinate position and economic dependence of the worker in relation to the employer), an employer often deliberately practices fraudulent (unlawful) contracting of work. The article draws upon an in-depth analysis of this creative economy sector. The author critically deals with identified weaknesses and risks of precariousness that workers are exposed to and offers possible alternatives for consideration without examining the effectiveness of legal solutions of individual EU member states, but leaning towards the example of good practice on the Croatian videogame market.
{"title":"POGREŠNA KVALIFIKACIJA UGOVORNOG ODNOSA : JEDAN OD BROJNIH IZVORA NESIGURNOSTI RADA U INDUSTRIJI VIDEOIGARA","authors":"Karla Kotulovski","doi":"10.25234/pv/24450","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25234/pv/24450","url":null,"abstract":"Working in the video game industry is associated with many uncertainties, since the legal position of the worker depends on whether the work is performed on the basis of a civil law contract (self-employment) or employment contract (employment relationship). Considering that labour law imposes numerous legal obligations on an employer to protect the worker as the weaker contractual party (due to subordinate position and economic dependence of the worker in relation to the employer), an employer often deliberately practices fraudulent (unlawful) contracting of work. The article draws upon an in-depth analysis of this creative economy sector. The author critically deals with identified weaknesses and risks of precariousness that workers are exposed to and offers possible alternatives for consideration without examining the effectiveness of legal solutions of individual EU member states, but leaning towards the example of good practice on the Croatian videogame market.","PeriodicalId":41100,"journal":{"name":"Pravni Vjesnik","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49364235","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
When a lien is established by entry in a specific public register (registry), it is a registered lien – a mortgage. According to the method of establishment, the right of lien, which is established by entry in the public register (registry), is called a mortgage. In modern real law insurance systems, an important place is occupied by lien law insurance, which allows the creditor, upon maturity of the claim, if it is not settled, to be settled from the value of the pledged thing, regardless of whether the thing at the time of settlement is owned by the pledge debtor or not. In this sense, the arrangement of lien insurance on things that are restricted in circulation for social, political and security reasons is particularly important. Thus, for weapons, a special regulation has determined the regime of legal circulation characterized by various restrictions, approvals and records of possession and ownership. Possession of weapons in the Republic of Croatia is governed by the Act on the Acquisition and Possession of Weapons by Citizens. However, the assumptions, effects and procedure for registration of a registered lien on weapons as movable property are governed by the Act on the Register of Court and Public Notary Security of Claims on Movable Property and Rights. In this regard, there are various registers in which different actual rights to weapons are registered, and which are kept by different state bodies. The paper analyses the actual legal significance (declaratory and constitutive) of the registration of weapons in various registers, the procedure and legal consequences of the registration. Open issues of establishment and transfer of lien rights, satisfaction of the lien creditor, right to possession and use of weapons as pledge are highlighted. The adequacy of the existing types of entries in the Register of Court and Public-Notary Security of Claims on Movable Property and Rights is analysed. The paper offers to provide guidelines and possible solutions for the regulation of these issues de lege ferenda that would meet the general, political and legal interests, as well as interests in private law of real rights holders on weapons.
{"title":"REGISTARSKO ZALOŽNO PRAVO NA ORUŽJU","authors":"Davorin Pichler","doi":"10.25234/pv/23808","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25234/pv/23808","url":null,"abstract":"When a lien is established by entry in a specific public register (registry), it is a registered lien – a mortgage. According to the method of establishment, the right of lien, which is established by entry in the public register (registry), is called a mortgage. In modern real law insurance systems, an important place is occupied by lien law insurance, which allows the creditor, upon maturity of the claim, if it is not settled, to be settled from the value of the pledged thing, regardless of whether the thing at the time of settlement is owned by the pledge debtor or not. In this sense, the arrangement of lien insurance on things that are restricted in circulation for social, political and security reasons is particularly important. Thus, for weapons, a special regulation has determined the regime of legal circulation characterized by various restrictions, approvals and records of possession and ownership. Possession of weapons in the Republic of Croatia is governed by the Act on the Acquisition and Possession of Weapons by Citizens. However, the assumptions, effects and procedure for registration of a registered lien on weapons as movable property are governed by the Act on the Register of Court and Public Notary Security of Claims on Movable Property and Rights. In this regard, there are various registers in which different actual rights to weapons are registered, and which are kept by different state bodies. The paper analyses the actual legal significance (declaratory and constitutive) of the registration of weapons in various registers, the procedure and legal consequences of the registration. Open issues of establishment and transfer of lien rights, satisfaction of the lien creditor, right to possession and use of weapons as pledge are highlighted. The adequacy of the existing types of entries in the Register of Court and Public-Notary Security of Claims on Movable Property and Rights is analysed. The paper offers to provide guidelines and possible solutions for the regulation of these issues de lege ferenda that would meet the general, political and legal interests, as well as interests in private law of real rights holders on weapons.","PeriodicalId":41100,"journal":{"name":"Pravni Vjesnik","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48054050","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Public sector salary policy aims at making the salary system more transparent and keeping it at the same level in different public authorities and services. In practice, governing bodies use salary policy to demonstrate their priorities in managing the entire public sector. Such an approach frequently carries particular discriminatory features. The paper aims at presenting the system of determining the salaries of employees in public authorities and public services and giving an overview of the currently applicable legal framework in this regard. Considering the size of the public sector, a salary analysis was made on a sample of the salaries of university teaching personnel, doctors and judges. The criteria for selecting the jobs in question in the sample are the features common to each profession: independence in decision-making and work as set by the legal framework, a clear hierarchy of advancement in the profession, budget financed salaries and external evaluation related to potential advancement within the system. For each group of the aforesaid categories of employees, the similarities and differences in the salary determination system are shown. Accordingly, the extent to which the principle of equal pay for equal work is respected as stipulated by the provisions of the Labour Law, as well as potentially discriminatory elements in the determining salaries system within the public sector are established.
{"title":"DISKRIMINATORNI ASPEKTI POLITIKE PLAĆA U JAVNOM SEKTORU U REPUBLICI HRVATSKOJ, S NAGLASKOM NA POJEDINE KATEGORIJE ZAPOSLENIH U DRŽAVNIM TIJELIMA I JAVNIM SLUŽBAMA : LIJEČNIKA, SVEUČILIŠNIH NASTAVNIKA I SURADNIKA, SUDACA I SUDSKIH SAVJETNIKA","authors":"Vatroslav Zovko","doi":"10.25234/pv/24550","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25234/pv/24550","url":null,"abstract":"Public sector salary policy aims at making the salary system more transparent and keeping it at the same level in different public authorities and services. In practice, governing bodies use salary policy to demonstrate their priorities in managing the entire public sector. Such an approach frequently carries particular discriminatory features. The paper aims at presenting the system of determining the salaries of employees in public authorities and public services and giving an overview of the currently applicable legal framework in this regard. Considering the size of the public sector, a salary analysis was made on a sample of the salaries of university teaching personnel, doctors and judges. The criteria for selecting the jobs in question in the sample are the features common to each profession: independence in decision-making and work as set by the legal framework, a clear hierarchy of advancement in the profession, budget financed salaries and external evaluation related to potential advancement within the system. For each group of the aforesaid categories of employees, the similarities and differences in the salary determination system are shown. Accordingly, the extent to which the principle of equal pay for equal work is respected as stipulated by the provisions of the Labour Law, as well as potentially discriminatory elements in the determining salaries system within the public sector are established.","PeriodicalId":41100,"journal":{"name":"Pravni Vjesnik","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41465487","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
With the International Criminal Court (ICC) losing not only its chance of incorporating the same great powers that decided not to support it at the very start – out of fear of losing dominance – but also about to lose long-time members such as the ones from the African Union, its chances of being a mean of institutionalized punishment against the worst individual crimes of international concern are trembling. Would the ICC obtain better outcomes if it discarded entirely its authority against member governments, and restricted its jurisdiction to cases suggested by the same countries where the crimes had been allegedly committed? The ICC could hence maintain an important role in the canalization of local jurisdictions through common, global rules: this way, even if through selective jurisdiction, it could at least limit and moderate the intentions of member States when dealing with inconvenient local enemies or oppositions. Through an analysis of the jurisdictional past of this institution and a contextualization of its controversial relationship with the United Nations (UN) Security Council, this paper aims to furnish a comparison of available outcomes, and elucidate the aforementioned possibility as an advantageous framework, although less ambitious. An eventual last focus will be put on the risks of the opposite trend, an ambitious but inefficient institution, possibly leading to the legitimization of its failures.
{"title":"JUDGING MORE BY JUDGING LESS : ISSUES AND LIMITS OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT","authors":"E. Omerović, Andrea Grande","doi":"10.25234/pv/21105","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25234/pv/21105","url":null,"abstract":"With the International Criminal Court (ICC) losing not only its chance of incorporating the same great powers that decided not to support it at the very start – out of fear of losing dominance – but also about to lose long-time members such as the ones from the African Union, its chances of being a mean of institutionalized punishment against the worst individual crimes of international concern are trembling. Would the ICC obtain better outcomes if it discarded entirely its authority against member governments, and restricted its jurisdiction to cases suggested by the same countries where the crimes had been allegedly committed? The ICC could hence maintain an important role in the canalization of local jurisdictions through common, global rules: this way, even if through selective jurisdiction, it could at least limit and moderate the intentions of member States when dealing with inconvenient local enemies or oppositions. Through an analysis of the jurisdictional past of this institution and a contextualization of its controversial relationship with the United Nations (UN) Security Council, this paper aims to furnish a comparison of available outcomes, and elucidate the aforementioned possibility as an advantageous framework, although less ambitious. An eventual last focus will be put on the risks of the opposite trend, an ambitious but inefficient institution, possibly leading to the legitimization of its failures.","PeriodicalId":41100,"journal":{"name":"Pravni Vjesnik","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48194079","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and its competence to interpret the EU’s primary law was particularly in focus during and after the financial crisis, when it decided on the validity of the Union’s recovery instruments in the Pringle, Gauweiler and Weiss cases. Therefore, this paper aims to analyse selected decisions of the CJEU (the Pringle, Gauweiler and Weiss cases), starting from the presentation of the socio-political context in which they were created. After the legal analysis of the CJEU’s argumentation in the selected decisions, the paper will present their impact on the development of the public finance law of the Union. Particular attention will be paid to the interpretative methods used by the CJEU. The aforementioned reflects in the structure of the paper. After the introduction, the second section comprises specific features of interpretation methods in the CJEU case law. The following section will focus on the socio-political context that preceded the selected CJEU decisions. The fourth section presents an analysis of the selected CJEU decisions and reviews the interpretation methods. The fifth section highlights the implications of the CJEU jurisprudence on the legal order of the Union, followed by concluding considerations.
{"title":"RAZVOJ SUPRANACIONALNOG SUSTAVA JAVNIH FINANCIJA U SVJETLU PRIMARNOG PRAVA EUROPSKE UNIJE : ANALIZA PRAKSE SUDA EU-A","authors":"Viktorija Pisačić","doi":"10.25234/pv/24892","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25234/pv/24892","url":null,"abstract":"The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and its competence to interpret the EU’s primary law was particularly in focus during and after the financial crisis, when it decided on the validity of the Union’s recovery instruments in the Pringle, Gauweiler and Weiss cases. Therefore, this paper aims to analyse selected decisions of the CJEU (the Pringle, Gauweiler and Weiss cases), starting from the presentation of the socio-political context in which they were created. After the legal analysis of the CJEU’s argumentation in the selected decisions, the paper will present their impact on the development of the public finance law of the Union. Particular attention will be paid to the interpretative methods used by the CJEU. The aforementioned reflects in the structure of the paper. After the introduction, the second section comprises specific features of interpretation methods in the CJEU case law. The following section will focus on the socio-political context that preceded the selected CJEU decisions. The fourth section presents an analysis of the selected CJEU decisions and reviews the interpretation methods. The fifth section highlights the implications of the CJEU jurisprudence on the legal order of the Union, followed by concluding considerations.","PeriodicalId":41100,"journal":{"name":"Pravni Vjesnik","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46482643","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The paper deals with assessment of the practices of international relations regarding the protection of peace, legal certainty and equality. These values are important for the argument in favour of the compulsory international adjudication. In view of the realistic challenges to this argument, the paper aims at answering the questions if these three values are protected by applicable norms of international law, whether the principles protecting these values, if they exist in the international law, are above the principle of protecting the autonomy of states as the basis for the omnis judex rule, and finally, if these values are involved in axiological hierarchies formed by the actors formulating and interpreting the international norms. The answers to the first two questions will be given by the means of an empirical assessment of international practices, whereas the answer to the third question will be provided by identifying attitudes towards international relations based on interpretation of existing practices through models of coordination and subordination.
{"title":"THE REALISTIC TEST FOR THE THESIS ON COMPULSORY INTERNATIONAL ADJUDICATION: LEGAL VALUES IN PRACTICE OF INTERNATIONAL ACTORS","authors":"M. Krešić","doi":"10.25234/pv/19705","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25234/pv/19705","url":null,"abstract":"The paper deals with assessment of the practices of international relations regarding the protection of peace, legal certainty and equality. These values are important for the argument in favour of the compulsory international adjudication. In view of the realistic challenges to this argument, the paper aims at answering the questions if these three values are protected by applicable norms of international law, whether the principles protecting these values, if they exist in the international law, are above the principle of protecting the autonomy of states as the basis for the omnis judex rule, and finally, if these values are involved in axiological hierarchies formed by the actors formulating and interpreting the international norms. The answers to the first two questions will be given by the means of an empirical assessment of international practices, whereas the answer to the third question will be provided by identifying attitudes towards international relations based on interpretation of existing practices through models of coordination and subordination.","PeriodicalId":41100,"journal":{"name":"Pravni Vjesnik","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47948040","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the United Kingdom, the regulatory mechanism for intercepting communications has undergone substantial changes in the last few decades. Until the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) judgment in the Malone case (1984), in which it found a violation of the right to protection of private and family life pursuant to Art. 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (ECHR), the United Kingdom did not have a concise legislative framework governing the interception of communications. Legislative frameworks governing the subject matter have also been changed by the standards set by the practice of the ECtHR. The implementation of the ECHR into the British legal system has imposed higher privacy protection standards as guaranteed by Art. 8 ECHR, in an environment where the common law approach that “the police can do whatever they want as long as it is not prohibited by law” was no longer sustainable. The specific feature of the legislative regulation of special evidentiary actions in the United Kingdom is manifested, for some special evidentiary actions, through the absence of judicial control, at least in the phase of issuing and extending orders for their implementation. Today, the area in question is governed by a special Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA), Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (IPA), and related Codes of Practice, however not by the Criminal Procedure Code, as is the case in the countries with a continental legal tradition. In this paper, the author analyses the legislative changes that preceded the enactment of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, as well as the new Investigatory Powers Act 2016 that be described as the biggest reform of British interception regulation, as it has, for the first time in the UK, incorporated a judicial element for the power to interception. In this context, the question arises as to whether recent legislative changes meet the standards as established by the ECtHR. Consequently, conclusions are presented concerning the revised concept of the subject matter.
{"title":"UTJECAJ ODLUKA I NAČELA EUROPSKOG SUDA ZA LJUDSKA PRAVA NA UREĐENJE INSTITUTA POSEBNIH DOKAZNIH RADNJI U UJEDINJENOJ KRALJEVINI S POSEBNIM NAGLASKOM NA PRESRETANJE KOMUNIKACIJA","authors":"Nevena Aljinović","doi":"10.25234/pv/16994","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25234/pv/16994","url":null,"abstract":"In the United Kingdom, the regulatory mechanism for intercepting communications has undergone substantial changes in the last few decades. Until the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) judgment in the Malone case (1984), in which it found a violation of the right to protection of private and family life pursuant to Art. 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (ECHR), the United Kingdom did not have a concise legislative framework governing the interception of communications. Legislative frameworks governing the subject matter have also been changed by the standards set by the practice of the ECtHR. The implementation of the ECHR into the British legal system has imposed higher privacy protection standards as guaranteed by Art. 8 ECHR, in an environment where the common law approach that “the police can do whatever they want as long as it is not prohibited by law” was no longer sustainable. The specific feature of the legislative regulation of special evidentiary actions in the United Kingdom is manifested, for some special evidentiary actions, through the absence of judicial control, at least in the phase of issuing and extending orders for their implementation. Today, the area in question is governed by a special Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA), Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (IPA), and related Codes of Practice, however not by the Criminal Procedure Code, as is the case in the countries with a continental legal tradition. In this paper, the author analyses the legislative changes that preceded the enactment of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, as well as the new Investigatory Powers Act 2016 that be described as the biggest reform of British interception regulation, as it has, for the first time in the UK, incorporated a judicial element for the power to interception. In this context, the question arises as to whether recent legislative changes meet the standards as established by the ECtHR. Consequently, conclusions are presented concerning the revised concept of the subject matter.","PeriodicalId":41100,"journal":{"name":"Pravni Vjesnik","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46422023","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper aims at exploring the decisions of the highest national courts that had declared the decisions of the CJEU ultra vires, without binding effect in their countries. The same as the Czech, Danish and German courts, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia (CCRC) could deliver such a decision according to Article 129 of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia (CRC) and Article 104 of the Constitutional Act on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia (CACC). In the procedure, the CCRC should not only respect relevant provisions of CRC and CACC, but also the procedural rules of the CJEU, ensuring that the decision are indeed well founded and genuine. Although the CJEU’s reaction could easily be launching an infringement action against a member state whose court has delivered such a decision, the Union’s acceptance of these decisions seems to be a much more appropriate solution. Following the introductory considerations, the second part of the paper deals with the cases of the Czech Republic, Denmark and Germany, where the highest national courts have delivered such decisions. The third part of the paper researches into the CCRC’s possibilities for delivering such decisions. The research into possible reactions of the CJEU to decisions of the highest national courts declaring the CJEU decisions ultra vires is the subject of the fourth part of the paper emphasizing the decision that stands out as the most adequate in the context of constitutional dialogues between these courts and CJEU. Concluding remarks are given in the final part of the paper.
{"title":"ULTRA VIRES ODLUKE SUDA EU-A: POČETAK SUDSKOG SUKOBA ILI SURADNJE","authors":"Stjepan Novak","doi":"10.25234/pv/20189","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25234/pv/20189","url":null,"abstract":"This paper aims at exploring the decisions of the highest national courts that had declared the decisions of the CJEU ultra vires, without binding effect in their countries. The same as the Czech, Danish and German courts, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia (CCRC) could deliver such a decision according to Article 129 of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia (CRC) and Article 104 of the Constitutional Act on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia (CACC). In the procedure, the CCRC should not only respect relevant provisions of CRC and CACC, but also the procedural rules of the CJEU, ensuring that the decision are indeed well founded and genuine. Although the CJEU’s reaction could easily be launching an infringement action against a member state whose court has delivered such a decision, the Union’s acceptance of these decisions seems to be a much more appropriate solution. Following the introductory considerations, the second part of the paper deals with the cases of the Czech Republic, Denmark and Germany, where the highest national courts have delivered such decisions. The third part of the paper researches into the CCRC’s possibilities for delivering such decisions. The research into possible reactions of the CJEU to decisions of the highest national courts declaring the CJEU decisions ultra vires is the subject of the fourth part of the paper emphasizing the decision that stands out as the most adequate in the context of constitutional dialogues between these courts and CJEU. Concluding remarks are given in the final part of the paper.","PeriodicalId":41100,"journal":{"name":"Pravni Vjesnik","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48974357","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
After a brief overview of development of the protective role of labour legislation (and the need to protect the content of the work relationship instead of formal category of workers), the authors analyse legal regulation of craft activities and the possibility of paying income tax in a lump-sum. Furthermore, the paper examines positive legal regulation of determining the disguised employment (dependent work) with craft activities subject to lump-sum taxation and, consequently, the collection of income tax and related contributions for compulsory insurance based on (disguised) employment. Finally, the need for legal changes is emphasized, implementing a complementary approach (from the standpoint of financial and labour law), to protect both the fiscal interests of the state and the rights of the disguised worker.
{"title":"PRIKRIVANJE RADNOGA ODNOSA (NESAMOSTALNOG RADA) INSTITUTOM PAUŠALNOGA OBRTA: FINANCIJSKOPRAVNE I RADNOPRAVNE IMPLIKACIJE","authors":"Valentino Kuzelj, Tajana Petrović, Zrinka Erent-Sunko","doi":"10.25234/pv/22014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25234/pv/22014","url":null,"abstract":"After a brief overview of development of the protective role of labour legislation (and the need to protect the content of the work relationship instead of formal category of workers), the authors analyse legal regulation of craft activities and the possibility of paying income tax in a lump-sum. Furthermore, the paper examines positive legal regulation of determining the disguised employment (dependent work) with craft activities subject to lump-sum taxation and, consequently, the collection of income tax and related contributions for compulsory insurance based on (disguised) employment. Finally, the need for legal changes is emphasized, implementing a complementary approach (from the standpoint of financial and labour law), to protect both the fiscal interests of the state and the rights of the disguised worker.","PeriodicalId":41100,"journal":{"name":"Pravni Vjesnik","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41456192","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The paper analyses the right to be exempt from jurisdiction (immunity) under customary international law and European civil procedural law following the interpretation of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The aim is to research the balance between this right and the right of access to the courts as its potentially restrictive factor in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and to compare it with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. In deciding the LG and Others v. Rina and Ente Registro Navale as the most important case in this regard, the Court of Justice of the European Union states that the national court before which the issue of exemption from jurisdiction arises, must be persuaded that there will be no violation of the right of access to the courts, if it accepts the immunity objection. In this way, the Court determined the limit of exemption from jurisdiction by allowing the waiver of jurisdiction for reasons of compliance with international legal obligations and noting the need to preserve fundamental rights. However, as to the terms of that limitation, the Court remained vague.
本文根据欧洲联盟法院的解释，分析了习惯国际法和欧洲民事诉讼法规定的豁免(豁免)权。其目的是研究这项权利与在欧洲联盟法院判例法中作为其潜在限制因素的诉诸法院的权利之间的平衡，并将其与欧洲人权法院的判例法进行比较。欧洲联盟法院在决定LG及其他人诉Rina和Ente Registro Navale案为这方面最重要的案件时指出，必须说服管辖豁免问题的国家法院，如果它接受豁免反对意见，就不会侵犯诉诸法院的权利。法院以这种方式确定了豁免管辖的限度，允许出于遵守国际法律义务的理由放弃管辖权，并指出有必要维护基本权利。但是，关于这种限制的条件，法院仍然含糊其辞。
{"title":"IZUZEĆE OD JURISDIKCIJE U EUROPSKOM GRAĐANSKOM PROCESNOM PRAVU","authors":"Katarina Knol Radoja","doi":"10.25234/pv/21767","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25234/pv/21767","url":null,"abstract":"The paper analyses the right to be exempt from jurisdiction (immunity) under customary international law and European civil procedural law following the interpretation of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The aim is to research the balance between this right and the right of access to the courts as its potentially restrictive factor in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and to compare it with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. In deciding the LG and Others v. Rina and Ente Registro Navale as the most important case in this regard, the Court of Justice of the European Union states that the national court before which the issue of exemption from jurisdiction arises, must be persuaded that there will be no violation of the right of access to the courts, if it accepts the immunity objection. In this way, the Court determined the limit of exemption from jurisdiction by allowing the waiver of jurisdiction for reasons of compliance with international legal obligations and noting the need to preserve fundamental rights. However, as to the terms of that limitation, the Court remained vague.","PeriodicalId":41100,"journal":{"name":"Pravni Vjesnik","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46122287","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：