Suchergebnisse

All EU anti-discrimination directives contain basically identical provision on the burden of proof in anti-discrimination cases: Member States are to take the necessary measures, in accordance with their national judicial systems, to ensure that, when persons who consider themselves wronged because of the principle of equal treatment has not been applied to them establish facts from which it may be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination, it shall be for the respondent to prove that there has been no breach of the principle of equal treatment. The wording of the two main anti-discrimination laws in Croatia, the Anti-Discrimination Act and the Gender Equality Act, on the burden of proof slightly differs, which may lead to inconsistent interpretation. The aim of this article is to explore the current Croatian gender discrimination case law concerning the application of the burden of proof rules and to investigate whether the required standard has been correctly applied in practice, as well as whether further legislative amendments are needed.

All EU anti-discrimination directives contain basically identical provision on the burden of proof in anti-discrimination cases: Member States are to take the necessary measures, in accordance with their national judicial systems, to ensure that, when persons who consider themselves wronged because of the principle of equal treatment has not been applied to them establish facts from which it may be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination, it shall be for the respondent to prove that there has been no breach of the principle of equal treatment. The wording of the two main anti-discrimination laws in Croatia, the Anti-Discrimination Act and the Gender Equality Act, on the burden of proof slightly differs, which may lead to inconsistent interpretation. The aim of this article is to explore the current Croatian gender discrimination case law concerning the application of the burden of proof rules and to investigate whether the required standard has been correctly applied in practice, as well as whether further legislative amendments are needed.

The digital revolution facilitates innovation models that generate new markets and business models. Together with Internet, it has opened up a vast array of new possibilities. Latest reappearance of the artificial intelligence has created further potentials and types of market participation. Artificial intelligence is understood as a cutting-edge technology and a key-driver of transition of our economy into digital economy. The expansion and use of artificial intelligence will have a positive impact on many diverse sectors, such as healthcare, farming, security, climate, etc. Potential risks should not be underestimated as well. The pervasive recognition of the advantages of artificial intelligence will depend on legal certainty. The European Union is well aware of it. The main dilemma is to regulate or not to regulate. Too much regulation could stifle innovation and possible new incentives. On the other hand, certain minimum rules are necessary. The most important question is, should the current legal system be adapted to address the new challenges associated with the application of artificial intelligence, and how? Besides developing a proper legal framework, it is necessary to ensure appropriate ethical framework to enhance the trust of consumer, as well as to improve business outcomes. Certain rules already exist, but none of them regulate artificial intelligence specifically. The article questions a premise whether it is suitable to develop one legislative instrument, or whether it would be better to leave it to the sector regulations. The main idea behind it is that new technologies are moving too fast and the regulation is lagging behind. Certain regulation is needed, but with the caveat that any framework must be able to respond to new developments. The first challenge is to opt for a proper definition in order to be able to propose possible solution. The article will address those issues and offer potential answers. It will conclude that certain rules are definitely needed in order to preserve the ...

Guaranteeing fair competition has been a guiding principle of Union action since the beginnings of the European Economic Community. Anti- competitive activities in the internal market, such as agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition, or abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position are prohibited as incompatible with the internal market. Over the years, a vast body of regulatory and soft law instruments, as well as the Commission's decisions and the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union have built up to handle a variety of complex issues associated with creating a level-playing field for undertakings in the internal market. As more and more businesses are using smart solutions, predictive analytics and algorithms for optimisation of their business processes, new business models and decision-making processes emerge. The development and use of self-learning machines, capable of intelligent behaviour in the market are changing the competitive landscape and market structure, thus generating many new and complex legal issues. This paper aims to address the regulatory challenges associated with algorithmic collusion, as a form of anti- competitive behaviour among competing undertakings which is rarely manifested in explicit or even implied agreements. The issue of recognising and proving, and eventually, sanctioning tacit collusion practices becomes even more complicated when innovative digital technologies, such as implementation of price programming or self-learning algorithms enter the scene and rearrange the market structure. It is extremely difficult to differentiate between the situations in which undertakings adapt their strategies in response to the behaviour of their competitors from those where they change the interaction patterns altogether, by facilitating either conscious or ...

Guaranteeing fair competition has been a guiding principle of Union action since the beginnings of the European Economic Community. Anti-competitive activities in the internal market, such as agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition, or abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position are prohibited as incompatible with the internal market. Over the years, a vast body of regulatory and soft law instruments, as well as the Commission's decisions and the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union have built up to handle a variety of complex issues associated with creating a level-playing field for undertakings in the internal market. As more and more businesses are using smart solutions, predictive analytics and algorithms for optimisation of their business processes, new business models and decision-making processes emerge. The development and use of self-learning machines, capable of intelligent behavior in the market are changing the competitive landscape and market structure, thus generating many new and complex legal issues. This paper aims to address the regulatory challenges associated with algorithmic collusion, as a form of anti-competitive behaviour among competing undertakings which is rarely manifested in explicit or even implied agreements. The issue of recognising and proving, and eventually, sanctioning tacit collusion practices becomes even more complicated when innovative digital technologies, such as implementation of price programming or self-learning algorithms enter the scene and rearrange the market structure. It is extremely difficult to differentiate between the situations in which undertakings adapt their strategies in response to the behaviour of their competitors from those where they change the interaction patterns altogether, by facilitating either conscious or unconscious parallel behaviour. Is such behaviour caught by Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union? What kind of regulatory response, if any, is needed? The authors will analyse the existing practice on tacit collusions, developed in the era of 'brick and mortar' economy and evaluate whether a new framework is needed in the digital era. Is hard regulation suitable, or desirable at all, or could these challenges be addressed through a set of guidelines or soft law instruments? The technology is evolving faster than any legal framework. Without first knowing and understanding how algorithms work, it is impossible to develop an appropriate response to these issues. The authors offer their contribution to this on-going debate.

This paper explores the impact of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the context of Union citizenship and internal market free movement law. The starting point is the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice on the right to use minority languages in court proceedings. According to the Court's reasoning, this right should be extended to all mobile Union citizens on equal footing with nationals of the particular Member State granting that right to persons residing in a specific territorial entity of that State. The authors critically evaluate the legal basis of the Court's approach, focusing on the interaction and mutual impact of internal market and citizenship case law. The paper further explores the national regulation of the right to use minority language in court proceedings, as well as the right to interpretation in criminal proceedings, and reveals possible inconsistencies with EU law. In addition, it investigates whether legislative interventions are needed and analyses theoretical and practical aspects of various potential de lege ferenda solutions. ; Zabrana diskriminacije temeljem državljanstva temeljno je načelo i ishodište slobode kretanja u Europskoj uniji. Primjena tog načela u praksi izaziva ponekad (ne)očekivane posljedice. U ovom radu analizira se primjer prava na uporabu manjinskog jezika u sudskom postupku. Status i pravo na uporabu manjinskog jezika razlikuje se u državama članicama EU-a, ali je najčešće ograničeno na određena područja države u kojima se jamči ravnopravna uporaba manjinskog i službenog jezika pred upravnim i/ili sudskim tijelima, u radu predstavničkih ili izvršnih tijela lokalne vlasti, obrazovanju itd. Opseg ovog jamstva u potpunosti ovisi o nacionalnom zakonodavstvu i međunarodnim obvezama države članice. Međutim, gotovo isključivo pridržano je za pripadnike određene nacionalne manjine koji su državljani određene države i prebivaju na određenom teritoriju te države. Učinak tog pravila u multinacionalnom i višejezičnom okružju Europske unije izaziva ...

Zabrana diskriminacije temeljem državljanstva temeljno je načelo i ishodište slobode kretanja u Europskoj uniji. Primjena tog načela u praksi izaziva ponekad (ne)očekivane posljedice. U ovom radu analizira se primjer prava na uporabu manjinskog jezika u sudskom postupku. Status i pravo na uporabu manjinskog jezika razlikuje se u državama članicama EU-a, ali je najčešće ograničeno na određena područja države u kojima se jamči ravnopravna uporaba manjinskog i službenog jezika pred upravnim i/ili sudskim tijelima, u radu predstavničkih ili izvršnih tijela lokalne vlasti, obrazovanju itd. Opseg ovog jamstva u potpunosti ovisi o nacionalnom zakonodavstvu i međunarodnim obvezama države članice. Međutim, gotovo isključivo pridržano je za pripadnike određene nacionalne manjine koji su državljani određene države i prebivaju na određenom teritoriju te države. Učinak tog pravila u multinacionalnom i višejezičnom okružju Europske unije izaziva određene dvojbe, osobito kada se sukobi s načelom zabrane diskriminacije temeljem državljanstva. Polazište ovog istraživanja je analiza presude Suda EU-a u predmetu Rüffer, C-322/13, u kojoj je Sud smatrao nacionalni propis kojim se pravo na uporabu manjinskog jezika u građanskom parničnom postupku ograničava na državljane te države s prebivalištem na određenom teritoriju protivnim načelu zabrane diskriminacije temeljem državljanstva. U radu se analizira na koji način sudska praksa i pravni okvir EU-a mogu utjecati na nacionalnu politiku i pravo zaštite nacionalnih manjina te postoji li potreba za de lege ferenda izmjene nacionalnih propisa. ; This paper explores the impact of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the context of Union citizenship and internal market free movement law. The starting point is the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice on the right to use minority languages in court proceedings. According to the Court's reasoning, this right should be extended to all mobile Union citizens on equal footing with nationals of the particular Member State granting that right to persons residing in a specific territorial entity of that State. The authors critically evaluate the legal basis of the Court's approach, focusing on the interaction and mutual impact of internal market and citizenship case law. The paper further explores the national regulation of the right to use minority language in court proceedings, as well as the right to interpretation in criminal proceedings, and reveals possible inconsistencies with EU law. In addition, it investigates whether legislative interventions are needed and analyses theoretical and practical aspects of various potential de lege ferenda solutions.

Whether or not we can call Uber's business model as disruptive innovation (admittedly, according to the author of the disruptive innovation theory, we cannot), the fact remains that it has shaken the traditional models of passenger transport industries around the world. The law does not respond well, or, better said, it is not able to react fast enough to innovations. Technological and business inventions represent a threat to legal certainty. When an innovative business model, facilitated by the use of new technologies occurs, it is usually associated with a whole array of legal issues and conundrums. The law will try desperately to fit it into the existing moulds of legal regulation. The recent Uber Spain judgment (EU:C:987:2017) by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) provides a perfect illustration for this. According to the CJEU, Uber is a transport company. This paper will analyse the arguments presented in the judgment to show how law is not able to deal with rapid technological and societal changes in today's digital world. The implications of this judgment are far reaching, not just for Uber's operations in the EU and world-wide, but also for other game changers in the digital economy.

Sloboda pružanja usluga kao jedna od temeljnih gospodarskih sloboda omogućava svakom državljaninu države članice s poslovnim nastanom u državi članici EU-a da može pružati usluge u drugoj državi članici bez ograničenja i pod istim uvjetima kao i državljani te države članice. Sve veća specijalizacija u pojedinim profesijama i razvoj novih tehnologija i modela pružanja usluga donose nove izazove i kontinuirano nameću potrebu preispitivanja usklađenosti nacionalnih zakonodavstava s propisima koji reguliraju unutarnje tržište. Posebno je teško pomiriti različite pravne kulture država članica, koje polaze od vlastitih vrijednosti i pretpostavaka kako regulirati pojedine djelatnosti i pružanje usluga. Neki sektori otporniji su na liberalizaciju i oslanjaju se na tradicionalno protekcionističke propise država članica. Sve veći obujam usluga i sve veća specijalizacija povećavaju broj i razinu profesionalnih aktivnosti koje reguliraju države, regulatorna tijela ili se pak primjenjuje kombinacija tih dvaju načina reguliranja. Osim odredaba Ugovora o funkcioniranju Europske unije jedinstveni europski okvir za pružanje usluga čine brojni sekundarni pravni izvori koji imaju cilj olakšati djelovanje slobode pružanja usluga, uspostaviti zajednička pravila i olakšati administrativnu suradnju. U tom je smislu najvažnija Direktiva 2006/123/EZ o uslugama o unutarnjem tržištu koja je Zakonom o uslugama iz 2011. godine implementirana u hrvatsko zakonodavstvo. Zakonom se nastoji pružateljima usluga olakšati ostvarivanje slobode poslovnog nastana te slobodno kretanje usluga uz istodobno održavanje visoka stupnja kvalitete tih usluga. Od država članica zahtijeva se stalno uklanjanje prepreka slobodi pružanja usluga u nizu djelatnosti te se tako u Republici Hrvatskoj kontinuirano provodi liberalizacija tržišta usluga raznim administrativnim i poreznim rasterećenjima, ali i promjenom raznih sektorskih propisa koji imaju utjecaj na funkcioniranje slobode poslovnog nastana i slobode pružanja usluga. Temeljna načela liberalizacije tržišta ...

This research monograph consists of 17 papers under the framework of contemporary economic and business issues which we can structure into several main research fields. These fields relate to the regulation of economic and business activities, especially in the context of digitalization processes, fiscal and monetary issues, dealing with the impact of digitalization and COVID19 pandemics on traditional academic and business debates, as well as on innovation processes in both government and the corporate sector. We can borrow the phrase from one of our papers and confirm that the papers presented show that the innovative market and digital society, as the new global development and technology paradigm of the modern world, together with its capabilities and standards, has changed the character of entrepreneurship and the state/government in terms of their new interactions. Thus, the contributions from the research monograph are made more urgent by the main objective of introspection of the traditional economic and business sectors and activities under the prism of digital transformation. The researchers were particularly interested in the impact of the COVID19 pandemic on the economic and business sectors. Although the conference was held in the midst of the pandemics, researchers were able to present valuable studies showing the extent of the threat posed by COVID 19 to the public health and economic outcomes of EU citizens. Significant pressure was placed on member state spending, particularly in countries with lower fiscal capacity, resulting in a severe temporary deterioration in the fiscal deficit and public debt. It is also noted that the crisis COVID -19 will have an uneven impact on member states and could deepen their divergence. Therefore, new and creative fiscal policies to support investment in digital transformation, green transition and innovation are of utmost importance. This monograph provides some guidance.