Suchergebnisse

Skrbništvo kao institut obiteljskog prava je desetljećima bilo važno, ali ipak neriješeno pitanje. Posljednja reforma obiteljskog prava iz 2014. i 2015. godine donijela je određene promjene koje su objašnjene i zagovarane kao novi doprinos poboljšanju pravnog položaja odraslih osoba s invaliditetom s jedne, te doprinos pravnoj sigurnosti te vladavini prava s druge strane. Obiteljski zakon propisuje da se osoba ne može potpuno lišiti poslovne sposobnosti, već samo djelomice. Možemo se samo zapitati kako se ova odredba može primijeniti, primjerice, u slučajevima kad je ta osoba u komi? Mudar zakonodavac dopušta da suci budu daleko više od samih izvršitelja njegovih namjera. Međutim, čini se da bi mudar sudac pri donošenju odluke o tom pitanju u određenim slučajevima djelovao contra legem, ako bi pokušao dosljedno i sveobuhvatno zaštititi osobu s invaliditetom, što ne može biti prihvatljivo. Stoga je cilj ovog rada dodatno osvijetliti novousvojene odredbe Obiteljskog zakona u odnosu na lišenje poslovne sposobnosti, s općom pretpostavkom da se takva zakonodavna intervencija ne može smatrati ni razmjernom niti učinkovitom. ; Guardianship as a family-law institute has been an important, yet unsolved issue for decades now. The latest family law reform of 2014 and 2015 brought certain changes, which have been explained and advocated for as a new contribution to the improvement of the legal position of adults with disabilities on one hand as well as the legal certainty and the rule of law on the other. The Croatian Family Act proclaims that a person cannot be deprived of legal capacity completely, but only partially. One can only wonder - how can this provision be implemented in cases of a coma for instance? A wise legislator allows judges to be far more than the pure executors of a person with disabilites´ intentions. However, it seems that a wise judge when deciding upon this issue would in certain cases be acting contra legem if attempting to coherently protect the person with disabilities, which cannot be acceptable. Therefore, it is the aim of this paper to shed additional light on the newly adopted provisions of the Family Act as regards the deprivation of legal capacity, with the general premise that such a legislative intervention is neither proportional nor efficient.

The presumption "Mater semper certa est", that is known from Roman law, indicates that the mother is always certain as she was traditionally seen as the progenitor and the one who had given birth. However, traditional view on motherhood is lately changing due to new procreation techniques that made the content of motherhood depended on contractual arrangements and opened the possibility to differentiate the progenitor from the person who has given birth. The surrogacy motherhood is considered as one of the new procreation techniques that made possible for single persons and couples with or without fertility problems to become parents. However, surrogacy motherhood made the notion of the mother interchangeable and depended on various arrangements between adults. It all represents a serious threat to various children's rights including their right to know their origin and to be cared for by parents. Many Member States of the European Union (EU) realized the dangers of surrogacy arrangements and, in pursuit of the best interest of the child, enacted legislation to ban or restrict surrogacy. However, cross-border surrogacy arrangements, that are nowadays popular and untraceable, made possible to bypass those domestic legislations. The absence of any formal consensus within the EU on how to address the problem of cross-border surrogacy represents a serious threat to the protection of children's rights.