Suchergebnisse

Članci 34. i 35. Ugovora o funkcioniranju Europske unije zabranjuju količinska ograničenja i mjere s istovrsnim učinkom na uvoz i izvoz između država članica. Države članice nisu u mogućnosti favorizirati ili na bilo koji drugi način staviti u prednost domaće proizvode u odnosu na proizvode drugih država članica. Ipak, ako postoji prijetnja javnom interesu, država članica može opravdano ograničiti slobodno kretanje robe. Svaka takva nacionalna mjera mora biti istovremeno nužna i proporcionalna cilju koji se želi postići. U radu se daje poseban naglasak na predmet Keck koji je podijelio sve propise na dvije skupine: na uvjete prodaje i na propise koji se odnose isključivo na proizvode. Europski sud je smatrao kako nediskriminatorni uvjeti prodaje nemaju razloga potpasti pod opseg članka 34. UFEU-a. Uvjeti prodaje su, kako je u sudskoj praksi nakon Kecka utvrđeno, propisi koji uređuju kada roba može biti prodavana, na kojem mjestu i tko tu robu može prodavati, propisi koji se tiču reklamiranja te kontrole cijena. Ova presuda bila je predmetom mnogih kritika. Sudska praksa koja je uslijedila donekle je iskristalizirala i riješila nejasnoće. Unatoč tome, nisu sva pitanja u potpunosti razjašnjena iako su vidljivi mali koraci k realističnijem pristupu mjerama s istovrsnim učinkom kao količinsko ograničenje. ; Articles 34 and 35 of the TFEU prohibit import and export restrictions between all Member States. Member States are not allowed to favour or in any other way put its domestic products at an advantage against imported products. However, if there is a threat to publich interest, such as (for example) public health or the environment, Member States may restrict the free movement of goods. Any national measure imposed must be shown to be both necessary and proportional. The article gives special emphasis to the Keck case which divided regulations into two parts: selling arrangements and product-bound measures. ECJ held that non-discriminatory national measures restricting or prohibiting selling arrangements were ...

Normama se utvrđuju standardna obilježja proizvoda i njihove specifi kacije. Utvrđuju se konsenzusom svih zainteresiranih subjekata, od gospodarskih do tijela državne uprave. Njihova je primje na dragovolj na, ali značenje im je veliko, u Europskoj uniji povezano sa slobodom kretanja robe. Normizacijom se bavi niz međunarodnih, jednako kao i nacionalne normizacijske organizacije. U okviru Europske unije važni regulativni instrument u području normizacije predstavlja ju direktive novog pristupa. Hrvatska je značajno modernizirala zakonodavstvo u području norma te je značajno napredovala u procesu usklađivanja s tehničkim propisima Europske unije, europskom normizacijom, mjeriteljstvom i akreditacijom, kao i postupcima za ocjenu sukladnosti proizvoda. ; Norms and standards define standard product characteristics and their specifications. They are established by consensus of all interested parties, from businesses to state administrative bodies. Although their implementation is voluntary, they are extremely important, particularly in the European Union where they are essential for the free movement of goods. Numerous international and national organisations deal with standardisation. Within the EU, new approach directives are an important regulatory instrument of standardisation. Croatia has significantly modernised its legislation on standardisation and has made considerable progress in the process of harmonisation with technical regulations of the EU, European standardisation, measurement, and accreditation, as well as with the procedures for the assessment of product compatibility.

There are various assessments, occasion-related & partial analyses, & even empirical evaluations of the recent collective protest of Croatian students, but there is hardly any attempt of a theoretical clarification & comprehension thereof. Having in mind the largely disparate definitions of social movement, the author is of the opinion that, from the standpoint of theory, the demands of rebelled students, the blockade of the faculty, the plenum decision-making & other forms of collective student activity can best be perceived as a form of student movement. For this reason, he first presents various theories of social movements: the classic American theory of collective behavior (ie., its two versions -- the breakdown theory & the theory of relative deprivation), the theory of resource mobilization, the theory of new social movements (especially Touraine's model of understanding new social movements), the theory of networks, the theory of solidarity, & the political-process analysis. Second, the author attempts to apply each of the enumerated conceptual perspectives to the Croatian student movement for charge-free education. Although the presented theories of social movements are critical of one another, this article points out their complementarity. It goes on to show that not all of them are equally adequate for clarification & comprehension of the central issue. In the author's judgment, one of the key reasons why a multi-perspective approach is necessary is the exceptional, hybrid character of the Croatian student movement, as a mixture of old & new social movements. Adapted from the source document.

In this article, the author shows why the student movement for free education ("the blockade") is wrong in asserting that the cause of injustice in higher education is the implementation of an allegedly neo-liberal project -- the Bologna Process. Furthermore, he claims that, in a serious discussion which would include all interested parties, the students' demand of "everything free on all levels in the highest possible numbers" could not be defended as a just demand. A socially just higher education would not be one which would be available free of charge to all interested parties, but one which would ensure access to higher education to the poor. The expose of the article is divided into three sections. First, Kurelic presents some ideological-theoretical formulations used in advocating free education. Then he attempts to show the short-sightedness of such formulations by referring to the example of criticism aimed at the higher education reform in Croatia, the so-called Bologna. In the third and final section, he explains why he is of the opinion that egalitarian liberals such as Scanlon and Barry, developing their line of argument from the position of social justice, would ask for much more than cancellation of school fees on all levels, and why the demand formulated according to Barry's categories is more solid. Adapted from the source document.

U državama zapadne Europe 1990-ih povećava se broj osoba koje traže međunarodnu zaštitu. Suočene s velikim iz bjegličkim krizama, a u kontekstu proklamirane slobode kretanjana području Europske unije i postojećih razlika u nacionalnim sustavima azila, države članice intenzivnije razvijaju suradnju na području azila i migracija. Do stupanja na snagu Ugovora iz Amsterdama 1. svibnja 1999. područje policijske i pravosudne suradnje u kaznenim stvarima pripadalo je tzv. »trećem stupu« prema kojem su politika azila, migracijska politika i politika vezana uz državljane trećih zemalja definirane samo kao »pitanja od zajedničkog interesa« i pripadala su u suverena prava država članica. Ugovorom iz Amsterdama ustonovljuje se »zajednički europski sustav azila«, a zajednička politika azila postaje dijelom »prvoga stupa«. Potpisivanjem Sporazuma o stabilizaciji i pridruživanju u procesu pridruživanja EU Republika Hrvatska preuzela je obvezu implementiranja načela i pravila pravne stečevine Europske unije u nacionalno zakonodavstvo, koja obuhvaća i pravila o azilu, u okviru Poglavlja 24.: Pravda, sloboda i sigurost. ; The number of individuals who sought international protection increased in the west European countries during the 1990s. Faced with huge refugee crises and bound by the proclaimed free movement of people in the EU territories and the differences in the national asylum systems, the Member States were developing intensive interstate co-operation in the fields of asylum and migrations. Before the Treaty of Amsterdam entered into force on May 1, 1999, police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters had belonged to the third pillar of the European Union. It meant that asylum policy, migration policy, and policy concerning citizens of the third countries defined merely as »the issues of mutual interest« and belonged to the sovereign rights of the Member States. The Treaty of Amsterdam established »Common European asylum system« and the common asylum policy became part of the first pillar. By signing the Stabilisation and Accession Agreement with the EU, Croatia has assumed the obligation to incorporate the principles and rules of the EU acquis communautaire in its legislation. This includes the asylum regulations contained in Chapter 24 »Justice, Freedom, and Security«.

The author outlines some of the major issues in Hannah Arendt's political thought significant for her understanding of the political. The pivotal point of Hannah Arendt's political thought is her renowned analysis of totalitarianism in which she demonstrates the originality of totalitarian governance & its radically antipolitical character. Using the work of Margaret Canovan as his starting point, the author gives an account of the critique of Marx & the tradition of political philosophy by Hannah Arendt in her research of totalitarianism. This criticism is based on the distinction among three human activities: labor, work, & action. By pointing out the nonpolitical character of labor & work, Arendt draws her fundamental political categories from action by means of which people confirm the plural character of their existence. In modern times, Arendt finds the genuinely political only in the short-lived episodes of revolutionary fervor during which some room is created for the free action of the individuals committed to the promotion of the "public cause." Particularly important in her political thought is the theory of the power of judgment as a link between thinking & action. Using Kant as her starting point, Arendt draws the power of judgment from the realm of the aesthetic & turns it into the key element of political action. In his conclusion, the author looks into the separation of the political from the state that Arendt is forced to make because of her own exigent concept of political freedom. Arendt embraces republican elitism that cannot be completely reconciled with the democratic elements of her political thought. 20 References. Adapted from the source document.

Pokrovčeva knjiga Slobodno stvaranje prava: Herman U. Kantorowicz i slobodnopravni pokret (2018) nameće pitanje izraženo naslovom ovog rada na koje rad odgovara u tri koraka: prvo, pretpostavkom da je pitanje odgovorivo samo idealnim tipovima pravnih disciplina / funkcija; drugo, upućivanjem na kontekst Kantorowiczevih gledišta, osobito na objavu presuda; treće, ocjenom da je Kantorowicz podijelio pravnu znanost u prepletene funkcije a ne u odvojene discipline. U tu svrhu rad nudi idealne tipove disciplina i funkcija pravne dogmatike, pravne historije, pravne teorije i, kao najsloženiji i najkorisniji skup funkcija, pravnopolitičku analizu. Pretpostavka je, koja se ne dokazuje, da ne postoji ni oštra granica između pravne znanosti i susjednih znanosti: sociologije, ekonomije, psihologije, filozofije. ; Is Herman U. Kantorowicz's classification of legal disciplines - which includes general legal science, legal dogmatics, legal history, sociology of law, philosophy of law, and legal policy - a division of scholarly knowledge of law into distinct disciplines/sciences or into intertwined functions of a single scholarly discipline/science? The question is prompted by the book written by Zoran Pokrovac entitled Slobodno stvaranje prava: Hermann U. Kantorowicz i slobodnopravni pokret (Free Law: Hermann U. Kantorowicz and the Free Law Movement ) and published by "Breza" and the Faculty of Law of the University of Split in 2018. Answering this question may assist Croatian legal scholars in finding standards of scholarly excellence, especially of research de lege ferenda. This paper offers an answer in three steps. The first is the recognition that scholarly practices differ considerably, which means that the question may be answered only by construing and correlating ideal types of legal disciplines / functions that are compatible with Kantorowicz's general ideas, prominent interpretations of legal scholarship, and Croatian mainstream legal scholarship since. The second step provides a context of Kantorowicz's ...