Zalaganje pokretnih stvari određenih po rodu prema Zakonu o upisniku sudskih i javnobilježničkih osiguranja tražbina vjerovnika na pokretnim stvarima i pravima

S uvođenjem instituta lebdećeg založnopravnog osiguranja, Zakonom o upisniku omogućilo se zalaganje pokretnih stvari određenih po rodu. Na taj je način, s jedne strane, sankcionirana već postojeća poslovna praksa koja je pokazivala potrebu za takvim oblicima zalaganja, ali je, s druge strane, probijeno načelo stroge određenosti objekta stvarnog (založnog) prava. U odnosu na ranije uređenje, koje je dopuštalo da založni dužnik ostane u posjedu stvari te da te stvari koristi, novo rješenje dozvoljava založnom dužniku otuđenja stvari prema prirodi svoje djelatnosti, uz obvezu nadomještanja novim stvarima, a objekt založnog prava biva posredno individualiziran putem prostora na kojem se te stvari nalaze. Iako ovo rješenje nije apsolutni unicum, jer podsjeća na objekt zakonskog založnog prava najmodavca na stvarima što ih je najmoprimac unio u iznajmljeni prostor, ipak je u novom regulatornom okruženju potrebno ispitati kako ovo rješenje utječe na položaj osiguranog vjerovnika, posebno s obzirom na okolnost da založni dužnik založene stvari nesmetano otuđuje, a da s izlaskom stvari iz određenog prostora založno pravo na tako založenim stvarima prestaje. Položaj založnog vjerovnika ispitan je u radu i u odnosu na treće osobe koje na istom predmetu osiguranja imaju neko drugo osiguranje tražbine, te se razlučuje njihov položaj u prednosnom redu. Skreće se pozornost na to da vjerovnik koji ima lebdeće založnopravno osiguranje ostvaruje prednosni red prema vremenu upisa lebdećeg založnopravnog osiguranja iako se njegov objekt zaloga konkretizira tek trenutkom pljenidbe. Također se u svjetlu promjena, koje su s posljednjom izmjenom Ovršnog zakona nastupile u ovrsi na pokretnim stvarima, ukazuje na probleme i modalitete provedbe ovrhe na pokretnim stvarima kada su one određene po rodu

Investicijski fondovi koji ulažu u nekretnine prema Zakonu o investicijskim fondovima

Koncem 2005. godine donesen je novi Zakon o investicijskim fondovima koji je trebao uskladiti domaće zakonodavstvo s europskim u domeni otvorenih investicijskih fondova, pripremiti domaću fondovsku industriju za prekogranično pružanje usluga, a pritom je, između ostalog, regulirao i nove oblike fondova. Razlikuju se fondovi koji se nude javnom ponudom i usmjereni su prema širokom krugu ulagatelja, od onih koji se nude privatnom ponudom. Zatvoreni fondovi koji imaju pravnu osobnost mogu se nuditi jedino javnom ponudom, a to su ujedno i jedini fondovi koji predstavljaju pravno dopustivi oblik fondovskog ulaganja u nekretnine. Za razliku, otvoreni fondovi koji nemaju pravnu osobnost mogu se nuditi i privatnom i javnom ponudom, a u slučaju da se nude privatnom ponudom, ulagatelji moraju udovoljavati posebnim kriterijima. To nisu više samo institucionalni ulagatelji, već se taj pojam proširuje konceptom kvalificiranih ulagatelja, koji pojam obuhvaća i fizičke osobe. Diversifikacija fondova i ulagatelja neminovno nameće istraživanje pravnog položaja ulagatelja u pojedinim vrstama fondova, kako bi se utvrdile prednosti i nedostaci pojedinih oblika ulaganja. U ovom radu namjeravaju se istražiti osobitosti investicijskih fondova koji ulažu u nekretnine, odnosno način na koji se oni mogu ustrojiti, koji su objekti njihova ulaganja te eventualna ograničenja njihova portfelja i druge osobitosti prema kojima se razlikuju od drugih investicijskih fondova. Osim propisa sadržanih u ZIF-u analiziraju se i odobreni prospekti pojedinih investicijskih nekretninskih fondova kako bi se in concreto ispitao stupanj zaštite ulagatelja

Die Position von (qualifizierten) Anlegern und neue Anlageformen nach dem Investmentfondsgesetz

Koncem 2005. godine donesen je novi Zakon o investicijskim fondovima koji je trebao uskladiti domaće zakonodavstvo s europskim u domeni otvorenih investicijskih fondova, pripremiti domaću fondovsku industriju za prekogranično pružanje usluga, a pritom je između ostalog regulirao i nove oblike fondova. Razlikuju se fondovi koji se nude javnom ponudom i usmjereni su prema širokom krugu ulagatelja, od onih koji se nude privatnom ponudom. Zatvoreni fondovi koji imaju pravnu osobnost mogu se nuditi jedino javnom ponudom, a to su ujedno i jedini fondovi koji su pravno dopustiv oblik fondovskog ulaganja u nekretnine. Za razliku, otvoreni fondovi koji nemaju pravnu osobnost mogu se nuditi i privatnom i javnom ponudom, a u slučaju da se nude privatnom ponudom, ulagatelji moraju udovoljavati posebnim kriterijima. To nisu više samo institucionalni ulagatelji, već se taj pojam proširuje konceptom kvalificiranih ulagatelja, koji pojam obuhvaća i fizičke osobe. Diverzifikacija fondova i ulagatelja neminovno nameće istraživanje pravnog položaja ulagatelja u pojedinim vrstama fondova kako bi se utvrdile prednosti i nedostaci pojedinih oblika ulaganja. Pritom se u radu istražuje u kojem se opsegu ulagatelji informiraju o osobinama fonda prilikom pristupanja fondu, kao i za vrijeme članstva, a poseban se naglasak stavlja na analizu propisa o dopustivim predmetima ulaganja za pojedine vrste fondova (sastav portfelja fonda), kao i propisa o ograničenjima ulaganja. Iz tih se propisa može iščitati u kojoj mjeri društvo za upravljanje fondom mora diverzificirati portfelj u odnosu na pojedinu vrstu fonda, pri čemu se polazi od premise da fondovi koji se nude javnom ponudom moraju težiti manje rizičnim oblicima ulaganja, upravo zbog toga što je riječ o ulagateljima koji nisu, poput kvalificiranih, spremne preuzeti veći investicijski rizik. Ocjena prednosti i nedostataka pojedinih oblika ulaganja ne daje se samo usporedbom propisa, već se upućuje na pokazatelje tržišne zastupljenosti pojedinih oblika fondova, pri čemu se referentni podaci prate iz izvješća Hrtvatske agencije za nadzor financijskih usluga koja je od 1. siječnja 2006. preuzela nadzor nad sektorom nebankovnih financijskih usluga, a podaci o prinosima sakupljeni su na specijaliziranim internetskim stranicama.The New Law on Investment Funds has changed the rules of the portfolio composition for some types of funds, and has regulated in detail the limits of investments that should be taken into account. It is based on the European model, provided by the so-called UCTIS III which harmonizes the law of open investment funds. Innovative is also the tailoring of funds according to the needs of the so-called qualified investor. These persons can no longer be identified with institutional investors because the concept includes physical persons having property and cash in the amounts prescribed by the law. However, the concept of qualified investor in Croatian law has not been harmonized with EU law because the Croatian legislator relates the concept only with property qualification (which has not been harmonized), while EU law requires the fulfilment of other conditions for the physical person. The loosely defined concept of qualified investor enables foreign qualified investors to break into the Croatian investment fund market although the criteria they fulfil are below the level of European law. When Croatia becomes a member of the EU, foreign fund managers will be able to offer their products on the cross-border basis, so that the definition of criteria which individual investors and fund products have to fulfil on the Croatian market is the basic prerequisite for the survival of Croatian funds when they enter competition on the common European market. Regarding the open funds invested by public bid which are directed to a wide range of investors, limited investments into individual permissible objects of fund investment are numerous and therefore not easily systematized. Due to their orientation to the public, and given the fact that the share document can be turned into cash at any time, investments of open funds by public bid are oriented towards the most solvent financial instruments (as a rule, max. 10% of the net value of a fund\u27s property). In the case of closed funds by public bid, which are joint stock companies, the rule of max. 15% of the net value of fund property applies for bonds or instruments of the money market of a single issuer, although there are many exceptions. Closed funds have legal personality; they are included in the Register of Companies and have organs which are otherwise characteristic of joint stock companies. Such (public) joint stock companies have to be included in the stock exchange, which means that it is additionally open to public scrutiny. This is why the establishment and management of open funds seems to be simpler and cheaper, even more so because a fund management company can be in the form of a limited liability company although the original capital exceeds by far the amount which is necessary for the establishment of a limited liability company. Unless an open fund is a joint stock company, it is not admitted to the stock exchange. The open fund is burdened with less expanses from the start, so that it is a preferred choice for its managing company in the sense of its overall economic efficiency, while investors opt more easily for these funds because of the possibility of disbursement of the share document at any time. Since high profit funds based on individual capital, rather than financial conglomerates, have recently appeared in large numbers, the question is to what extent they can cope with funds based on the bank capital and to what extent they can neutralize the risks specific for this segment of the financial industry. The trend, however, is the entry of investment funds into the joint-stock structure which is evident from the data on 10 largest owners of bonds from the depository of SDA. It will be interesting to see to which extent the pressure «to maximize the fund profit» that fund managers are exposed to will be reflected on the management of joint stock companies into whose shares the fund has invested, especially if funds have a larger share in the original capital of a joint stock company.Das neue Investmentfondsgesetz beinhaltet neue Regeln zur Portfoliozusammensetzung für die jeweiligen Fondstypen und schreibt detailliert vor, welche Anlagebeschränkungen zu beachten sind. Dabei wurde das europäische Modell, das so genannte UCITS III, zugrundegelegt, das zur Angleichung der Vorschriften über die offenen Investmentfonds führte. Eine Neuheit ist auch die Anpassung der Fonds an die Bedürfnisse der so genannten qualifizierten Anleger. Diese Personen können nicht mehr mit institutionellen Anlegern gleichgesetzt werden, weil es sich auch um natürliche Personen handeln kann, sofern sie über die gesetzlich vorgeschriebenen Vermögens- und Bargeldbeträge verfügen. Dennoch ist der Begriff des qualifizierten Anlegers im kroatischen Recht nicht mit dem im europäischen Recht harmonisiert, weil der kroatische Gesetzgeber diesen Begriff ausschließlich an die (nicht angepassten) Vermögensanforderungen bindet, während das europäische Recht von natürlichen Personen auch die Erfüllung anderer Voraussetzungen verlangt. Ein so großzügiges Verständnis des qualifizierten Anlegers ermöglicht ausländischen qualifizierten Anlegern einen massiven Eintritt auf den kroatischen Investmentfondsmarkt bei Erfüllung geringerer Anforderungen als nach europäischem Recht. Mit dem EU-Beitritt Kroatiens werden ausländische Fondsmanager ihre Produkte grenzüberschreitend anbieten können, weshalb nur die Reifung und Profilierung der Kriterien für Anleger und Fondsprodukte auf dem kroatischen Markt den Bestand der inländischen Fonds ab dem Zeitpunkt sichern kann, in dem sie in den Wettbewerb auf dem europäischen Binnenmarkt eintreten. Für über öffentliches Angebot funktionierende Fonds, die auf ein breites Anlegerpublikum ausgerichtet sind, gibt es zahlreiche Anlagebeschränkungen für die jeweiligen zulässigen Anlagegegenstände, was eine systematische Darstellung erschwert. Bei offenen Fonds, die über öffentliche Angebote funktionieren, sind wegen ihrer Ausrichtung auf die Öffentlichkeit und der Tatsache, dass der Anteilschein ein jederzeit veräußerbares Wertpapier darstellt, die Anlagen dieser Fonds auf die in höchstem Maße liquiden Finanzinstrumente orientiert, d.h. auf notierte Wertpapiere, so dass (in der Regel) in nichtnotierten Wertpapieren höchstens 10% des Gesamtnettowerts des Fondsvermögens angelegt sein darf. Bei geschlossenen Fonds über öffentliches Angebot, die Aktiengesellschaften sind, gilt für Wertpapiere oder Geldmarktinstrumente eines Emittenten die Regel „bis zu 15% des Gesamtnettowerts des Fondsvermögens“, obwohl dazu auch sehr viele Ausnahmen zu verzeichnen sind. Geschlossene Fonds sind juristische Personen, werden in das Handelsregister eingetragen und verfügen über die üblicherweise einer Aktiengesellschaft zugehörigen Organe. Eine solche (öffentliche) Aktiengesellschaft muss börsennotiert sein und handelt somit unter dem wachsamen Auge der Öffentlichkeit. Daher erscheint die Gründung und Verwaltung eines offenen Fonds einfacher und billiger, umso mehr als die Kapitalanlagegesellschaft auch die Rechtsform einer Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung haben kann, obwohl das Stammkapital das vorgeschriebene Gründungskapital für eine Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung bei weitem übersteigt. Wenn ein offener Fonds keine Aktiengesellschaft ist, ist er nicht an der Börse notiert. Ein offener Fonds ist von Anfang an mit geringeren Kosten belastet und daher im Sinne der gesamtwirtschaftlichen Leistungsfähigkeit sicher die erste Wahl für die Kapitalanlagegesellschaft. Die Anleger wiederum entscheiden sich eher für diese Fonds, weil sie sich ihren Anteilschein jederzeit auszahlen lassen können. Das in neuerer Zeit zu beobachtende verstärkte Auftreten von Investmentfonds mit hohen Renditen, hinter denen das Kapital von Einzelpersonen steht und nicht Finanzkonglomerate, wirft die Frage auf, ob sie den Wettbewerb mit Fonds, hinter denen das Kapital von Banken steht, aufnehmen beziehungsweise in welchem Maße sie die für dieses Segment der Finanzindustrie spezifischen Risiken neutralisieren können. Was man jedoch definitiv als Trend feststellen kann, ist der Eintritt von Investmentfonds in die Aktionärsstruktur, wie aus den Angaben der kroatischen Zentralen Depotanstalt zu den 10 größten Wertpapierinhabern zu entnehmen ist. Daher wird es interessant sein zu verfolgen, inwiefern sich der Druck der „Renditemaximierung“, dem die Fondsmanager ausgesetzt sind, auf den Vorstand der Aktiengesellschaft, in deren Aktien der Fonds investiert hat, übertragen wird, insbesondere wenn die Beteiligung des Fonds am Grundkapital der Aktiengesellschaft erheblich ist

How to Ensure the Application of Ethical Blockchain Technology in a Company

Pravno uređenje ne prati ubrzani razvoj novih tehnologija među koje se ubraja i tehnologija distribuiranog knjiženja (dalje: DLT), često nazivana i blockchain (dalje: BC). Mnogi su primjeri primjene tih tehnologija u trgovačkom društvu. To naglašava zahtjeve etičnosti, kako prilikom oblikovanja novog tehnološkog alata tako i u postojanju tijela u trgovačkom društvu koje će se brinuti o odabiru i primjeni etičnog i nepristranog BC-rješenja. Izrada etičnog okvira koji će biti primjenjiv prilikom oblikovanja BC-rješenja ne samo da je potrebna kao supstitut za nedostajuće pravno uređenje, već treba biti i samostalni regulatorni napor. S tim ciljem istražuju se tehnološki skandali u kojima je došlo do bitnih odstupanja od temeljnih obećanja BC-tehnologije prilikom napada na sustav izvana. Ispituje se jesu li primijenjeni isti postupci oporavka sustava od napada. U nastavku se istražuju regulatorne inicijative za uređenje etičnosti BC-tehnologije te se u posljednjem dijelu rada traži uporišno mjesto u trgovačkom društvu koje će osigurati primjenu etičnih i nepristranih BC-tehnoloških rješenja.The law does not follow the dramatic development of new technologies, including the distributed ledger technology (hereinafter: DLT), often called blockchain (hereinafter: BC). There are numerous examples of the application of these technologies in a company. An underregulated environment emphasizes the need of an ethical approach in situations where a company decides to select a new BC tool, as well as to identify a relevant body in the company that will ensure the selection and implementation BC technological solutions in an ethical and impartial manner. The development of an ethical framework for BC solutions is not only needed as a substitute for the missing legal regulation, but should also be an independent regulatory effort. To this end, technology scandals are being investigated in which significant deviations from the fundamental promises of BC technology have occurred during hacker attacks. It was examined whether the same system recovery procedures were applied in factually similar situations. It was found that recovery procedures were substantially diverging, which raises strong ethical concerns. Therefore, regulatory initiatives calling for ethical BC technology are explored. In the last part of the paper, the author proposes two alternatives as an answer to the question who should be in charge in the company to ensure that BC technology solutions are selected and applied in an ethical and impartial manner. Although companies are free to set up their “ethical and prevention of conflict of interest system” autonomously, they might consider to select a technology committee for that role or a compliance officer. Either way, companies should decide whether to design ethical and conflict of interest control as ex ante or ex post, given the importance of the corporate function or operation that is going to be digitalized by applying BC technology solutions

VORGEHENSWEISE DER INVESTITIONSGESELLSCHAFTEN MIT KUNDEN BEI DER ERBRINGUNG VON INVESTITIONSDIENSTLEISTUNGEN UND STREITIGKEITEN AUF

Godine 2009., 1. siječnja stupio je na snagu novi Zakon o tržištu kapitala kojim je u hrvatsko pravo preuzeta europska pravna stečevina u oblasti tržišta kapitala. Posebice su se izmijenili organizacijski zahtjevi kao i drugi zahtjevi poslovanja koje pred investicijska društava (ranije društava za poslovanje s vrijednosnim papirima) postavlja europska Direktiva o tržištima financijskih instrumenata iz 2004. godine. Pravni okvir unutar kojeg djeluju danas investicijska društva postao je vrlo složen, stoga se nameće pitanje hoće li zahtjevniji regulatorni okvir utjecati na broj sporova koji izbijaju iz,među investicijskih društava i njihovih klijenata. U prvom dijelu rada stoga se razrađuje tko sve u RH pruža investicijske usluge prema Zakonu o tržištu kapitala. Također se objašnjava nova tipologija klijenata prema kojima investicijska društva primjenjuju različite standarde postupanja, koji opet variraju i ovisno o tomu koja se usluga pruža. U drugom dijelu rada se ispituje na koji način investicijska društva u svojim općim uvjetima poslovanja predviđaju rješavanje sporova sa svojim klijentima, uključujući i rješavanje pritužbi. Ispituje se koji sudovi su stvarno nadležni za rješavanje sporova u parničnom postupku između klijenata i investicijskih društava. Propituju se argumenti u prilog tezi da se svi sporovi u parničnom postupku između investicijskih društava i njihovih klijenata delegiraju de lege ferenda u stvarnu nadležnost trgovačkih sudova. Pretraživanjem dostupnih baza podataka sudske prakse uočava se nepostojanje građanskopravnih sporova između investicijskih društava i njihovih klijenata, za razliku od vrlo zastupljenih upravnih sporova do kojih dolazi najčešće pokretanjem upravnog spora od strane investicijskog društva nakon provedenog postupka nadzora HANFE u kojem je izrečena neka od nadzornih mjera. Analiziraju se tipične povrede do kojih dolazi u postupanju investicijskih društava i njihovih klijenata. Iznose se zaključci i prijedlozi de lege ferenda.The Law on Capital Market came into effect on 1 January 2009 implementing the European legal acquis in the field of capital market in Croatian law. Significant amendments altered organisational requirements and other business requirements of investment firms (prior securities companies) applying the legal solutions from 2004 Markets in Financial Instruments Directive. Legal framework governing the investment firms’ performances has become extremely complex. Consequently, it seems reasonable to speculate whether the more demanding framework could influence the number of disputes emerging between investment firms and their clients. Therefore, in the first part of the article the author analyses provisions on authorised persons to provide investment services in the Republic of Croatia. In addition, explanatory comments are made on a new client categorisation according to which investment firms apply different standards of conduct depending also on provided services. In the second part of the article author scrutinises investment firms’ methods to resolve disputes with their clients, including also the customer complaint management, under the general terms of business. Further analysis is given in an attempt to define courts with jurisdiction ratione materiae covering legal disputes between clients and firms carrying on investment business. The author emphasizes arguments that support de lege ferenda delegation of all such disputes to commercial courts giving them jurisdiction ratione materiae in civil proceedings. Research on accessible databases of court decisions has revealed an absence of civil litigations involving investment firms and their clients in contrast to numerous administrative disputes in which an investment firm starts the administrative procedure once the Croatian Financial Services Supervisory Agency has completed its supervision and ordered a measure of supervision. The author scrutinises typical infringements of conduct of business rules. In her final remarks the author presents conclusions and prepositions de lege ferenda.GRUND VEMit dem Inkrafttreten des neuen Kapitalmarktgesetzes am 1. Januar 2010, ist Gemeinschaftlicher Besitzstand im Bereich des Kapitalmarktes in das kroatische Recht übernommen worden. Durch die neue europäische Richtlinie über Märkte für Finanzinstrumente aus 2004, haben sich organisatorische Ansprüche wie auch andere Geschäftsbedingungen für Investitionsgesellschaften (früher: Wertpapierdienstleistungsunternehmen) geändert. Der rechtliche Rahmen für Investitionsgesellschaften ist daher anspruchsvoller geworden, weshalb die folgende Frage gestellt werden könnte: Wird Letzteres zu mehr Streitigkeiten zwischen Investitionsgesellschaften und deren Kunden führen? Im ersten Teil der vorliegenden Arbeit wird betrachtet, wer in der Republik Kroatien Investitionsdienstleistungen nach dem Kapitalmarktgesetz erbringen kann. Ferner wird auch die neuste Kundeneinstufung für die Anwendung verschiedener Behandlungsmaßstäbe – die auch von der Art der Dienstleistung selbst abhängig sind – ausgearbeitet. Im zweiten Teil wird näher geprüft, welche Lösungen in den Allgemeingeschäftsbedingungen der Investitionsgesellschaften für Streitigkeiten mit Kunden vorgesehen seien. In Verbindung dazu wird auch geprüft, welche Gerichte sachliche Zuständigkeit haben, über Streitigkeiten im Zivilverfahren zwischen Investitionsgesellschaften und deren Kunden, wie auch über Widersprüche zu entscheiden. In dieser Hinsicht werden auch Argumente die dafür sprechen, dass alle Streitigkeiten im Zivilverfahren zwischen Investitionsgesellschaften und deren Kunden de lege ferende zur sachlichen Zuständigkeit der Handelsgerichte gehören, in Erwägung gezogen. Durchgeführte Analyse zugänglicher Rechtsprechungsdatenbanken weist auf Nichtvorhandensein zivilrechtlicher Streitigkeiten zwischen Investitionsgesellschaften und deren Kunden, im Gegensatz zu einer großen Zahl von Verwaltungsstreitverfahren. Nachdem die Kroatische Behörde für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht ein Aufsichtsverfahren durchgeführt hat und eine Aufsichtsmaßnahme angeordnet wurde, leiten Investitionsgesellschaften meistens Verwaltungsstreitverfahren ein. Typische Verletzungen im Handeln von Investitionsgesellschaften und deren Kunden werden untersucht, und auf Grund dessen, Schlussfolgerungen und Vorschläge de lege ferenda vorgelegt.RLETZUNGEN DER REGE

Tackling Empty Voting in the EU: The Shareholders’ Rights Directive and the Revised Transparency Directive

The rise of the capital market creates new, less noticeable forms of holdings of shares. These holdings could be acquired with the aim of influencing a company’s decision-making process without the intention to hold shares for the long term. One of the forms is new vote buying which can appear either as empty voting or as hidden ownership. Empty voting refers to voting by a shareholder without the corresponding financial interest in the company involved. The reverse situation is hidden ownership whereby a party is not the shareholder but is entitled to exercise influence and eventually vote as if he/she were a shareholder. If a shareholder has an ownership interest in the company in which he/she votes, his/her voting would be aligned with the interests of the company. If a shareholder votes for a decision contrary to the company’s interest, it would affect his/her own economic interests because the shares could have been sold even before the shareholder’s meeting occurred. There are many techniques that lead to empty voting. Those most commonly used are: borrowing shares, using equity swaps or buying shares on a date close to the record date and then selling them again right after the record date has elapsed. As a result, a person casting their vote at the general meeting might not be the ‘actual’ shareholder. The admissibility of these votes and their effects have been discussed in well-known judicial cases. Having noticed a rise of abusive situations created by using empty voting techniques at the EU level, the revised Transparency Directive set out to deal with these issues. It entered into force on 26 November 2013 with the deadline for implementation set at 26 November 2015. However, since the Transparency Directive is a minimum harmonisation Directive, Member States have substantial liberty in its implementation which might lead to a divergent level of investor protection. Further, since the development of capital markets leads to the appearance of new forms of derivatives and other financial instruments which could create an ‘empty voting’ effect, EU Member States would be tempted to set rules that would, as far as possible, embrace all forms of empty voting in a so-called ‘catch all’ provision. This paper aims to examine how national legislators of the EU Member States have dealt with the issue of empty voting in light of the solutions provided in the Shareholders Rights Directive of 2007 and in the revised EU Transparency Directive of 2013

Tackling Empty Voting in the EU: The Shareholders’ Rights Directive and the Revised Transparency Directive

The rise of the capital market creates new, less noticeable forms of holdings of shares. These holdings could be acquired with the aim of influencing a company’s decision-making process without the intention to hold shares for the long term. One of the forms is new vote buying which can appear either as empty voting or as hidden ownership. Empty voting refers to voting by a shareholder without the corresponding financial interest in the company involved. The reverse situation is hidden ownership whereby a party is not the shareholder but is entitled to exercise influence and eventually vote as if he/she were a shareholder. If a shareholder has an ownership interest in the company in which he/she votes, his/her voting would be aligned with the interests of the company. If a shareholder votes for a decision contrary to the company’s interest, it would affect his/her own economic interests because the shares could have been sold even before the shareholder’s meeting occurred. There are many techniques that lead to empty voting. Those most commonly used are: borrowing shares, using equity swaps or buying shares on a date close to the record date and then selling them again right after the record date has elapsed. As a result, a person casting their vote at the general meeting might not be the ‘actual’ shareholder. The admissibility of these votes and their effects have been discussed in well-known judicial cases. Having noticed a rise of abusive situations created by using empty voting techniques at the EU level, the revised Transparency Directive set out to deal with these issues. It entered into force on 26 November 2013 with the deadline for implementation set at 26 November 2015. However, since the Transparency Directive is a minimum harmonisation Directive, Member States have substantial liberty in its implementation which might lead to a divergent level of investor protection. Further, since the development of capital markets leads to the appearance of new forms of derivatives and other financial instruments which could create an ‘empty voting’ effect, EU Member States would be tempted to set rules that would, as far as possible, embrace all forms of empty voting in a so-called ‘catch all’ provision. This paper aims to examine how national legislators of the EU Member States have dealt with the issue of empty voting in light of the solutions provided in the Shareholders Rights Directive of 2007 and in the revised EU Transparency Directive of 2013

SHAREHOLDERS’ PARTICIPATION IN THE WORK OF THE COMPANY’S GENERAL MEETING ACCORDING TO THE COMPANIES ACT AMENDMENTS

Posljednjom novelom Zakona o trgovačkim društvima, odnosno donošenjem Zakona o izmjenama i dopunama Zakona o trgovačkim društvima iz 2009. godine , koji je stupio na snagu i počeo se primjenjivati 1. svibnja 2010. godine, u naše zakonodavstvo provedene su odredbe Direktive Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća 2007/36/EC o ostvarenju određenih prava dioničara u dioničkim društvima dionice kojih su uvrštene na uređeno tržište radi trgovanja od 11. srpnja 2007. Iako polje primjene Direktive obvezuje države članice na provedbi odredbi samo glede uvrštenih dioničkih društava, u našem pravu je ta direktiva provedena na način da se primjenjuje i na društva čije dionice nisu uvrštene na uređeno tržište, dok su za uvrštena društva mjestimično zadržana posebna rješenja. U radu se analiziraju nova rješenja ZTD-a o navedenim pravima dioničara u pripremi skupšine i na samoj skupštini te se ista dovode u vezu s rješenjima Direktive.By the most recent Companies Act amendments, that is by the Act on Amendments and Supplements to the 2009 Companies Act, which entered into force and started to be applied in practice on 1st of May, 2010., the provisions of the Directive 2007/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the exercise of certain rights of shareholders in listed companies from 11th of July, 2007, have been implemented within our legal system. Although the field of Directive implementation obliges member states to implement provisions only in respect to listed companies, this Directive is implemented in our law in a way that rules set by its provisions are also biding for companies whose shares are not admitted to trading on a regulated market, while there are same special rules imposed for listed companies. The article analyses the new legal solutions prescribed by the Companies Act regarding the aforesaid rights of shareholders in preparations for and during the meeting in relation to solutions contained within the Directive

LARGE COMPANIES SAVING PEOPLE AND THE PLANET – REFLECTIONS ON THE PERSONAL SCOPE OF THE APPLICATION OF THE CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY DUE DILIGENCE DIRECTIVE

On 23 February 2022, the European Commission adopted a proposal for a Directive on corporate sustainability due diligence (hereinafter: CSDD). It aims to foster sustainable and responsible corporate behavior throughout global value chains. Companies will be required to identify and, where necessary, prevent, end, or mitigate adverse impacts of their activities on human rights (e.g., child labor, exploitation of workers) and on the environment (e.g. pollution and biodiversity loss). The CSDD would apply both to the EU and non-EU companies reaching certain thresholds in terms of the number of employees and amount of net turnover, with minor exemptions when the non-EU companies are concerned. Lower thresholds apply if the EU companies are doing business in the high-risk sectors, while the higher apply if the companies are operating in the non-high-risk sector. To comply with new due diligence rules, companies would be required to check whether their operations are aligned with human rights and environmental law conventions listed in the Annex of the CSDD, as well as the operation of its subsidiaries and all suppliers upstream and downstream in the value chain – with whom they have “established business relationship”. Given the fact that the new set of duties is comprehensive and their non-compliance triggers the company’s liability, the paper aims to compare these boundaries of the personal scope of the CSDD with criteria prescribed in similar national laws of the member states as well as to question defensive tactics of the target companies

Način obračuna kamatne stope kod potrošačkog zajma – otvorena pitanja hrvatskog prava i financijske prakse

Potrošači kao korisnici bankovnih usluga susreću se sa sve sofisticiranijim bankovnim proizvodima. To je posebno izraženo kod bankovnih usluga kreditnog tipa. Jedno od važnijih pitanja prilikom donošenja odluke o sklapanju ugovora o potrošačkog zajma je pitanje usporedivosti visine kamatnih stopa iskazanih u ponudama različitih kreditora. To omogućuje podatak o realnog godišnjoj kamatnoj stopi, ili kako se još naziva efektivnoj kamatnoj stopi, stoga se propisi europskog prava koji reguliraju ovo područje neprekidno se usavršavaju u cilju postizanja što ujednačenijeg načina obračunavanja, razumljivo, jer se ti krediti kao uostalom i druge usluge nude slobodno na prekograničnoj osnovi. Dorada načina obračuna ide u tom pravcu da se jasno nastoje odrediti svi troškovi koje treba odbiti prije samog obračuna kao troškove kredita, s obzirom da u tom pogledu postoje u zemljama članicama značajne razlike. Stoga se ti propisi nastavno izlažu, kao i naznačuju pravci njihovih izmjena. S druge strane, ukazuje se i na tendenciju propisivanja tzv. crnih klauzula kod potrošačkog zajma namijenjenih upravo tome se sankcionira nepoštena bankovna praksa. Obuhvaćanje tih klauzula tzv. crnom listom, ima za posljedicu njihovu ništavost. Zatim se pitanje načina obračuna realne godišnje kamatne stope kod potrošačkih zajmova sagledava kroz prizmu hrvatskih propisa. Pri tom se imaju u vidu dva takva propisa, onaj Hrvatske narodne banke, koji se primjenjuje na banke (kako kod kreditnih i depozitnih poslova), ali i propis Ministarstva gospodarstva rada i poduzetništa, koje je kao resorno ministarstva za zaštitu potrošača, donijelo propis sličnog polja primjene. Ti se propisi uspoređuju te empirički vrednuju. Nastavno se posebno skreće pozornost na utjecaj tzv. sigurnosnog pologa na način obračuna, te se upozorava na neusklađenost tih propisa kada je u pitanju jasno određenje troškovne baze