Influence of globalization on the regional capital markets and consequences : evidence from Warsaw stock exchange

The Warsaw Stock Exchange (WSE) is one of the newcomers on the European stock market and at the same time is one of the fast developing stock exchanges in Europe. The development of WSE could be an example of successful development of a national stock exchange into a regional in a relatively short period of time. This article provides analysis of the main trends of development of the WSE through its history to show how globalization influenced regional stock exchanges and to determine key factors that affected its successful development. The WSE is one of the most popular stock exchanges in the Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). Two main lists: Main List and NewConnect are characterized by types of investors, trading turnover and number of companies listed. The article provides quantitative and qualitative analysis of the official reports and analytical papers of key audit and consulting experts that cover both lists of the exchange. The article provides comparison of WSE key performance parameters with major European stock exchanges through 2001 - 2014 and shows those main characteristics of the stock exchange that were mostly influenced by the globalization. Further, the paper shows main consequences of globalization affecting regional stock exchanges. Collected information and results are presented both in tables and in graphical formats.peer-reviewe

To Refer or Not to Refer, That Is the (Preliminary) Question: Exploring Factors Which Influence the Participation of National Judges in the Preliminary Ruling Procedure

This paper explores factors that either motivate or constrain national judges’ participation in the preliminary ruling procedure. By incorporating insights and evidence from American judicial politics literature and drawing from three models of judicial decision making: the attitudinal model, the team model, and the resource management model, it places the study of judicial behaviour with respect to the preliminary ruling procedure on more rigorous theoretical grounds. The paper is based on survey results conducted among 415 national judges from two new EU Member States: Slovenia and Croatia. In line with the theoretical predictions, the results show that the decision to make a referral to the CJEU is determined by several individual- and court-level factors. These are the position that a court occupies in a national judicial hierarchy, the judicial workload and availability of resources, and judges’ knowledge and experiences with respect to EU law and Article 267 TFEU proceedings

The Croatian Constitutional Court:From a potentially powerful court to a court of rejections

The creation of the Croatian Constitutional Court (CrCC) in 1990 marked a new era in Croatian constitutional history. Giving the newly established Court the power of judicial review changed its relationship vis-à-vis the legislator and paved a way for an ‘independent and potentially powerful court’. The present chapter explores empirically and systematically the decisions of the CrCC from the period of its creation in 1990 until 2020 to assess to what extent the decisions of the CrCC constrained the room for manoeuvre of the legislative power in Croatia. The analysis shows that while the Court has moved from a careful, self-restraining approach that dominated its practice in the 1990s to a more activist approach, the influence of the Court over the legislator has been, at best, only average. With as much as three-fourths of all the Croatian Constitutional Court’s rulings ending in rejection and with the Court leaving the legislator considerable room to manoeuvre, it seems that the CrCC has not lived up to the expectations to become ‘a potentially powerful court’. Yet, as I discuss in the chapter, the growing trend of dissenting opinions in recent years and greater ideological differences among the judges could potentially change the Court’s position vis-à-vis the legislative branch in the future.</p

Private-Interests Actors as Catalysts for Actions under Public Law:Towards a Research Agenda for Legal Mobilisation of Private-Interests Actors in the Preliminary Ruling Procedure

For more than two decades now, scholars of European legal mobilisation have looked at the role of litigants and their lawyers in the ‘judicial construction of Europe’ through the preliminary ruling procedure before the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU). Looking at who are these actors that have raised claims based on EU law before national courts, the literature has focused predominantly on the area of EU non-discrimination, migration and environmental law. Scholars wrote on the essential role of equality bodies, trade unions and NGOs in pushing for the development of EU law and policy in these fields through preliminary questions to the CJEU. The role of private-interests actors in EU legal mobilisation –undertakings, companies, business, industry and other for-profit actors – has, by contrast, been neglected. Building on five main arguments – the origin of the EU as an economic organisation, the economic focus of EU legislation,the concentration of referrals in regions with a strong commercial/trade focus, the role of transnational activity on the referral rates, and commercial/trade focus of preliminary questions – this article demonstrates that private-interestsactors are overlooked yet extremely important catalysts for actions under public law. The aim of this article is to set a research agenda on the role of private-interests actors as important Repeat Players in EU legal mobilisation via the preliminary ruling procedure. Questions that this article raises are as follows: who are these private-interests actors that mobilise EU law? What are their motivations and strategies? And how do these differ from those of public-interests actors? This article aims to identify a critical role that private-interests actors play in shaping legal mobilisation and (ultimately) legal integration in the EU

Private-Interests Actors as Catalysts for Actions under Public Law:Towards a Research Agenda for Legal Mobilisation of Private-Interests Actors in the Preliminary Ruling Procedure

For more than two decades now, scholars of European legal mobilisation have looked at the role of litigants and their lawyers in the ‘judicial construction of Europe’ through the preliminary ruling procedure before the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU). Looking at who are these actors that have raised claims based on EU law before national courts, the literature has focused predominantly on the area of EU non-discrimination, migration and environmental law. Scholars wrote on the essential role of equality bodies, trade unions and NGOs in pushing for the development of EU law and policy in these fields through preliminary questions to the CJEU. The role of private-interests actors in EU legal mobilisation –undertakings, companies, business, industry and other for-profit actors – has, by contrast, been neglected. Building on five main arguments – the origin of the EU as an economic organisation, the economic focus of EU legislation,the concentration of referrals in regions with a strong commercial/trade focus, the role of transnational activity on the referral rates, and commercial/trade focus of preliminary questions – this article demonstrates that private-interestsactors are overlooked yet extremely important catalysts for actions under public law. The aim of this article is to set a research agenda on the role of private-interests actors as important Repeat Players in EU legal mobilisation via the preliminary ruling procedure. Questions that this article raises are as follows: who are these private-interests actors that mobilise EU law? What are their motivations and strategies? And how do these differ from those of public-interests actors? This article aims to identify a critical role that private-interests actors play in shaping legal mobilisation and (ultimately) legal integration in the EU

The Reality of National Judges as EU Law Judges: Knowledge, Experiences and Attitudes of Lower Court Judges in Slovenia and Croatia

With a Member State’s accession to the EU, national judges acquire new powers as well as responsibilities. National judges as ‘juges communautaire de droit commun’ are expected to uphold the principle of EU law supremacy; interpret national law in conformity with EU law; set aside national provisions incompatible with EU law rules; when required, apply EU law ex officio; and send a preliminary question to the CJEU when the CJEU’s answers are needed for the resolution of a domestic legal dispute. Yet, is this feasible and how does this description of the EU law-minded national judge compare with reality? Based on survey and interview results with judges, this paper explores the knowledge of, experiences with, and attitudes towards EU law among lower court judges in Slovenia and Croatia. The paper aims to compare the reality of the application of EU law by national judges with the EU’s expectations of them. The results reveal that national judges are sceptical of their knowledge of EU law, encounter EU law only sporadically, and are fairly pessimistic of their role as EU law judges. Furthermore, this paper reveals that the constraints to the effective application of EU law by national judges do not necessarily stem from any negative sentiment towards the EU or EU law, but are rather of a practical nature. I discuss the relevance of these findings for discussions on the Europeanisation of national judiciaries

From a potentially powerful to a polarised court:the emergence of dissenting opinions on the Croatian Constitutional Court

One of the most important aspects of making the 1990 Croatian Constitutional Court was the ‘establishment of an independent and potentially powerful’ court. For the first time since 1963, the Court obtained full powers of judicial review. Yet, despite its newly gained powers, the Croatian Constitutional Court refrained from an activist approach adopted by other constitutional courts in the region and was not fond of annulling laws adopted by the legislator. One possible explanation of such a conformist approach was the ideological consonance between the centre-right legislative and the centre-right Court. Most of the constitutional judges were appointed by the centre-right party (HDZ), which held the majority in the Parliament during the first decade of the country’s independence. However, recent years have witnessed an increase in the dissenting opinions, following the nomination of five judges from the centre-left opposition (SDP) to a predominantly centre-right Court. Based on the large-scale data collection efforts, this paper looks into the origin of these nominations, as well as their effect on the emergance of dissenting opinion and the growing ideological polarisation on the Court, which changed the relationship between judicial and legislative powers in Croatia.</p