RINDAL AND ELCHINOV: A(N) (IMPENDING) REVOLUTION IN EU LAW ON PATIENT MOBILITY?

This paper critically analyses EU law on patient mobility, which has developed in the last decade. It covers the European Court of Justice case law applying internal market rules to social security coverage of foreign health treatment, its relationship with the EU rules on the co-ordination of social security systems, and the recent attempts at codifying the case law. The most recent EFTA Court judgment in the Rindal case, and its potential effects on EU law if the Court of Justice adopts the same reasoning in the pending Elchinov case, are investigated. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate the implications of EU law on patient mobility on national social security systems, namely their autonomy to define the scope of their coverage of health care treatment, and the consequences, within the framework of EU law, of applying certain legal techniques to define their social packages. Special emphasis is put on the new EU Member States and Croatia. It is argued that these states are in a particularly delicate position in relation to EU law in terms of maintaining the financial stability and the social (in terms of solidarity) character of their social security systems. The paper proposes certain solutions to accomplish a twofold objective: improving legal certainty at the European level (thus facilitating the free movement of patients), while, at the same time, respecting the Member States’ freedom to organise their social systems, in order to protect the solidarity on which those systems are based

RINDAL AND ELCHINOV: A(N) (IMPENDING) REVOLUTION IN EU LAW ON PATIENT MOBILITY?

This paper critically analyses EU law on patient mobility, which has developed in the last decade. It covers the European Court of Justice case law applying internal market rules to social security coverage of foreign health treatment, its relationship with the EU rules on the co-ordination of social security systems, and the recent attempts at codifying the case law. The most recent EFTA Court judgment in the Rindal case, and its potential effects on EU law if the Court of Justice adopts the same reasoning in the pending Elchinov case, are investigated. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate the implications of EU law on patient mobility on national social security systems, namely their autonomy to define the scope of their coverage of health care treatment, and the consequences, within the framework of EU law, of applying certain legal techniques to define their social packages. Special emphasis is put on the new EU Member States and Croatia. It is argued that these states are in a particularly delicate position in relation to EU law in terms of maintaining the financial stability and the social (in terms of solidarity) character of their social security systems. The paper proposes certain solutions to accomplish a twofold objective: improving legal certainty at the European level (thus facilitating the free movement of patients), while, at the same time, respecting the Member States’ freedom to organise their social systems, in order to protect the solidarity on which those systems are based

Rules for Rights: E uropean Law, Health Care and Social Citizenship

Social citizenship is about equality. The obvious problem for E uropean social citizenship in a very diverse U nion is that Member States will not be able or willing to bear the cost of establishing equal rights to health care and similar aspects of social citizenship. Health care is a particularly good case of this tension between EU citizenship and M ember S tate diversity. The E uropean C ourt of J ustice ( ECJ ) strengthened the right to health care in other Member States, but this cannot create an equal right to health care when Member States are so different. In its efforts to balance a E uropean right, the C ourt has formulated ‘rules for rights’—not so much European social citizenship rights, as a set of legal principles by which it judges the decisions of the M ember S tates.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/102057/1/eulj12036.pd

Health Care and the European Pillar of Social Rights: A Real Change or Everything Remains the Same?

Europski stup socijalnih prava jamči pravo pravodobnoga pristupa pristupačnoj i kvalitetnoj zdravstvenoj zaštiti svima u Europskoj uniji. Akcijski plan za njegovu provedbu određuje aktivnosti koje će Komisija poduzeti u njegovoj zaštiti. Najkonkretnija mjera koju će Komisija poduzeti predviđena je u sferi zdravstvenih podataka, dok su aktivnosti vezane za pristup zdravstvenoj zaštiti, uključujući problem velike nejednakosti unutar Unije, pretežno ograničene na mjerenje postojećega stanja, uz općenito pružanje potpore i poticaja zdravstvenim sustavima država članica. Aktivnost kojom Komisija može napraviti iskorak u odnosu na postojeće stanje i tako smanjiti razlike u pristupu zdravstvenoj zaštiti unutar Unije, (a koja nije predviđena Akcijskim planom), jest zajednička nabava lijekova, posebno onih iznimno skupih koji predstavljaju težak financijski teret za zdravstvene proračune država članica. To bi uključivalo donošenje jedinstvenoga sektorskog pravnog okvira za lijekove na razini Unije, na temelju članka 114. UFEU-a, kako bi se sustavom zajedničke nabave ujednačili tržišni uvjeti, uz koordinaciju Europske komisije koja bi djelovala zajedno s državama članicama. Time bi se ojačao pregovarački položaj naručitelja lijekova (nacionalnih zdravstvenih sustava) što bi moglo dovesti do ujednačavanja i olakšavanja pristupa iznimno skupim lijekovima za pacijente iz svih država članica Europske unije.The European Pillar of Social Rights guarantees the right to timely access the affordable health care of good quality to everyone in the European Union. The European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan sets the activities the Commission will undertake in the protection of the said right. The most concrete measure envisaged relates to the issue of health data, while the activities related to access, including the problem of enormous inequalities of access within the EU, are mainly limited to measuring the current situation, in addition to generally supporting and encouraging national health care policies. An activity which the Commission can undertake, and thus make a real difference, in order to tackle the problem of inequalities of access to health care in the EU (not envisaged by the Action Plan) is joint procurement of medicines, especially the ones which are extremely expensive and represent a heavy financial burden for the national health budgets. That would include an enactment of a sectoral legal framework for medicines, based on TFEU Art. 114. in order to harmonise market conditions, with the coordination conducted by the Commission acting jointly with the Member States. In this way, the negotiating position of national health authorities would be strengthened, which may lead to harmonisation and facilitation of access to extremely expensive medicines for patients from all the EU Member States

Eligibility of Mobile Workers for Retirement Pension Based on the Regulations on Social System Co-ordination in the European Union

Europska unija od svojih se početaka razvijala kao sektorska integracija usmjerena na stvaranje zajedničkog tržišta među državama članicama. U početku u obliku Europske zajednice za ugljen i čelik (EZUČ), na koju su se nadovezale Europska ekonomska zajednica (EEZ) i Europska zajednica za atomsku energiju (EURATOM), stvaranje zone slobodne trgovine i carinske unije predstavljalo je žarište integracijskoga procesa. U navedenom kontekstu socijalna sigurnost i redistribucija, uključujući mirovine, ostali su u primarnoj nadležnosti država članica tadašnjih zajednica. Usprkos ovoj podjeli nadležnosti između europske i nacionalne razine, mirovinski sustavi država članica nisu ostali nedirnuti europskim propisima. Razlog za ovakvo stanje leži u činjenici da sloboda kretanja radnika predstavlja jednu od temeljnih sloboda (uz slobodu kretanja roba, slobodu pružanja usluga, slobodu poslovnog nastana te slobodu kretanja kapitala) na kojima se od integracijskih početaka zasniva zajedničko europsko tržište. U opisanom kontekstu, stvarivanje prava na starosnu mirovinu bilo je nužno regulirati na europskoj razini kako radnici koji su iskoristili slobodu kretanja, odnosno rada u drugim državama članicama, ne bi, zbog svoje mobilnosti, bili stavljeni u nepovoljniji položaj od onoga u kojemu bi se našli da nisu iskoristili navedenu slobodu. Cilj je ovog članka dati pregled europskog pravnog okvira (danas EU) za ostvarivanje prava na starosnu mirovinu (koju isplaćuje država članica)radnika koji su iskoristili slobodu kretanja i rada u državi članici čiji nisu državljani, s posebnimnaglaskom na uredbe o koordinaciji sustava socijalne sigurnosti. Na taj način su, osim prava samih mobilnih radnika na starosnu mirovinu, prikazane i granice regulatorne autonomije država članica da same reguliraju pravo na starosnu mirovinu u okviru vlastitih mirovinskih sustava, koje im postavlja pravo EU-a. Navedeno pitanje je od važnosti i za Hrvatsku kao najnoviju državu članicu, koja svoje zakonodavstvo i pravnu praksu mora, sukladno tome, uskladiti s propisima Unije. U svrhu postizanja navedenoga cilja, članak se sastoji od više dijelova. U prvome dijelu analizira se primarno pravo Europske unije (prvenstveno Ugovor o EU-u i Ugovor o funkcioniranju EU-a) koje propisuje razgraničenje nadležnosti Unije i država članica u području mirovinskog sustava i mogućnosti reguliranja navedenog područja od strane Unije. Nakon toga analizira se sekundarno europsko zakonodavstvo (prvenstveno uredbe o koordinaciji sustava socijalne sigurnosti) koje detaljno određuje mogućnosti ostvarivanja prava na starosnu mirovinu mobilnih radnika u EU-u, zajedno s relevantnom sudskom praksom Europskoga suda pravde u ovome području. Kroz navedenu praksu prikazani su problemi koji se javljaju u te njihovo rješavanje u konkretnim pojedinačnim slučajevima. Analiza pokazuje da su nadležnosti EU-a u području mirovina te njene mogućnosti za ujednačavanje nacionalnih mirovinskih sustava vrlo ograničene. Unija se prvenstveno bavi rješavanjem pitanja socijalne sigurnosti mobilnih radnika kako bi se olakšala njihova sloboda kretanja među državama članicama. U tom okviru, uredbe o koordinaciji sustava socijalne sigurnosti predstavljaju najvažniji instrument za postizanje prava na starosnu mirovinu mobilnih radnika koji svoj radni vijek provedu u više od jedne države članice. Ipak, zbog ograničenih mogućnosti same koordinacije i složenosti njenih pravila o određivanju primjenjiva nacionalnog zakonodavstva, mobilnom radniku nije lako utvrditi koja prava mu/joj pripadaju, što otežava mobilnost unutar EU-a. Pored toga, sudska praksa Europskoga suda pravde u nekim područjima samo je doprinijela složenosti europskih propisa o koordinaciji sustava socijalne sigurnosti. S obzirom na sve navedeno, jasno je da se bitno poboljšanje i pojednostavljenje pravnog položaja mobilnih radnika u pogledu ostvarivanja prava na starosnu mirovinu ne može postići bez znatnijeg ujednačavanja propisa država članica. Za navedeno ujednačavanje nužno je pak olakšati donošenje europskih harmonizacijskih propisa, što se ne čini izglednim. Osim toga, modifikacija sudske prakse Europskoga suda pravde u pogledu Petroni načela mogla bi imati pozitivne učinke na pojašnjenje europskoga regulatornog okvira u ovome području.European Union has from its inception been developing as a sectoral organisation focused on foundation of a common market among the member states. Since its inception in the form of European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), which was followed by European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM), the establishment of free trade zone and the customs union represented the crux of integration process. Against the backdrop of the previously described context, social security and redistribution, including pensions, remained within the area of primary jurisdiction of member states of the communities existing at the time. Irrespective of this distribution of jurisdiction between the European and the national level, pension systems in member states were affected by the European regulations. The reasons for this state of affairs is due to the fact that free movement of labour is considered one of the fundamental rights (in addition to free movement of goods, free provision of services, free business location, as well as free movement of capital) which have been the foundations for the European single market since the inception of integration. Against the backdrop of the previously described context, eligibility for retirement pension required regulation at the European level, in order to ensure that the workers who had exercised the right of free movement, or the right to work in other member states, are not placed in a more unfavorable position due to their mobility compared with the position they would have occupied had they not exercised the previously mentioned right to freedom of movement. This article is aiming to provide an overview of the European legal framework (currently the EU legal framework) for eligibility for retirement pension (paid by the member state) of workers who had exercised their right to free movement and work in a member state whose nationality they do not possess, with a special emphasis on regulations on social security system co-ordination. Consequently, in addition the entitlement of mobile workers to retirement pension, an overview has been provided also of the limits of regulatory autonomy of member states concerning the right to regulate the eligibility for retirement pension within their own pension systems in compliance with the EU laws. The previously mentioned issue is significant also in case of Croatia as the newest member state which hence needs to harmonise its legislation and legal practices with the EU directives. The article comprises of several parts in order to achieve the previously mentioned objective. In the first section, it analyses the primary law of the European Union (primarily the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) which prescribes the distribution of jurisdiction of the Union and the member states in the area of the pension system and the possibility of regulation of the previously mentioned area by the Union. Subsequently, secondary law of the EU is analysed (focusing on regulations on social security system co-ordination) which comprehensively defines the eligibility for exercising the right to retirement pension of mobile workers in the EU, along with the relevant court reports by the European Court of Justice in this area. The previously mentioned court reports presented the problems encountered in case law, as well as the solutions provided in concrete individual cases. The analysis showed that jurisdiction of the EU in the area of retirement pensions, as well as its opportunities for harmonization of national pension systems are considerably restricted. The Union is primarily involved in addressing the issues of movement among its member states. Against the backdrop of this framework, regulations on social security system co-ordination are considered as the fundamental instrument for eligibility for retirement pension of mobile workers who spend their working age in more than one member state. Nevertheless, due to restricted opportunities of the co-ordination and the complexity of its rules on defining the applicable national legislation, it is not easy to establish the rights of mobile workers which hinders mobility within the EU. Moreover, case reports by the European Court of Justice in some areas has only enhanced the complexity of European regulations on social security system co-ordination. Consequently, it is evident that a significant improvement and simplification of legal position of mobile workers, concerning their eligibility for retirement pension, cannot be achieved without substantial harmonization of the regulations among member states. The implementation of the stated harmonization requires the enactment of harmonization of regulations at the European level, which does not appear probable. Furthermore, modification of case reports of the European Court of Justice concerning the Petroni principles could positively impact on clarification of the EU regulatory framework in this area

The Right to Healthcare in the European Union and Canada: The Role of the Centre in Complex Entities

The right to healthcare is a socio-economic right. It is positive in the sense that governments need to provide resources and set the priorities for individuals to be able to exercise it. The provision of healthcare within complex political entities such as the European Union (EU) and Canada is divided between different actors, namely the federal government and provinces in the case of Canada, and European institutions and Member States in the case of the EU. The paper analyses the EU and Canadian legal frameworks and attempts to determine the right balance of power between the centre and the constituent parts in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to healthcare

NAČELO ZAŠTITE LEGITIMNIH OČEKIVANJA U UPRAVNOM PRAVU EUROPSKE UNIJE I PRAVNA AUTONOMIJA DRŽAVA ČLANICA

Zaštita legitimnih očekivanja opće je načelo prava Europske unije koje se razvilo kroz praksu Suda Europske unije. Analiza te prakse ukazala je na više otvorenih pitanja koja uključuju, među ostalim, kada je zakonodavac Europske unije vezan legitimnim očekivanjima stranaka koje je stvorilo prethodno, u međuvremenu izmijenjeno, zakonodavstvo Unije; u kojim situacijama prethodna upravna praksa stvara legitimna očekivanja; nelegitimnost očekivanja koja su nastala u spekulativne svrhe; razliku u pravnoj snazi protupravnih upravnih odluka i drugih postupanja uprave za nastanak legitimnih očekivanja. Također se postavilo pitanje odnosa prava Europske unije i autonomije država članica, vezano uz mogućnost da nezakoniti upravni akti stvore legitimna očekivanja te istek nacionalnog zakonskog roka za ukidanje nezakonitog rješenja kojim je stranka stekla neko pravo, u kojem slučaju se država članica ne može pozivati na nacionalna pravila upravnog postupka zbog povrede načela djelotvornosti prava Europske unije. Cilj ovog rada je analizirati navedena pitanja te utvrditi može li se regulatorni okvir Europske unije unaprijediti kako bi se izbjegli problemi u praksi koji se mogu pojaviti. U analizi se koristi praksa Suda Europske unije i pravni akti Europske unije te domaća i strana literatura iz područja upravnog, ustavnog i europskog prava. Opisani problemi ilustriraju manjkavost trenutačnog pravnog uređenja Europske unije s mnoštvom pravnih izvora te ukazuju na potrebu kodifikacije upravnog postupka pred tijelima Unije. Dosad je bilo više inicijativa za kodifikacijom, no bez uspjeha, mada pravna osnova u Ugovoru o funkcioniranju Europske unije postoji. Svakako bi buduća zakonodavna rješenja na razini Unije trebala jasno isključiti mogućnost da nezakoniti upravni akti stvaraju legitimna očekivanja. Na taj način ne bi postojao ni različiti tretman nezakonitih nacionalnih upravnih odluka koje praktički ne mogu stvoriti legitimna očekivanja. Također bi trebalo izbjegavati nejasne i gotovo arbitrarne situacije, poput isključenja legitimnosti očekivanja koja su nastala u spekulativne svrhe, budući da nije jednostavno definirati kriterije kada je nešto spekulacija, a kada je legitimno korištenje promjene pravnog okvira na tržištu. Trebalo bi svakako izbjegavati različite kriterije u različitim područjima za koje ne postoji osnova u osnivačkim ugovorima

Legal Status of the Catholic Church as an Economic Entity in EU and Croatian Law

U radu se analizira primjenjivost pravnog okvira EU-a u području državnih potpora, tržišnog natjecanja i slobode kretanja usluga na djelatnost Katoličke Crkve, ponajprije s obzirom na pitanje obavlja li Katolička Crkva gospodarsku djelatnost i u kojem opsegu prema tom pravnom okviru, te se utvrđuje poštuje li Republika Hrvatska navedeni okvir i postoje li točke prijepora koje je potrebno pravno razriješiti. Ističu se nepoznanice koje praksa Suda Europske unije nije još do kraja razriješila, a tiču se primjenjivosti tržišnih pravila EU-a na vjerske zajednice. Također se prezentira skup pravnih pravila koja unutar Republike Hrvatske reguliraju položaj Katoličke Crkve, uz poseban naglasak na moguće točke prijepora u odnosu na pravo EU-a. Na kraju se predlažu moguća rješenja navedenih nejasnoća i prijepora, na europskoj i na nacionalnoj razini, sukladno načelu pravne sigurnosti kao iznimno bitnom za adresate predmetnih pravnih normi.Regulation of the Catholic Church’s legal status in the European Union primarily falls within the competences of the Member States. The Croatian legal framework in this respect consists of various types of legal rules, most important of which is the set of international agreements entered into between the Republic of Croatia and the Holy See. Still, EU competition, state aid and free movement rules affect this legal framework to a significant degree. The aim of this paper is to analyse the applicability of the said EU rules to the activities of the Catholic Church in Croatia, that is to determine whether the Catholic Church can be considered an undertaking conducting an economic activity (and to what degree) according to the said legal framework, whether the Croatian national legal framework is aligned with the EU rules, and whether there are points of contention in this area which need to be legally rectified. The second part of this paper analyses the European Union state aid and free movement legal framework, primarily trying to determine whether the Catholic Church is an undertaking carrying out an economic activity as prescribed by EU law. In this analysis, several issues emerge which have not been clearly resolved by the Court of Justice. The following part features an outline of the Croatian national legal framework on the legal status of the Catholic Church, focusing on potential points of contention between the national and the EU law. Finally, certain solutions to the mentioned issues are proposed, on the European and the national level, in accordance with legal certainty as the general principle of (EU) law

THE EU COMPETITION AND STATE AID RULES AND COMPLEMENTARY HEALTH INSURANCE IN THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA

Pravila o tržišnom natjecanju i državnim potporama nisu primjenjiva na obvezno zdravstveno osiguranje u Republici Hrvatskoj, budući da ono ne predstavlja gospodarsku aktivnost u smislu prava Europske unije. S druge strane, dopunsko zdravstveno osiguranje, kakvo postoji u Republici Hrvatskoj, predstavlja gospodarsku aktivnost jer u ovom području u Hrvatskoj nedvojbeno postoji stvarno tržišno natjecanje između poduzetnika. U opisanoj situaciji postojanja natjecanja na tržištu dopunskog zdravstvenog osiguranja, može se ustvrditi da posebna pravila koja se primjenjuju na Hrvatski zavod za zdravstveno osiguranje (HZZO) dovode do njegova povlaštenog položaja u odnosu na društva za osiguranje na koja se ta pravila ne primjenjuju. Navedeni povlašteni položaj dodatno je ojačan činjenicom da HZZO kao zakonski monopolist obveznog zdravstvenog osiguranja koristi svoju infrastrukturu u sferi dopunskog zdravstvenog osiguranja, što mu omogućuje smanjenje troškova u odnosu na društva za osiguranje koja nemaju takvu povlasticu. Rješenje za navedenu situaciju može biti osnivanje posebnog subjekta od strane države koji bi obavljao djelatnost dopunskog zdravstvenog osiguranja. Ovakav subjekt morao bi sklapati police sa svim osiguranicima s jednakom premijom i zajamčenim jednakim paketom usluga bez obzira na njihovu dob, spol i zdravstveno stanje. Kako bi se spriječilo da privatni konkurenti, preuzimanjem isključivo osiguranika s povoljnijim profilom rizika, ugroze funkcioniranje usluge od općeg interesa, oni bi morali, prema jasno i objektivno određenim kriterijima, transferirati sredstva javnom subjektu koji bi, za razliku od njih, morao sklapati ugovore s osiguranicima svih profila, uključujući i one s nepovoljnijim profilom rizika od tržišnog, poput starijih osoba i kroničnih bolesnika. Na ovaj način, pomirila bi se potreba očuvanja usluge od općeg interesa, odnosno dostupnosti dopunskog zdravstvenog osiguranja svim osobama uključujući one sa slabijim profilom rizika, s natjecanjem na unutarnjem tržištu Europske unije.Competition and state aid rules are not applicable to compulsory health insurance in the Republic of Croatia, since the latter does not constitute an economic activity as defined by EU law. On the other hand, complementary health insurance, as established in Croatia, constitutes an economic activity, due to the existence of real competition between undertakings. The illustrated situation with competition in complementary health insurance market allows for the statement that special rules applicable to Croatian Health Insurance Fund (HZZO) provide the latter with a privileged position when compared to its private competitors to whom these rules do not apply. Moreover, this privileged position is strengthened by the fact that HZZO, as a legal monopolist within the sphere of compulsory health insurance, utilizes respective infrastructure in the field of complementary health insurance, which enables it to reduce expenses to the detriment of its private competitors lacking such a privilege. A solution for the described situation could be for the state to establish a separate entity to provide complementary health insurance. This entity would have to provide open enrolment and community rating, regardless of age, sex or health of the insured persons. In order to prevent private competitors from jeopardising the exercise of service of general economic interest by taking over only the insured persons with a more favourable risk profile, a risk equalisation scheme would have to be set up. This would result in a transfer of funds from insurers with a favourable risk profile to those with an unfavourable risk profile on basis of objective and clear criteria, thereby making it possible for the latter to provide service to the higher-risk insured persons like the elderly and the ones with chronic illnesses. In this way, a balance between the necessity to provide a service of general economic interest to all insured persons, including those with a higher risk, and competition on the EU internal market, would be struck

Services of General Economic Interest in EU Law and the Croatian Legal Framework in Selected Administrative Areas

Usluge od općeg gospodarskog interesa složena su sfera prava. Predstavljaju iznimno važan dio trgovine na unutarnjem tržištu Europske unije te gospodarstva EU-a u cjelini. One obuhvaćaju vrlo širok spektar ljudskih djelatnosti i prisutne su u svim sferama naših života. Među njih pripadaju usluge oko čije gospodarske prirode nema nikakvih dilema, ali i one čiji je način organiziranja i financiranja specifičan te je podložan posebnim pravnim režimima, poput zdravstva, obrazovanja, javnog prijevoza i slično. Ta posebna uloga određenih vrsta usluga dovela je do definiranja koncepta “usluga od općeg gospodarskog interesa” u pravnom okviru Europske unije, s neizbježnim posljedicama na pravni okvir država članica EU-a, uključujući i Hrvatsku. One nisu u potpunosti definirane primarnim pravom EU-a, već je konkretno određivanje što predmetni pojam obuhvaća prepušteno autonomiji država članica. Navedena autonomija, međutim, nije apsolutna, već su okviri definirani pravom Unije, a ključan faktor pri određivanju ovih usluga predstavlja njihova gospodarska, odnosno negospodarska priroda, jer su usluge od općeg gospodarskog interesa podvrgnute tržišnim pravilima EU-a, za razliku od onih negospodarskih. Sudska praksa u ovom dijelu vrlo je složena te se primjenjivost tržišnih pravila utvrđuje kazuistički. U slučaju gospodarskih usluga kod kojih su zadovoljeni uvjeti iz predmeta Altmark, tržišna pravila EU-a uopće nisu primjenjiva i država može ovlastiti poduzetnika za pružanje usluge od općeg gospodarskog interesa i dati mu financijsku potporu u tu svrhu. Drugo, ako tržišna pravila jesu primjenjiva, odstupanje nacionalnih pravila od tržišta ipak će se moći opravdati ako je to odstupanje nužno za ostvarenje cilja od općeg interesa radi kojeg se određena usluga pruža. Cilj ovog rada je analizirati pravni okvir Europske unije koji uređuje usluge od općeg gospodarskog interesa, odnos ovog koncepta prema pravilima o slobodi kretanja, zaštiti tržišnog natjecanja i državnim potporama na unutarnjem tržištu EU-a te utvrditi poštuje li Republika Hrvatska navedeni okvir i postoje li prijepori u domaćem upravnom pravu koje je potrebno pravno razriješiti. Analiza odnosa pravnog okvira EU-a i hrvatskog upravnopravnog okvira u pojedinim područjima pokazuje visok stupanj usklađenosti nacionalnog prava s tržišnim pravilima Unije. To je posebno slučaj u područjima koja su uređena detaljnijim pravilima (primjerice, o državnim potporama) sadržanim u sekundarnom zakonodavstvu EU-a. S druge strane, u područjima koja pripadaju u primarnu nadležnost država članica, poput zdravstva i obrazovanja, postoje određene dileme o usklađenosti nacionalnog i europskog prava. U nacionalnom zakonodavstvu koje uređuje potonje potrebno je napraviti jasnu distinkciju između gospodarskih i negospodarskih usluga od općeg interesa kako bi se povećala pravna sigurnost i izbjegle sumnje o nelegalnom državnom favoriziranju javnih ustanova na štetu privatnih.Regulation of services of general economic interest is a very complex area of law. They represent an extremely vital part of trade on the internal market of the European Union and of the economy of the EU as a whole. They encompass a very wide spectrum of human activities and are present in all spheres of life. There are those whose economic nature poses no dillemmas, but also those whose organisation and funding is specific and subject to special legal regulation, such as health care, education, public transport etc. EU primary law does not define them, but rather leaves it to the autonomy of the Member States. However, the said autonomy is not absolute, with the overall framework being defined by the EU. The crucial factor in this regard is the economic nature of the services in question, since only economic services fall within the ambit of EU market rules. Case-law in this area is very complex, with the applicability of market rules being determined casuistically. In case of economic services where the Altmark criteria are fulfilled, EU internal market rules are also not applicable. Consequently, the state can entrust an undertaking with the exercise of a service of general economic interest, as well as provide it with financial assistance necessary to carry out the task with which it is entrusted. Finally, even if market rules are applicable, national divergence from the market rules can be justified if it is necessary for the exercise of the general interest in question. The aim of this paper is to analyse the regulatory framework of the European Union that defines services of general economic interest, the intersection of this concept regarding the rules on free movement, competition and state aid on the internal market of the EU, and to ascertain whether the Republic of Croatia respects the aforementioned regulatory framework and whether there are issues in domestic administrative law which need resolving. The analysis has shown that the Croatian administrative legal framework is to a large extent compatible with EU law. This is especially the case in the areas regulated by EU secondary legislation, containing detailed rules on the issue of services of general economic interest. It is a somewhat different situation in the areas which primarily fall within the competence of the Member States, like health care and education. Here, it is necessary for national law to make a clear distinction between economic and non-economic services of general interest. The latter is needed to increase legal certainty and to clear doubts about the state illegally prioritising public entities over private ones