Kada je i zašto “pečat” Europske unije nedovoljan? - Upozorenja sustavima na putu prema Europskoj uniji

Due to the principle of subsidiarity, European Union law is inherently incomplete. Hence, neither the transposition of the acquis communautaire, nor the law or impetuses coming from Brussels is a panacea to numerous real-life legal, economic or political problems not being focused upon by the Union. This is often forgotten not just by countries approaching the Union but also by the Members States. The article is a review of a number of such legal and economic challenges faced in particular by Central European and ex-Yugoslav successor states, from such new transplants as franchise through risks of the pyramid and Ponzi schemes from the realms of financial law.Zbog primjene načela supsidijarnosti pravo Europske unije u svojoj je naravi nepotpuno. Stoga ni prijenos i usvajanje acquis communautairea, ni pravo i poticaji koji dolaze iz Bruxellesa nisu rješenje za mnogobrojne, svakodnevne pravne, ekonomske i političke probleme koji nisu u fokusu interesa Europske unije. To se često zaboravlja ne samo u zemljama pristupnicama već i u zemljama članicama. U radu je analiziran niz takvih pravnih i ekonomskih izazova s kojima su posebice suočene države jugoistočne Europe i države sljednice bivše Jugoslavije. Iako su primjeri ponajprije iz sfera građanskog i trgovačkog prava, izabrani slučajevi imaju i javnopravnu dimenziju. U vezi s rastućom, no istodobno i vrlo upitnom, djelatnošću novih agencija za naplatu dugova u regiji, na primjer, može se postaviti legitimno pitanje ustavnopravne naravi tko snosi odgovornost za izostanak regulacije. Isto vrijedi i za toleriranje tako velikih problema poput opće nelikvidnosti s lančanim učinkom. Razlozi, povezani rizici, regulatorne reakcije (ako postoje) i poznata rješenja razlikuju se s obzirom na svaki od izloženih problema. Dok je većina postsocijalističkih država regije reformirala svoja prava realnog osiguranja tražbina (založno pravo) i još su u postupku prilagodbe novih instituta nadahnutih praksom common lawa, franšiza je gotovo neprimjetno postala jedan od najpopularnijih složenijih ugovora i poslovnih modela u regiji, iako ne svuda u istoj mjeri. U pogledu franšize ne samo da je izostala reakcija zakonodavca, već nedostaje i jasan odgovor na neka temeljna pitanja ugovora poput onoga je li nužna asimetričnost pripadajuća poslovnom modelu franchisinga u skladu s općim načelima privatnog, konkretnije građanskog prava. Slučajevi piramidalnih prijevara i Ponzi shema instruktivni su zbog drugih razloga: nijedna postsocijalistička država nije izbjegla pojavu tih patoloških financijskih fenomena, a zbog izostanka odgovarajuće regulacije i sankcije postoji tendencija njihova ponovnog javljanja u promijenjenim oblicima. Kako se oni uobičajeno ne smatraju problemom u nadležnosti pravnika, zakonodavci, regulatori i suci koji su suočeni s ovim vješto prikrivenim poslovnim modelima ne mogu primjereno reagirati. Zajednički nazivnik svih ovih problema i pojava jest da oni nisu regulirani pravom Europske unije te stoga ni bilo kakvo rješenje za njih nije ponuđeno tim pravom. Svaka jurisdikcija, pravni sustav određene države, ostavljena je stoga da sama pronalazi i primjenjuje primjerene pravne mehanizme radi zaštite od tih pojava i borbe s njima

The resurrection of field warehousing

Irrespective the many secured transactions reform projects around the globe, field warehousing as a peculiar constructive pledge-based (or pledge by bailment) security device, and what it may offer especially to emerging markets, has largely escaped attention. The few international projects that devoted some attention to warehousing as a financing method were almost invariably limited to public (terminal) warehousing or have canvassed an incomplete picture about this many-faced security device.Scholarly neglect is characteristic also to the United States (US), where field warehousing as a security device has had presumably the richest history yet has declined after the adoption of the unitary Article 9 system of the Uniform Commercial Code by the States. In new forms, adapted to the changing business needs, however, the industry has survived to date. While what is of little importance in the US, should be invaluable to reform systems, which could enormously profit from the US experiences yet by taking a look not only at contemporary but more importantly on earlier law as well.English law, as another leading financial law system and thus a model for others, is taken a look at because it knows not about field warehousing. The conventional yet not fully explored justification is the earlier recognition of the floating charge in England compared to its kin on the other side of the Atlantic. The article counters this argument by juxtaposing not just the US but also the more recent Hungarian developments corroborating that floating securities and field warehouses are not mutually exclusive.This seminal article aims to remedy the hinted at cognitive gaps in comparative scholarship by revisiting the pertaining US law, reflecting on the English position and uniquely juxtaposing the parallel recent Hungarian experiences with field warehousing. The heightened importance of this analysis is linked also to the continued interest in the reform of secured transactions laws (recently also in Africa and China), and the unsatisfactory economic output of such recently reformed systems as those of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) — well reflected in the third in-depth revamping of Hungarian secured transactions law by the new Civil Code of 2013

Unprotected Consumers in the Digital Age: The Consumer-creditors of Bankrupt, Abandoned, Defunct and of Zombie Companies

The aim of this article1 is to draw the attention of comparative scholars, researchers and policy-makers to the inferior position of consumer-creditors in bankruptcy proceedings, a topic that escaped attention during the development of financial protection of consumers in Europe. Consumers may become creditors if they prepay certain goods or services that remain undelivered following bankruptcy of a retailer or service-provider. The problem that results is that consumer-creditors are treated as unsecured creditors in bankruptcy law, who rank very low on the priority ladder and are doomed to recover only a small fraction of their claims, if anything at all. In order to fill the vacuum, the article attempts to map the real dimensions of the consumer-creditor problem first by outlining the spectrum of bankruptcy cases involving consumer-creditors and the threats to consumers inherent to abandoned and defunct companies that are usually left without assets creditors could collect upon. This includes case studies of major recent bankruptcies caused by appearance of new technologies (e.g., the collapse of UK Farepak due to appearance of Internet-based competitors) and linked abuses (web-fraudulent schemes). The second part of the article provides an overview of the regulatory responses, ranging from the prescriptive approach of US law implementing limited high priority to consumer-creditors in bankruptcy proceedings in the 1970s, the 2016 multi-pronged proposals of the UK Law Commission, to the specific regulatory responses of selected post-socialist systems, like the blocked accounts introduced by Croatia and Serbia, the forced deletions of Hungary and the special tax imposed in Slovakia