UNUTARNJI NADZOR NAD RADOM UDRUGE

The author, for the first time in our doctrine, analyses the institute of the internal supervision of the activities of an association as defined in the Law on Associations (Official Gazette No. 74/2014, 70/2017, 98/2019). The aim of the paper is to conduct a norm-referenced evaluation of the institute available to the members of the association as subjects most familiar with the activities of the association. The assumptions of the internal supervision are considered as well as questions related to the implementation of the appropriate procedure by means of different interpretation methods. Particular emphasis is placed on those parts of the institute, which must be regulated in accordance with the association’s statute. The analysis also includes the presentation and the actual potential impact of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case Lovrić v. Croatia on the future development of case law in the Republic of Croatia. It is expected that judicial review of the activities of the associations will continue to expand. In conclusion, the results of the analysis are summarisedAutor u radu, prvi put u našoj doktrini, analizira institut unutarnjeg nadzora nad radom udruge iz Zakona o udrugama (Narodne novine, broj 74/2014, 70/2017, 98/2019). Cilj rada je iz- vršiti normativnu evaluaciju instituta koji stoji na raspolaganju članovima udruge kao subjektima koji su najupoznatiji s radom udruge. Razmatraju se pretpostavke unutarnjeg nadzora kao i sporna pitanja povezana s provođenjem odgovarajućeg postupka primjenom različitih interpretativnih metoda. Osobita pozornost posvećena je onim dijelovima instituta koji se moraju urediti statutom udruge. Analiza obuhvaća i prikaz te stvarni i potencijalni utjecaj presude Europskog suda za ljudska prava u slučaju Lovrić protiv Hrvatske na budući razvoj sudske prakse u Republici Hrvatskoj. Predviđa se nastavak širenja sudske kontrole nad radom udruga. Zaključno se sažimaju rezultati analize

Izgubljena mesta

The second edition of the book by archaeologist Ivan Šprajc, a considerably enlarged version of the first edition published in 2009, is a first-person narrative of his explorations in the Maya area. Written by a distinguished expert and published in German in 2015, with an English translation currently in press in the USA, it is an adventurous story presenting in a reader-friendly way the incidents, difficulties, dangers, and triumphs experienced by an archaeologist in the tropical forest of southeastern Mexico. The thematically rounded episodes following the chronological order of Sprajc's expeditions include interesting information about the life of the ancient Maya, about their settlements, economy, social order, religious life, politics, and the emergence, development, and collapse of their civilization, as well as about the lives of their modern descendants, the technological advances of archaeology, and Mexico's concern for cultural heritage. The book is equipped with an overview map and a wealth of photographic material.Publication of this book was made possible by generous gifts from Slovenian supporters of Šprajc’s expeditions: Abanka, Ars longa, Adria kombi, and National Geographic Slovenia (Rokus Klett Publishing House).Druga izdaja knjige arheologa dr. Ivana Šprajca je prvoosebna pripoved o raziskovanju na območju Majev v jugovzhodni Mehiki do leta 2014. Za skoraj tretjino razširjena knjiga uglednega strokovnjaka, ki je leta 2009 prvič izšla v slovenščini in bila kasneje prevedena v nemščino, v tisku pa je tudi angleška izdaja, je pustolovska pripoved, v kateri se vrstijo berljive dogodivščine, težave, nevarnosti in zmagoslavja, kot jih doživlja arheolog v tropskem gozdu. V zaokroženih epizodah, ki kronološko sledijo Šprajčevim odpravam, je nanizana tudi vrsta zanimivih podatkov o življenju nekdanjih Majev – o naseljih, gospodarstvu, družbeni ureditvi in verskem življenju, o politiki in dinastični zgodovini, o nastanku, razvoju in propadu. Kot tudi o tehnološkem napredku arheologije, življenju sedanjih prebivalcev teh območij in skrbi Mehike za kulturno dediščino. Knjiga je opremljena s preglednim zemljevidom in bogatim fotografskim gradivom

A critical analysis of some important novelties in the law on public procurements

Predmet rada su normativne novine uvedene u tekst Zakona o javnoj nabavi (ZOJN). Autor podvrgava kritičkoj analizi novelirane institute ZOJN-a te ih smješta u normativni kontekst određen prijašnjom verzijom zakonskog teksta odnosno europskim zakonodavstvom. Naposljetku, ocjenjuje se smisao i značenje izmjena i dopu na ZOJN-a.The manner of codification of public procurement procedures is undoubtedly very important, which explains the interest created by each legislative intervention in the relevant regulations. The Law on Public Procurements (LPP) has been seriously and comprehensively revised for the first time (Official Gazette, No. 92/05). The objectives of the revision are the following: nomotechnical improvement of the LPP and its harmonisation with the new EU regulations in that area. The comprehensive revision has thoroughly changed the essential provisions of the LPP. The changes refer to new terminology (Art. 2 of the LPP), different definition of the entities bound by the Law (Articles 4 and 5), different list of exemptive clauses (Art. 6), deformalisation of prerequisites for implementation of the negotiation variety of public procurement procedure (Articles 12 and 13), and, finally, considerable modifications in the system of legal protection (Articles 13 and 70-71). The revision has fulfilled its purpose to a certain extent; however, it cannot be said that all the objectives have been achieved. The revised LPP is still not completely harmonised with the European legislature. Furthermore, the text still contains unacceptable normative deficiencies that have considerable negative impact on legal position of the parties to public procurement procedures. It is rather obvious that the legislator favours the private interest at the expense of the public. Normative examples that corroborate this are numerous: for example, the contractualisation of legal terminology and deformalisation of the procedure to such an extent that the protection of public interest becomes rather difficult. Moreover, European legislation has been translated literally, without taking into consideration national legal system. It has resulted in inconsistent legal norms the will be rather difficult to implement. This text is written with the intention of pointing out to the normative sources of possible problems, which might contribute to avoid them as often as possible

Boundaries of controlling the legality of decision made by the procurement institution in the appellate stage of public procurement procedure

Predmet rada je analiza granica unutar kojih se ima ispitivati odluka naručitelja u žalbenom stadiju javnonabavnog postupka. Autor analizira dijametralno suprotstavljena stajališta Državne komisije za kontrolu postupaka javne nabave, s jedne, odnosno Upravnog suda RH, s druge strane. Stajališta tih tijela promatraju se kroz perspektivu relevantnih odredbi Zakona o općem upravnom postupku kao i dominantnih stajališta doktrine upravnog prava. Naposljetku, predlažu se promjene de lege lata i de lege ferenda uz odgovarajući prikaz usporednog prava.Legal area of public procurement does not tolerate unsolved procedural issues. Economic value and the importance of these procedures for the whole society call for their prompt and lawful solving. One of the issues crystallised through the functioning of the State Commission for the Control of Public Procurement Procedures (State Commission) is the question whether there exist, and if so, where are the boundaries of controlling the decision of a procurement institution in the appellate stage of public procurement procedure? There is also the question which legal sources contain the norms that regulate these issues. State Commission for the Control of Public Procurement Procedures and the Administrative Court of the Republic of Croatia have quite opposite viewpoints. State Commission believes that de facto there are no such boundaries (unfortunately, the Commission insists on such a viewpoint in spite of the judgements of the Administrative Court), whereas the Administrative Court bases its opposite opinion on the provisions of the Law on General Administrative Procedure and on the dominant opinions of administrative law doctrine. According to the Administrative Court, the Law on General Administrative Procedure is the very legal source that contains the norms whose implementation would solve the above mentioned legal issue. The solution is in the fact that a procurement institution’s decision in the appellate stage of public procurement procedure must be controlled within the boundaries of the appeal filed by the appellant. Similar opinion is supported by the mainstream of administrative law doctrine. This opinion is based on the appropriate interpretation and implementation of the provisions of the Law on General Administrative Procedure (as the subsidiary legal source), since in the Law on Public Procurement there are no legal norms that deal with the mentioned legal issue. Notwithstanding the current normative situation in the Law on Public Procurement, which is the primarily relevant regulation, it is possible to reconcile the opposed viewpoints. In order to achieve that, it is necessary to apply the LGAP provisions on appellate stage appropriately. The institute of declaring the decisions null is an instrument that enables the State Commission to intervene over the boundaries of appeal in cases of the most striking violations of the Law on Public Procurement. However, the author believes this to be only temporary solution until new legal regulation is made, since the final resolve must be provided for in definite, unequivocal legal norms. Comparative law confirms the existence of legal norms directly dealing with the boundaries of controlling the legality of a procurement institution’s decision in appellate procedure. The patterns of legal regulation are repeated: the norms that combine the dispositif principle (as a rule) and the official principle (as an exception). There are differences regarding the space given to the decision of the responsible body during ex offo proceedings in the appellate stage of public procurement procedure. The normative choice of the Croatian legislator should be structured accordingly