THE TRANSFER OF A COMPANY SEAT TO A DIFFERENT MEMBER STATE IN THE LIGHT OF THE RECENT „POLBUD“ DECISION

This paper observes the transfer of a company seat to a different Member State as an expression of the EU freedom of establishment. The reason for such analysis is the recent and somewhat controversial “Polbud” decision. The Court decided that a company enjoys the freedom of establishment to transfer its registered seat to another Member State despite the fact that it will not perform any economic activity there. In addition, the Court held that the mandatory liquidation of a company goes beyond what is necessary to protect the legitimate interests of minority shareholders, creditors, and employees. The paper scrutinizes both findings. A special attention is devoted to the role of an actual economic activity for the notion of the freedom of establishment. The paper arrives to the conclusion that, along with the freedom to actually perform economic activity, the freedom of establishment includes the freedom to use all national legal forms suitable for performing of an economic activity. As to the second finding, although it is possible that the mandatory liquidation indeed goes beyond necessary, the Court failed to demonstrate that this was the case

THE PURPOSE OF A COMPANY

In Croatian law, it is commonly accepted that the directors should manage the company in the interest of the company itself. It has, however, rarely been discussed what is exactly the purpose of a company. In comparative legal systems, the question of corporate purpose is, somewhat simplified, often portrayed as a conflict between shareholder and stakeholder approaches. According to the first approach, the company should be managed primarily in the interests of its shareholders, while according to the latter it should be managed in the interests of all its stakeholders. This paper reaches the conclusion that, in Croatian law, the shareholder approach should be given priority. Shareholders establish a company and bear the direct risk of their investment. On the other hand, the stakeholders are a diffuse notion, with diverse interests and no corporate mechanisms at their disposal. This enables the company directors to exercise wide powers and bear little responsibility. The shareholder approach, however, does not mean that the directors have to follow the wishes of the current shareholder majority. The shareholders’ interests are the objective interests of all shareholders, including those who will become shareholders in the future. The corporate purpose is, thus, to increase their long-term financial benefit. Such interpretation does not have to be at the expense of the stakeholders. They should be protected on two different levels. One is top-down protection, where public regulations force companies to take minimum measures in the public interest. The other is bottom-up feedback from conscientious customers who demand that the company’s conduct satisfies certain criteria

Book Review: The Companies Act, the Court Register Act, the Ordinance on the Manner of Registration in the Court Register with Forms

U prikazu se izlaže najnovije izdanje zbrike zakona s područja trgovačkog prava i prava društava autora akademika Jakše Barbića usklađeno sa zadnjim izmjenama i dopunama te odgovarajućim europskim pravom društava

Der Vetrag zugunsten Dritter

Ovaj rad bavi se ugovorima u korist trećega i njihovim obilježjima koja ih razlikuju od tipičnih dvostranih ugovornih odnosa. Posebnost takvih ugovora jest u tome da s pomoću njih zahtjev stječe treća osoba, koja nije očitovala svoj prihvat i koja najčešće sa samim ugovorom nema nikakve veze. Takav način stjecanja prava osobito je važan jer odudara od uobičajenog pravila po kojem je zahtjev iz ugovora izravna posljedica nečijeg očitovanja volje. S obzirom na to da je riječ o drukčijem načinu stjecanja zahtjeva, posljedice su vidljive i u režimu prestanka prava. Namjera ovog rada jest proučiti upravo te posebnosti ugovora u korist trećega u odnosu na standardne ugovore koji proizvode učinke samo među ugovornim stranama. Također, u radu se navode mnoge presude hrvatskih sudova i pokušava se i na praktičnom polju utvrditi koji je smjer odabralo hrvatsko pravo.The subject of this paper is the contract in favor of third parties as a part of the law of obligations. After presentation of general characteristics, more specific features of that contract are considered, namely the acquisition and revocation of a right by a third party. When considering the acquisition of a right, the main question is the relationship between the intent and the interest of the parties (the subjective and the objective criteria), as well as the content of their expressed intent. Every legal system faces two contrary demands – on one hand to relax the prerequisites for acquisition of rights by a third party in order to meet the needs of developing legal transactions, and on the other, to limit the number of potential claims which would lead to the insecurity as to the number and identity of the beneficiaries. Today most legal systems, including the Croatian law, require only the existence of the subjective criterion of parties’ intent. However, they require that intent is expressed in a way which clearly demonstrates the third person is to acquire an independent claim from the contract. Concerning the revocation of a right, this paper pays attention especially to the conditions and the authorization to such revocation. In Croatian legal system the promisee is authorized to revoke the contract, but only up to the moment in which the third person declares acceptance of the conferred benefit. This paper uses the comparative method and compares the solutions reached by the Croatian law with those of other legal systems. Theoretical considerations are followed by the analysis of the scope of the contract in favor of third parties as it is found in the judicial practice. Besides presenting the typical situations in which such contracts are found in the present day Croatian law, this paper considers the possibility of introducing the contracts with the protective effects towards the third parties modeled on the solutions of the German law. In the end, the conclusions are drawn and the peculiarities of the contract in favor of third parties are distinguished.Dieser Beitrag untersucht den Vertrag zugunsten Dritter als Institut des Schuldrechts. Nach der Darstellung der allgemeinen Merkmale werden die Besonderheiten dieses Vertrags behandelt, die vor allem in der Begründung und Widerrufbarkeit von Rechten Dritter zum Ausdruck kommen. Bei der Begründung des Rechts wird das Verhältnis zwischen Willen und Interessen der Vertragsparteien (subjektive und objektive Kriterien) sowie die Frage nach dem Inhalt ihres Willens betrachtet. Jede Rechtsordnung sieht sich zwei gegensätzlichen Forderungen gegenüber: Einerseits sollen die Belange des Rechtsverkehrs und die Flexibilisierung des Erwerbs von Ansprüchen Dritter berücksichtigt werden, andererseits sollen einer zu großen Anzahl von Ansprüchen Schranken gesetzt werden, da sonst Unsicherheit hinsichtlich der Zahl und Identität der Anspruchsberechtigten entstehen könnten. Die meisten Rechtsordnungen, und so auch die kroatische, entscheiden sich heutzutage dafür, dass das subjektive Kriterium des Willens der Partei ausreicht, verlangen aber, dass der Willensinhalt klar darauf abzielt, dass ein Dritter eine selbstständige Forderung aus dem Vertrag erwirbt. In Bezug auf die Widerrufbarkeit des Anspruchs Dritter befasst sich dieser Beitrag insbesondere mit den Bedingungen und Berechtigungen zu einem solchen Widerruf. Im kroatischen Recht ist der Stipulant widerrufsberechtigt, jedoch nur, solange der Dritte nicht die Annahme der ihm zugedachten Begünstigung erklärt hat. Der gesamte Beitrag folgt der komparativen Methode, nach der die Regelungen des kroatischen Rechts mit denen anderer Rechtsordnungen verglichen werden. Nach der theoretischen Darstellung der wichtigsten Probleme folgt die Analyse des Anwendungsbereiches für Verträge zugunsten Dritter. Außer typischen Fällen, in denen dieser Vertrag in der gegenwärtigen kroatischen Rechtsprechung anzutreffen ist, erörtert der Beitrag die möglich Anwendung des Vertrags zu Schutzzwecken Dritter, die einer ähnlichen Regelung aus dem deutschen Recht folgt. Abschließend werden Schlussfolgerungen formuliert und die Besonderheiten des Vertrags zugunsten Dritter verglichen mit den Prinzipien des Vertragsrechts herausgearbeitet

Acting in Concert in Takeover Law

Uočljiv je nerazmjer između važnosti instituta zajedničkog djelovanja u pravu preuzimanja dioničkih društava i kvalitete njegova uređenja u aktualnim odredbama Zakona o preuzimanju dioničkih društava (ZPDD). Problemi počinju već sa samom definicijom, a zaoštravaju se mnogobrojnim presumpcijama koje po svojoj naravi često nisu dovoljne ni da posluže kao indicij zajedničkog djelovanja, a kamoli da prebace teret dokaza na stjecatelje. Možda najvažnije, zajedničko djelovanje postavljeno je toliko široko da obeshrabruje poželjni dioničarski aktivizam kao što je raspravljanje i dogovaranje oko pojedine odluke na glavnoj skupštini. Osim kritika, članak preporučuje konkretne izmjene, koje zahtijevaju gotovo potpuno novo zakonsko uređenje.There is an obvious discrepancy between the importance of acting in concert in takeover law and the quality of its regulation in the provisions of the Act on the Takeover of Joint-Stock Companies. The problems begin already with the very definition of acting in concert and they are aggravated through numerous presumptions which, in themselves, do not even indicate acting in concert, much less shift the burden of proof on the acquirers. Probably the most important problem is that the acting in concert is so far-reaching that it discourages desirable shareholder activism, such as debating and cooperating in relation to the individual resolutions of the general meeting. Aside from the criticism, the paper suggests specific improvements, which require an entirely new legislative framework

Recognition of Legal and Party Capacity to Civil Law Partnership

Vanjsko je ortaštvo zajednica koja u pravnom prometu predstavlja više od pukog zbroja svojih članova. U odnosima s trećim osobama nositelj pravne sposobnosti može biti ili samo ortaštvo ili ortaci koji se očituju kao članovi ortaštva. Njemačko se pravo nakon dugih rasprava opredijelilo za opću pravnu sposobnost ortaštva po uzoru na javno trgovačko društvo. U hrvatskom pravu takvo shvaćanje nije moguće zbog važećih zakonskih odredaba. Postoje, međutim, situacije u kojima bi pravna sposobnost ortaštva bolje odgovorila na neke probleme koji se pojavljuju u praksi. Pravna sposobnost ortaštva olakšala bi zahvat vjerovnika u zajedničku imovinu i pridonijela očuvanju kontinuiteta ako dođe do promjene članstva. To bi se moglo postići sudačkim priznavanjem stranačke sposobnosti za potrebe određene parnice temeljem čl. 77. st. 3. Zakona o parničnom postupku. Priznavanje stranačke sposobnosti dovodi do priznavanja ograničene pravne sposobnosti u mjeri u kojoj je nužno za sudjelovanje u rezultatima parnice. Potrebe predvidljivosti i ujednačavanja sudačkih kriterija mogle bi postupno dovesti do sličnog rezultata kao i priznavanje opće pravne sposobnosti.External partnership is a community that in legal transactions represents more than the sum of its members. In relations with third persons, legal capacity can only be bestowed on the partnership or the partners that act as members of the partnership. German law, after many long discussions, opted for the general legal capacity of partnerships, which is modelled on public companies. Such an interpretation is not possible in Croatian law due to the legislation in force. However, there are situations where the legal capacity of a partnership would be more suitable to respond to some problems that appear in practice. The legal capacity of partnerships would facilitate the access of creditors to common assets and would contribute to maintaining continuity if a change in membership occurs. This could be achieved by the judicial recognition of party capacity for the needs of a particular civil procedure pursuant to Article 77 paragraph 3 of the Civil Procedure Act. The recognition of party capacity leads to the recognition of limited legal capacity to the extent necessary to participate in the results of the civil procedure. The need to standardise judicial criteria and enhance their foreseeability could gradually lead to a result similar to the recognition of general legal capacity

Judical Process Against Criminal Acts in Continental Croatia in the Early Modern Ages

Namjera ovog rada je prikazati tijek kaznenog postupka u Mađarskoj i kontinentalnom dijelu Hrvatske na kraju 16tog i početku 17tog stoljeća. Autor obraća pozornost specifičnom povijesnom kontekstu koji okružuje kazneni postupak i otkriva njegovo srednjovjekovno podrijetlo. Budući da nije postojala ideja državnog suvereniteta i iz njega proizašle zakonodavne vlasti, većina postupovnih formi oslanjala se na običajno pravo. Postupak je bio spor i neučinkovit, a kazneni je progon uvijek započinjao privatnom tužbom jer nije postojao javni interes za progonom kaznenih djela. Modernizaciji koju su započeli habsburški vladari na početku 16tog stoljeća s namjerom uvođenja javnog kaznenog progona, čvrsto se suprotstavilo hrvatsko i mađarsko plemstvo duboko ukorijenjeno u slobodama i povlasticama predaka. Ovaj se rad temelji na knjizi „Directio methodica“, koju je napisao Ivan Kitonić, jedan od vodećih pravnih stručnjaka svog vremena. „Directio methodica“, prvi put tiskana 1619., zamišljena je kao vodič i uputa strankama bez pravnog obrazovanja.The purpose of this paper is to present the course of criminal proceedings in Hungary and the continantal part of Croatia at the end of the 16th and beginning of the 17th century. Author focuses on the specifi c historical context which surrounds the legal procedure and reveals its medieval origin. Most of the procedural forms were based on customary law while there was no idea of state sovereignity and its legislative power. Procedure was slow and ineffective and criminal prosecution always started with a private action because there was no public interest in prosecuting the criminal offences. Modernization, introduced by Habsburg monarchs at the beginning of the 16th century, which tried to install the concept of public criminal prosecution, was strongly opposed by Hungarian and Croatian nobility deeply rooted in their ancestral freedoms and privileges. This paper is based on „Directio methodica“, a book by Ivan Kitonić, who was one of the leading experts of his time on legal procedure. „Directio methodica“ was fi rst published in 1619. and it was intended to serve as a guide-book for parties without any legal education