Iva Kuna: “Some Thoughts on Insolvency Proceedings of Corporate Groups Reflection on Case Agrokor”

This article is based on a paper presented by Prof. Dubravka Aksamovic, an associate professor at the Faculty of Law in Osijek, Croatia. The presentation was given at the EU Business Law Forum in Gyor, Hungary, in June 2017. The paper could be read in the publication of the aforementioned Forum that will be published in the second half of 2017.



The so called case Agrokor[1] took place in the beginning of 2017 when the word about Agrokor’s collapse was spread. What in the beginning seemed only as a rumour brought severe problems to the Republic of Croatia, but also to its neighbouring countries – Slovenia, Bosnia and Serbia in which Agrokor as a parent company has its subsidiaries and employs lots of their citizens. The main question was: what would happen to all the subsidiaries (in Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia and Serbia) if a parent company Agrokor collapsed, would they be forced to undergo the insolvency proceeding as well? The answer to this question can be found in the new Insolvency regulation[2] that came into force in June 2017 and for the first time introduced the chapter on Insolvency Proceedings of Members of a Group of Companies[3]. According to that, this article will briefly reflect on the situation before the enactment of the new Insolvency regulation, on the new provisions of insolvency of group of companies and on the possible scenario of Agrokor’s insolvency[4].

read more

Davit Jaiani: “Draft report for Symposium at Tbilisi State University –‘Cold War International Law’”

Last October, British Telegraph[i] reported –  ‘Russia and the West have entered a new Cold War that could lead to growing confrontations across the globe, as Vladimir Putin challenges American international hegemony’.

In the same piece, ex-head of international treaties department of the Russian MoD pointed out that – “If we talk about the last Cold War, we are currently somewhere between the erection of the Berlin Wall and the Cuban Missile crisis,”[ii]  

Cutting crossroads in occupied Abkhazia and ongoing process of erection of barbed wire fences in the heart of Georgia, occupied South Ossetia, will definitely fit in this comparison also.

Other than that, the Ukrainian territory of Crimea was annexed by the Russian Federation in March 2014, followed by the hybrid warfare in the eastern parts of the country. On the same year Edward Lucas, London based journalist, ex chief of the Economist magazine Moscow bureau, publishes his book – The New Cold War: Putin’s Russia and the Threat to the West[iii]

Not accidental might be that, the very comprehensive and highly visited website, providing information and analysis of the war in Ukraine is titled – New Cold War.org.[iv] 

read more

Katarina Đurđenić:”Rethinking the New EU Prospectus Regime on Croatian Example”

Introductory note: The information that follow have been presented in a research paper of Đurđenić, Krunić and Simić; Prospekt vrijednosnih papira – gdje smo i kamo idemo; Pravo u gospodarstvu; 2016/2; p. 281-305.


Prospectus is a document that should provide investors all the necessary information on the company that issues securities in which they plan to invest as well as all the necessary information on these securities. Securities can come in different forms but the most common are stocks and bonds. Prospectus usually needs to be published before offering securities to the public or admitting them to trading.

Till recently, the Directive 2003/71/EC defined when it is necessary to publish a prospectus and what are the exemptions thereof, what is the procedure of its approval and who bares the responsibility for the stated data. In Croatia, this directive has been implemented through the provisions of Capital Markets Act (Zakon o tržištu kapitala). The mere content of the certain prospectus is determined by a special legislative act, namely by Regulation (EC) No 809/2004 that implements the mentioned directive.

read more

Kanad Bagchi: “EU Accession to the ECHR: In Defense of the ECJ”

Comments on The Fallibility of The European Union Accession Project

Opinion 2/13 received considerable criticism from the academic world both in terms of its uncompromising stance and inaccurate reasoning.[1] That apart, literature depicting the Court of Justice of the European Union (“ECJ”/ “Court”) as a power hungry and haughty institution received a renewed boost along with increasing skepticism concerning the current status quo of the relationship between Europe’s twin courts.[2] In the melancholy that followed, it is surprising to notice the near absence of judicial deference to a constitutional court’s onerous task of striking a balance between constitutional vigil and progressive latitude. The purpose of this article is not to assuage the ECJ of all its criticisms, but to equitably measure the feasibility of an alternative outcome. In this regard, the opinion of Advocate General (“AG”) Juliane Kokott[3] presents a rather nuanced approach towards all but two objections advanced by the ECJ on the Draft Accession Agreement (“Accession Agreement”),[4] which notably has eluded critical appraisal. In what follows, the author briefly addresses the commonality of the issues that drew the attention of both the AG and the ECJ, partly to elucidate the unassailable position of the Court and partly to substantiate his own assessment of the opinion. read more

Oskar Josef Gstrein: “The European Union and its Reidentification as a Guardian of Human Rights”

Introductory note: This text is based on a public speech delivered at the University of Heidelberg as part of the “Monday Conferences” in the Summer Term of 2014.


I. Introduction

Ladies and Gentlemen,

First, I would like to thank you for inviting me to speak to you today. It is a great pleasure to share my thoughts on the topic “The European Union and its reidentification as a guardian of human rights”.

Let me say right away that we are all witnesses to a tremendously exciting phase in the development of Europe’s legal systems. For lawyers it is thus a great challenge to understand the complex constellations of the European multi-level systems in detail and even more so to illustrate them. Our topic today holds a key position in this context.

Since the beginning of the European integration movement in the aftermath of the Second World War, the relationship of the European Union and its predecessor organisations with the protection of fundamental rights has not been an easy one. The European Economic Community (EEC) (established on 25 March 1957 in Rome by its six founding nations) as well as its successor organisations, the European Community (EC) and today’s European Union (EU) are a ”creation of law”,[1] and as such they necessitate a strong link to historically and politically legitimising elements such as the safeguarding of fundamental and human rights. Only such a legitimisation can prevent the codifying of this supranational legal order[2] in a way that EU citizens would perceive as an unjustifiable subjugation.

In this context, the following question arises: What does the protection of fundamental rights need to look like in order for the EU to be perceived as just and humane and to bear out its claims to be a home for its citizens? read more

Prof. Dr. Thomas Giegerich LL.M.: “Essentials of European Law: Antidiscrimination Law”


I. Introduction

Both the Council of Europe and the European Union adhere to and try to implement the principle of equal rights and non-discrimination for all. Their respective efforts reinforce and complement one another. Since 1950, Art. 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) of 1950 (see below II.) has set out an accessory prohibition of discrimination based on a non-exhaustive list of problematic grounds. The exact content of this provision has been clarified by numerous decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). All the EU Member States are bound by the ECHR whose provisions are used by the Court of Justice of the EU (ECJ) as a means to interpret EU law. It took the Council of Europe Member States fifty years to draw up an independent and comprehensive prohibition of discrimination which is included in Protocol No. 12 of 2000. While the Protocol has meanwhile entered into force only a minority of the Convention States (and only eight of the EU Member States) have ratified it. Apparently, many of them are disinclined to give the ECtHR the final say on whether or not distinctions they make in their laws are “reasonable”. The European Union is about to accede to the ECHR, but not Protocol No. 12. read more