ANALIZA PREDMETA MUCKO PROTIV RH
&nbsp;
U ovom izrazito značajnom predmetu Mucko protiv Hrvatske br. 55588/18, koji nažalost nije objavljen u sudskoj praksi Europskog suda za ljudska prava jer je okončan priznanjem povrede od strane RH i isplatom naknade podnositelju, zauzeta su stajali&scaron;ta koja su dijametralno različita od dosada&scaron;nje prakse sudova u RH i Ustavnog suda RH, a odnose se na:
Pravo stranke na naknadu tro&scaron;kova zastupanja po odvjetniku u upravnom postupku
Moguću promjenu stajali&scaron;ta Ustavnog suda RH prema kojoj odluka o tro&scaron;kovima postupka nije pojedinačni akt za koji bi Ustavni sud trebao biti nadležan pružiti ustavnopravnu za&scaron;titu.
Ukratko, u upravnom postupku, koji je RH putem svojih tijela i to Gradskog ureda za prostorno uređenje, izgradnju grada, graditeljstvo, komunalne poslove i promet pokrenula protiv Mucka, isti je radi za&scaron;tite svojih prava angažirao odvjetnika, koji je podnio žalbu te zatražio naknadu tro&scaron;kova postupka s osnova zastupanja po odvjetniku, a sve prema Odvjetničkoj tarifi.
Upravna tijela su sukladno dugogodi&scaron;njoj praksi odbila taj zahtjev, smatrajući kako prema Zakonu o općem upravnom postupku, u upravnom postupku stranka nema pravo na naknadu tro&scaron;kova zastupanja po odvjetniku, s obrazloženjem da, sukladno odredbi čl. 161. st. 5. Zakona o općem upravnom postupku, žalitelj snosi tro&scaron;ak pisanja žalbe iz razloga &scaron;to je predmetni postupak vođen u povodu žalbe. Nadalje navodi kako se &bdquo;u konkretnom slučaju ne radi o toliko složenoj problematici, za koju bi bila potrebna posebna pravna pomoć odvjetnika, pa pisanje žalbe putem odvjetnika nije bilo ni nužno ni opravdano.&ldquo;
Nastavno tome, upravni sudovi su potvrdili odluke upravnih tijela te odbili tužbeni zahtjev obrazlažući svoje stajali&scaron;te navodeći kako u upravnom postupku ne postoji mogućnost naknade tro&scaron;kova zastupanja po opunomoćeniku, već je angažiranje odvjetnika u upravnom postupku prepu&scaron;teno slobodnoj volji stranke koja je tada dužna podmiriti tro&scaron;kove pravnog zastupanja.
Zaključno, Ustavni sud je odbacio ustavnu tužbu navodeći da je nenadležan za odlučivanje, budući da odluke o tro&scaron;kovima po njegovu shvaćanju ne predstavljaju pojedinačne akte protiv kojih bi Ustavni sud bio nadležan pružiti ustavnosudsku za&scaron;titu.
Stoga, podnositelj je u zahtjevu ESLJP-u tvrdio kako, ako bi se prihvatilo stajali&scaron;te da u upravnim postupcima uopće nema mogućnosti naknade tro&scaron;kova odvjetničkog zastupanja i pristojbi&nbsp; to bi značilo da bi u svim, i mnogo zahtjevnijim i dugotrajnijim postupcima, stranke bile faktički onemogućene u angažiranju stručne pomoći radi za&scaron;tite svojih temeljnih prava.
Stoga, tumačenje da u upravnim postupcima stranke nemaju pravo na naknadu tro&scaron;kova iako su &bdquo;u pravu&ldquo;, a nisu vlastitom voljom pokrenule postupak, u mnogo slučajeva može stranke koje su žrtve nezakonitog postupanja odvratiti od podno&scaron;enja pravnih lijekova i obraćanja sudovima i time djelovati ograničavajuće na pravo na pristup sudu.
Osim toga, prihvaćanjem osporenog stajali&scaron;ta nacionalnih sudova, proklamiralo bi se načelo da opunomoćenika u upravnim postupcima imaju samo osobe koje si ga mogu priu&scaron;titi, dok će ostale osobe biti li&scaron;ene tog prava, ukazujući i na već ustaljenu praksu Europskog suda za ljudska prava u svojim odlukama (YOUNG, JAMES AND WEBSTER&nbsp; v. UNITED KINGDOM, broj zahtjeva 7601/76;7806/77).
Smislenim tumačenjem odredbe čl. 161. st. 5. ZUP-a, može se zaključiti kako ratio spomenute norme sasvim sigurno nije u tome da se ekonomskim iscrpljivanjem stranaka iste obeshrabri u kori&scaron;tenju pravne pomoći, već da se spriječi samovolja upravnih tijela da bez ikakvih posljedica pokreću nezakonite postupke protiv stranaka, a ukoliko ih već pokreću, da za to snose tro&scaron;kove.
ESLJP je strankama predložio dono&scaron;enje prijateljskog rje&scaron;enja, a s čime se Ured zastupnika Republike Hrvatske pred Europskim sudom za ljudska prava složio te je dana 11.03.2022.g. Sudu dostavio jednostranu izjavu o povredi kojom je priznao kako je u podnositeljevom predmetu do&scaron;lo do povrede prava na pristup sudu te se obvezao isplatiti jednokratan iznos.
Stoga, drage kolege, zadovoljstvo nam je ukazati na praksu Europskog suda za ljudska prava na koju se možete pozivati u sličnim predmetima u kojima upravna tijela pokreću nezakonite postupke protiv Va&scaron;ih stranaka, a za koje izgledno &ndash; moraju snositi tro&scaron;kove.
&nbsp;
OWENS, HOU&Scaron;KA I PARTNERI, odvjetničko dru&scaron;tvo d.o.o.

ANALIZA PREDMETA MUCKO PROTIV RH

Zasjedajući u vijeću od 7 sudaca, Europski sud za ljudska prava (dalje: Europski sud) 12.05.2022.g. u većinskom sastavu od 5 sudaca presudio je da je u predmetu podnositelja Dragana Kovačevića do&scaron;lo do povrede članka 6. stavka 1. Konvencije za za&scaron;titu ljudskih prava i temeljnih sloboda (dalje: Konvencija), i to povrede prava na po&scaron;teno suđenje zbog nedosuđivanja tro&scaron;kova ustavnosudskog postupka.
Podnositelj zahtjeva podnio je ustavnu tužbu protiv odluka domaćih sudova koji su prihvatili prijedlog Centra za socijalnu skrb za li&scaron;enjem poslovne sposobnosti podnositelja. Ustavni sud je usvojio ustavnu tužbu podnositelja utvrđujući da su mu pobijanim sudskim odlukama povrijeđena ustavna prava te je ukinuo pobijane sudske odluke i predmet vratio na ponovni postupak.
U pogledu tro&scaron;kova postupka Ustavni sud nije donio nikakvu odluku već je u obrazloženju naveo:
&bdquo;U odnosu na zatraženi tro&scaron;ak ustavnosudskog postupka, Ustavni sud ističe da sukladno čl. 23. Ustavnog zakona o Ustavnom sudu Republike Hrvatske (&bdquo;Narodne novine&ldquo; broj 99/99,0 29/02. i 49/02. &ndash; proči&scaron;ćeni tekst; u daljnjem tekstu: Ustavni zakon) u ustavnosudskom postupku svaki sudionik snosi svoje tro&scaron;kove, ako Ustavni sud ne odluči drugačije. Budući da ustavni sud nije odlučio drugačije, u konkretnom slučaju podnositelj sam snosi svoje tro&scaron;kove.&ldquo;
Stajali&scaron;te Europskog suda jest kako je postupak li&scaron;enja poslovne sposobnosti bio od najveće važnosti za podnositelja zahtjeva, stoga je nesporno da je podnositelju postupak pred Ustavnim sudom bio neophodan put za&scaron;tite njegovih temeljnih prava, njegova dostojanstva, osobnog i obiteljskog života. Stoga je nedvojbeno da mu je trebala stručna pravna pomoć, koju u Hrvatskoj mogu pružati samo odvjetnici, a tro&scaron;ak ustavne tužbe u iznosu od 6.250,00 kn, odnosno 815,00 EUR predstavljao je za podnositelja značajan financijski teret, posebice za osobu s niskim primanjima poput podnositelja čiji su se mjesečni prihodi sastojali od 1.250,00 kn invalidnine.
&Scaron;tovi&scaron;e, kako je za navedenu povredu ustavnih prava odgovorna upravo Republika Hrvatska, a ne Centar za socijalnu skrb, koji ne može odgovarati za neustavno postupanje državnih tijela (sudova) te bi stoga bilo potpuno neutemeljeno u ponovljenom postupku tražiti od predlagatelja &ndash; Centra za socijalnu skrb da podnositelju naknadi tro&scaron;kove postupka pred Ustavnim sudom, budući da u tom postupku nije sudjelovao niti ga je uzrokovao.
Zaključak Europskog suda jest kako odbijanje dosude tro&scaron;ka podno&scaron;enja ustavne tužbe predstavlja ograničenje njegova prava na pristup sudu koje nije bilo razmjerno. &nbsp;
Podnositelju zahtjeva dosuđena je pravedna naknada u iznosu od 815,00 EUR na ime materijalne &scaron;tete te 3.000,00 EUR na ime naknade nematerijalne &scaron;tete. Ujedno, podnositelju je Europski sud dosudio i 2.500,00 EUR na ime tro&scaron;kova i izdataka.
Napominjemo kako predmetna presuda nije konačna. Konačnost će uslijediti ako Republika Hrvatska u roku od 3 mjeseca ne podnese zahtjev za preispitivanje presude, odnosno, ukoliko do istoga dođe, kada odbor odluči o eventualno podnesenom zahtjevu ili kada veliko vijeće Europskog suda donese presudu.

DRAGAN KOVAČEVIĆ v. CROATIA
Sitting as a Chamber composed of 7 judges, the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the European Court) on 12 May 2022 held by five votes to 2 that there had been a violation of Article 6 &sect; 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") in the applicant's case, namely the violation of the right to a fair trial for failure to adjudicate the costs of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court.
The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against the decisions of the domestic courts which accepted the proposal of the Social Welfare Centre to deprive the applicant of his legal capacity. The Constitutional Court upheld the applicant's constitutional complaint, finding that his constitutional rights had been violated by the impugned court decisions, and quashed the impugned court decisions and remanded the case for retrial.
With regard to the costs of the proceedings, the Constitutional Court did not issue any decision, but stated in its reasoning:
"In relation to the requested cost of the constitutional court proceedings, the Constitutional Court points out that in accordance with Art. 23. of the Constitutional Act on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia (Official Gazette No. 99/99.0 29/02 and 49/02 - consolidated text; hereinafter: the Constitutional Act) in constitutional proceedings each participant bears their own costs, if The Constitutional Court does not decide otherwise. Since the Constitutional Court did not decide otherwise, in the present case the applicant shall bear their own costs."
The European Court's view is that the proceedings for deprivation of legal capacity were of the utmost importance to the applicant, so it is undisputed that the proceedings before the Constitutional Court were necessary for the applicant to protect his fundamental rights, dignity, personal and family life. Therefore, there is no doubt that he needed professional legal assistance, which can only be provided by lawyers in Croatia, and the cost of the constitutional complaint in the amount of HRK 6,250.00 or EUR 815.00 was a significant financial burden for the applicant, especially for a person whose monthly income consisted of HRK 1,250.00 disability allowance.
Moreover, as the Republic of Croatia is the one responsible for the violation of constitutional rights and not the Social Welfare Centre, which cannot be held responsible for the unconstitutional actions of state bodies (courts), it would therefore be completely unfounded for the Social Welfare Centre to reimburse the applicant for the costs of the proceeding before the Constitutional Court, as it did not participate in or cause the proceeding.
The European Court's conclusion is that the refusal to award the costs of filing a constitutional complaint constitutes a restriction on his right of access to court which was disproportionate.
The applicant was awarded just satisfaction in the amount of EUR 815.00 in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000.00 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. At the same time, the European Court awarded the applicant EUR 2,500.00 in respect of costs and expenses.
Please note that the judgment in question is not final. The finality will follow if the Republic of Croatia does not submit a request for reconsideration of the judgment within 3 months, or, if such request occurs, when the committee makes a decision on that request or when the Grand Chamber of the European Court renders a judgment.

JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS: KOVAČEVIĆ v. CROATIA

PRESUDA EUROPSKOG SUDA ZA LJUDSKA PRAVA: KOVAČEVIĆ v. HRVATSKA

Iako su mnogi upoznati s načinima stjecanja državljanstva u skladu sa Zakonom o hrvatskom državljanstvu ("Narodne novine" broj 53/91, 70/91, 28/92, 113/93, 4/94, 130/11, 110/15, 102/19, dalje: ZHD), 01.01.2020.g. su stupile na snagu dvije nove odredbe ZHD-a koje su od posebnog interesa djeci hrvatskih iseljenika.
S obzirom na to da je rok za podno&scaron;enje zahtjeva za upis u evidenciju hrvatskih državljana odnosno zahtjeva za utvrđivanje hrvatskog državljanstva temeljem tih odredbi dvije godine nakon stupanja na snagu ZHD-a, (to jest do 01.01.2022.g.), potrebno je izrazito žurno postupati.
Prva od tih odredaba je članak 4. stavak 2. ZHD-a, u skladu s kojim hrvatsko državljanstvo podrijetlom stječe osoba starija od 21 godine života, rođena u inozemstvu, čiji je jedan roditelj u trenutku njezina rođenja hrvatski državljanin, ako u roku od dvije godine od dana stupanja na snagu ZHD-a (do 01.01.2022.g.) podnese zahtjev za upis u evidenciju hrvatskih državljana, a Ministarstvo unutarnjih poslova prethodno utvrdi da po&scaron;tuje pravni poredak Republike Hrvatske, da je podmirila dospjela javna davanja te da ne postoje sigurnosne zapreke za njegov primitak u hrvatsko državljanstvo.
Uputno je stoga zahtjeve temeljem te odredbe podnijeti &scaron;to prije moguće. Time se daje prilika stjecanja državljanstva i osobama koje su starije od 21 godine, a koje do sad iz različitih razloga nisu imale priliku stjecati hrvatsko državljanstvo. Ova je odredba od posebnog interesa djeci hrvatskih iseljenika, pogotovo jer je i definicija iseljenika pro&scaron;irena pa se tako iseljenicima smatraju osobe koje su prije 08.10.1991.g. iselile s područja Republike Hrvatske u namjeri da u inozemstvu stalno žive, kao i pripadnici hrvatskog naroda koji su iselili s prostora u sastavu biv&scaron;ih država u kojima se, u vrijeme iseljenja, nalazilo i područje dana&scaron;nje Republike Hrvatske.
Nadalje, u skladu s člankom 30.a ZHD-a, hrvatskim državljaninom smatra se i osoba rođena u razdoblju od 08.01.1977.g. do 08.10.1991.g., kojoj su u trenutku rođenja oba roditelja imala hrvatsko državljanstvo, ali joj je u evidenciji o državljanstvu upisano drugo državljanstvo, ako u roku od dvije godine od dana stupanja na snagu ZHD-a (do 01.01.2021.g.) podnese zahtjev za utvrđivanje hrvatskog državljanstva.
I temeljem ovog članka je potrebno postupati žurno te do kraja ove godine podnijeti zahtjev za utvrđivanje hrvatskog državljanstva. Svrha uvođenja ovog članka je upravo regulacija državljanstva djece hrvatskih državljana, koji su bili rođeni izvan teritorija dana&scaron;nje Republike Hrvatske, to jest na teritoriju biv&scaron;e države pa im je državljanstvo dodijeljeno po mjestu rođenja, a ne po državljanstvu roditelja.
Ove odredbe su pohvalne iz perspektive za&scaron;tite temeljnih ljudskih prava, jer se njima olak&scaron;ava postupak stjecanja državljanstva pripadnicima hrvatskog naroda i iseljenicima izvan Republike Hrvatske koji su u tome do sada bili spriječeni te se ispravljaju povijesne administrativne nedosljednosti.
Zakonodavac je prilikom uvođenja ovih odredbi posebice imao u interesu za&scaron;titu temeljnih ljudskih prava, posebice prava djece hrvatskih iseljenika te djece rođene na teritoriju biv&scaron;e države, čiji su roditelji Hrvati, a kojima su zbog toga &scaron;to im je pri rođenju dodijeljeno državljanstvo različito od hrvatskih imali mnoge administrativne probleme.

While many are familiar with different ways Croatian citizenship may be acquired under the Croatian citizenship act (Official Gazette no. 53/91, 70/91, 28/92, 113/93, 4/94, 130/11, 110/15, 102/19, hereinafter: CCA), it is important to bring attention to two new provisions of the act that are of special interest to the children of Croatian emigrants.
Keeping in mind that the deadline for the submission of citizenship applications based on these two new provisions is two years of their entry into force (that is, until January 1st 2022) it is pertinent to submit these applications swiftly.
The first of these provisions is article 4 section 2 of the CCA, according to which a person older than 21 who was born abroad can acquire citizenship by origin if at the time of their birth one of their parents had Croatian citizenship, if they submit their application for registration in the Register of Croatian citizens within two years of entry into force of this provision and if there are no legal obstacles as referred to in the article 8 paragraph 1 point 5 of the Act, that is, if they respect the legal order of the Republic of Croatia, if they have paid the due public contributions and if there are no security obstacles to their acceptance into Croatian citizenship.
These applications need to be submitted as soon as possible. Through this provision, the legislator gave a chance to persons older than 21, who up until the amendment of the law haven't had the chance to acquire citizenship for various reasons. This provision is of special interest to the children of Croatian emigrants, especially because the definition of an emigrant has been broadened. Now the definition encompasses persons who emigrated from the territory of the Republic of Croatia before the 8th October 1991 with the intent of living permanently abroad, as well as persons belonging to the Croatian nation who emigrated from territories that were a part of previous states within which, at the time of emigration, was the territory of the Republic of Croatian.
Furthermore, under article 30.a of the CCA, a person is considered a Croatian citizen if they were born between the January 8th 1977 and the October 8th 1991, whose parents, at the time of their birth, had Croatian citizenship, but they were assigned different citizenship in the Register of citizenship at birth, if they apply for the establishment of Croatian citizenship within two years of entry into force of this provision (that is, until January 1st 2022).
It is pertinent to apply based on this provision as soon as possible as well. The goal of implementing this provision into the law was the regulation of citizenship that was assigned to children whose both parents were Croatian, but who were born outside of the territory of the Republic of Croatia, that is, within the territory of a previous state, and so their citizenship was assigned based on where they were born and not based on the citizenship of their parents.
Both of these provisions are commendable from a human rights perspective, as they ease the acquisition of citizenship to Croatian people who lived outside of Croatia, as well as emigrants, who were precluded from acquiring citizenship due to their age or the fact they weren't considered emigrants according to past legal provisions.

CROATIAN CITIZENSHIP ACQUISITION  BY JANUARY 1ST 2022

STJECANJE HRVATSKOG DRŽAVLJANSTVA DO 01.01.2022.g.

Iako je većina građanstva do sada upoznata s institutom zemlji&scaron;nih knjiga i rigorozno formalnim pravilima koji ga prate, većina ipak ne zna za iznimku od navedenoga.
Naime, institut pojedinačnog ispravnog postupka svojevrsna je iznimka koja omogućuje zainteresiranoj stranci uknjižbu prava vlasni&scaron;tva ako dokaže opravdani razlog. Isto je moguće dokazati određenim dokumentom (posjedovni list, privatna ili javna isprava ili neki drugi akt) iz kojeg je vidljivo kako je stranka vlasnik nekretnine, ali ista isprava nije podobna za provedbu u zemlji&scaron;nim knjigama, bilo da se radi o neotklonjivim nedostacima isprave ili o neažurnom zemlji&scaron;noknjižnom stanju.
Spomenuti opravdani interes potrebno je učiniti vjerojatnim prilikom pokretanja samog postupka, inače će sud prijedlog odbiti. Olakotna je okolnost &scaron;to stranka na samom početku postupka može dokazati pravni interes na razini vjerojatnosti, a na sudu je da u samom postupku utvrdi jesu li ispunjeni svi ostali potrebni uvjeti.
U regularnom zemlji&scaron;noknjižnom postupku, za uknjižbu prava vlasni&scaron;tva potreban je tzv. &bdquo;đavolji dokaz&ldquo;, odnosno unedogledno dokazivanje stjecanja prava vlasni&scaron;tva na temelju valjanog pravnog temelja od osobe koja je također stekla pravo vlasni&scaron;tva na temelju valjanog pravnog temelja (najče&scaron;će javne ili privatne ovjerene isprave).
Međutim, u ovom postupku, Zakon o zemlji&scaron;nim knjigama ne spominje javnu ispravu, već samo ispravu pa se može zaključiti kako isprava koju stranka prilaže kao dokaz opravdanosti prijedloga može biti i privatna isprava &ndash; npr. ugovor bez ovjerenog potpisa.
Naime, u praksi će se često dogoditi situacija kako stranka ima valjani pravni temelj, ali zbog neotklonjivih nedostataka isprave njegovog prednika kojom dokazuje vlasni&scaron;tvo, nema ispunjene formalne pretpostavke za uknjižbu. Također, primjera radi, moguće da stranka ima valjan pravni temelj &ndash; ugovor o kupoprodaji nekretnine ovjeren kod javnog bilježnika, međutim, u ugovoru nije naveden njegov osobni identifikacijski broj (OIB), a bez čega je od 2015.g. nemoguće upisati se u zemlji&scaron;ne knjige.
Upravo za ovakve situacije zakonodavac je u Zakon o zemlji&scaron;nim knjigama uveo ovaj institut. Često će to biti jedini način na koji se može uskladiti stvarno stanje na terenu sa stanjem u zemlji&scaron;noj knjizi, s obzirom na dosada&scaron;nje nedovoljno poznavanje zemlji&scaron;nih knjiga. &Scaron;irom primjenom ovog instituta, sudovi mogu utjecati na pravnu sigurnost te ostvarenje načela povjerenja u zemlji&scaron;ne knjige.
Na&scaron;e odvjetničko dru&scaron;tvo je tako sudjelovalo u nizu uspje&scaron;nih pojedinačnih ispravnih postupaka, pokrenutih upravo u slučajevima kada stranka ima neko pravo koje nije upisano u zemlji&scaron;ne knjige, a ne postoji podobna isprava na temelju koje bi to pravo mogla i upisati.

Although the majority of citizens are so far familiar with the institute of land registers and the rigorously formal rules that accompany it, most still do not know of an exception to the above.
Namely, the institute of individual correct procedure is a kind of exception that enables the interested party to register the right of ownership if he proves a justified reason. The same can be proved by a certain document (title deed, private or public document or other act) which shows that the party is the owner of the property, but the document, for some reason, is not suitable for implementation in the land register, whether it has irreparable deficiencies or the land registry is out-of-date.
The mentioned justified interest must be made probable when initiating the procedure itself, otherwise the court will reject the proposal. A mitigating circumstance is that a party can prove a legal interest at the level of probability at the very beginning of the proceedings, and it is up to the court to determine in the proceedings whether all other necessary conditions have been met.
In the regular land registry procedure, the so-called "Devil's proof" is required for the registration of property rights, ie indefinite proof of the acquisition of the right of ownership from a person who has also acquired the right of ownership on the basis of a valid legal basis (usually public or private certified documents).&nbsp;&nbsp;
However, in this procedure, the Land Registry Act does not mention a public document, but only a document, so it can be assumed that a document submitted by a party as proof of justification of the proposal can also be a private document - eg a contract without a certified signature.
In practice, there will often be a situation where the party has a valid legal basis, but due to the inevitable shortcomings of the document of his ancestor proving ownership, there is no formal precondition for registration. Also, for example, it is possible that the party has a valid legal basis - a contract for the sale of real estate certified by a notary public, however, the contract does not specify his personal identification number (OIB), without which it has been impossible since 2015 to register in the land books.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
It is for such situations that the legislator introduced this institute into the Law on Land Registry. This will often be the only way to rectify the real situation on the ground with the situation in the land registry, given the current general lack of knowledge of the land registry. Through the wider application of this institute, courts can influence legal certainty and the realization of the principle of trust in land registers.
Our law firm has thus participated in a number of successful individual correct proceedings, initiated precisely in cases where a party has a right that is not registered in the land register, and there is no suitable document on the basis of which this right could be registered.

HOW TO RECONCILE THE ACTUAL SITUATION WITH LAND REGISTERS IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A SUITABLE DOCUMENT?

KAKO USKLADITI STVARNO STANJE SA ZEMLJIŠNIM KNJIGAMA AKO NEMATE PODOBNU ISPRAVU?

<h3 class="p1">Kako po&scaron;tivati GDPR pravila prilikom rada od kuće</h3>
Nakon progla&scaron;enja pandemije bolesti Covid-19, brojni poslodavci odlučiti su omogućiti svojim zaposlenicima rad od kuće. Uz dana&scaron;nja tehnolo&scaron;ka rje&scaron;enja, većina zaposlenika može izvr&scaron;avati poslovne procese iz udobnosti svog doma jednako učinkovito kao i iz ureda, &scaron;to nužno podrazumijeva i pristup podacima pohranjenim u internom sustavu određenog poduzeća. Iako otvara različite mogućnosti, potrebno je poduzeti odgovarajuće mjere kako home office ne bi postao rizik za za&scaron;titu osobnih podataka i poslovne tajne.
<blockquote>
Promijenjene okolnosti obrade podataka, kao &scaron;to je rad od kuće, povlače za sobom promjenu vrste i razine rizika za za&scaron;titu podataka.
</blockquote>
Sukladno Općoj uredbi o za&scaron;titi podataka (GDPR), izvr&scaron;itelj i voditelj obrade osobnih podataka dužni su provoditi odgovarajuće tehničke i organizacijske mjere kako bi osigurali odgovarajuću razinu sigurnosti podataka s obzirom na rizik. Promijenjene okolnosti obrade podataka, kao &scaron;to je rad od kuće, povlače za sobom promjenu vrste i razine rizika za za&scaron;titu podataka. Stoga je, u skladu sa zahtjevima GDPR-a, potrebno prije svega napraviti procjenu odgovarajuće razine rizika prilikom koje će se posebno uzeti u obzir rizici od slučajnog ili nezakonitog uni&scaron;tenja, gubitka, izmjene, neovla&scaron;tenog otkrivanja osobnih podataka ili neovla&scaron;tenog pristupa osobnim podacima, u kontekstu rada zaposlenika od kuće. Kako mjere poduzete radi za&scaron;tite zdravlja zaposlenika ne bi dovele do ugrožavanja sigurnosti podataka, moguće je prilagoditi poslovne procese poduzimanjem sljedećih dodatnih koraka:
<h4 class="p1">ODABRATI SIGURNU METODU DALJINSKOG PRISTUPA</h4>
Bilo da se daljinski pristup ostvaruje putem VPN-a (virtual private network) ili kori&scaron;tenjem posebnog softvera (npr. Teamviewer, Anydesk i dr.), važno je da odabrano rje&scaron;enje uključuje tehnologiju koja jamči za&scaron;tićeno daljinsko povezivanje korisnika s uredskom internom mrežom putem sigurne veze. Prijenos podataka putem javnih mreža preporuča se izbjegavati jer znatno povećava rizik od neovla&scaron;tenog pristupa podacima.
<h4 class="p1">INSTALIRATI ANTIVIRUSNI PROGRAM NA SVAKI UREĐAJ</h4>
Mnogi zaposlenici za rad od kuće koriste vlastita računala, pametne telefone i tablete. Kako&nbsp; putem osobnih uređaja pristupaju za&scaron;tićenim podacima i obrađuju ih, nužno je da su i ti uređaji za&scaron;tićeni odgovarajućim antivirusnim programom, jednako kao i računala u uredskim prostorijama. Na taj način umanjuje se rizik od uni&scaron;tenja ili neovla&scaron;tenog pristupa podacima.
<h4 class="p1">KORISTITI ENKRIPCIJU</h4>
Enkripcija je jedna od tehničkih mjera za za&scaron;titu podataka koje izričito propisuje GDPR. Podaci su posebno izloženi riziku prilikom prijenosa putem mreže (Internet), stoga je enkripcija dodatno jamstvo koje će i u slučaju presretanja dokumenata onemogućiti neovla&scaron;teni pristup njihovom sadržaju. I podatke koji se ne prenose, već su samo pohranjeni u internom sustavu, također se preporuča za&scaron;tititi enkripcijom kao dodatnom mjerom za&scaron;tite protiv neovla&scaron;tenog pristupa.
<h4 class="p2">SASTAVITI NEPROBOJNE LOZINKE</h4>
"Preporučljivo je da svaki zaposlenik, odnosno svaki uređaj ima svoju vlastitu lozinku, različitu od onih koje koriste drugi zaposlenici. Osim &scaron;to se na taj način otežava neovla&scaron;teni pristup &bdquo;izvana&ldquo;, tako se osigurava i da će određenim podacima moći pristupiti samo oni zaposlenici koji su za to ovla&scaron;teni. Važno je za pristup korisničkim računima i za&scaron;tićenim datotekama koristiti jače lozinke te ih mijenjati periodično radi dodatne razine sigurnosti.
<h4>NE PREUZIMATI PODATKE NA PRIVATNE UREĐAJE</h4>
Ako se putem sigurne veze ostvaruje daljinski pristup uredskom računalu, tada ni nema stvarne potrebe preuzimati podatke na laptop kod kuće, a isto svakako predstavlja rizik za za&scaron;titu podataka. Naime, privatni uređaji zaposlenika koji se ne koriste isključivo za poslovne svrhe, često imaju nižu razinu sigurnosti te manje kvalitetna tehnolo&scaron;ka rje&scaron;enja za za&scaron;titu podataka. Također, podaci koji se pohranjuju na kućnom uređaju u pravilu nemaju &bdquo;back up&ldquo;, dok prilikom rada na uredskom računalu (bilo izravno ili putem daljinskog pristupa) interni server redovito (svakodnevno ili po potrebi) izrađuje sigurnosne kopije koje su za&scaron;tićene od neovla&scaron;tenog pristupa, gubitka ili uni&scaron;tenja u slučaju napada ili nezgode.
<h4 class="p1">NE SLATI PODATKE NA PRIVATNI E-MAIL</h4>
Kao &scaron;to je već istaknuto, podaci su općenito najvi&scaron;e izloženi riziku upravo prilikom prijenosa putem Interneta. Za privatni e-mail zaposlenika vrijedi slično kao i za privatne uređaje. Službeni uredski e-mail u pravilu je za&scaron;tićen jakim lozinkama koje se periodično mijenjaju te se često koriste domene koje pružaju veću razinu privatnosti i sigurnosti za korisnike, za razliku od uobičajenih pružatelja usluga elektroničke po&scaron;te koje koristi većina osoba za privatne svrhe.
<blockquote>
Voditelj je dužan u roku od 72 sata o povredi podataka obavijestiti Agenciju za za&scaron;titu osobnih podataka.
</blockquote>
<h4 class="p1">PRIJAVITI SVAKU POVREDU PODATAKA</h4>
Unatoč svim poduzetim mjerama ipak može doći do neovla&scaron;tenog pristupa, gubitka ili uni&scaron;tenja podataka, primjerice ako uređaj bude zaražen virusom ili izgubljen, neovla&scaron;tena osoba presretne podatke i sl. U tom slučaju voditelj je dužan u roku od 72 sata o povredi obavijestiti Agenciju za za&scaron;titu osobnih podataka, osim ako nije vjerojatno da će povreda uzrokovati rizik za prava i slobode pojedinaca. U slučaju povrede za koju je vjerojatno da će prouzročiti visoki rizik za prava i slobode, potrebno je bez odgađanja obavijestiti i ispitanike. Također, potrebno je bez odgode poduzeti sve razumne mjere radi poku&scaron;aja ublažavanja potencijalnih posljedica povrede.&nbsp;
<h4 class="p1">IZBJEGAVATI KORI&Scaron;TENJE JAVNIH MREŽA</h4>
Kori&scaron;tenje javnih mreža (kao &scaron;to su knjižnice, hoteli, kafići) za pristup i obradu za&scaron;tićenih podataka znatno povećava rizik od povrede podataka, budući da javnoj mreži može pristupiti neograničeni broj korisnika, a razina sigurnosti koju ista pruža često nije ni približno jednaka sigurnosti interne mreže.
<blockquote>
I prilikom održavanja video sastanaka važno je pročitati politiku za&scaron;tite privatnosti i informirati ispitanike.&nbsp;
</blockquote>
<h4 class="p1">USKLADITI VIRTUALNE SASTANKE S GDPR-om</h4>
Prilikom organiziranja sastanaka putem online servisa kao &scaron;to su Skype, Zoom i drugi, poželjno se prije početka uporabe informirati o politici privatnosti i pravilima za&scaron;tite podataka tih aplikacija. Ukoliko postoji sumnja o usklađenosti softvera s GDPR-om, tada je potrebno raspitati se o drugim mogućnostima te odabrati onu opciju koja predstavlja najmanji rizik za podatke svih sudionika, kad god je to moguće. Kod svakog sastanka, predavanja ili radionice (webinari) voditelj je dužan obavijestiti sve sudionike o tome koji njihovi podaci će se pohraniti ili biti vidljivi drugima (ime, lokacija, broj mobitela i sl.) i pružiti sve ostale informacije propisane GDPR-om (podaci o voditelju, svrsi i trajanju obrade, pravima ispitanika,&hellip;). Navedene informacije mogu biti sudionicima dostavljene uz poziv za sudjelovanje, putem poveznice koja će se svima dostaviti prilikom pridruživanja u online seminar i sl. Obzirom da neke online platforme omogućuju i snimanje sastanaka, o eventualnom snimanju mora se odgovarajuće obavijestiti svaki sudionik.
<h4 class="p1">EDUCIRATI ZAPOSLENIKE I USKLADITI INTERNE AKTE&nbsp;</h4>
Svaki voditelj obrade podataka treba putem ovla&scaron;tenih osoba obavijestiti sve zaposlenike o primjerenim mjerama za siguran rad od kuće, educirati ih o načinu njihove primjene, te prema potrebi i pomoći im u uspostavljanju dodatnih sustava za&scaron;tite. Ako internim aktima već nisu uređeni dodatni koraci koji se poduzimaju u posebnim okolnostima, potrebno je uskladiti pravilnike i evidencije s novim načinom rada.
<hr />
Kao i uvijek, usklađivanje poslovanja s GDPR-om postiže se na različite načine ovisno o vrsti poslovanja, kategorijama podataka koji se obrađuju, sudionicima u postupku obrade itd. No, ono &scaron;to je zajedničko svima, jest činjenica da je usklađivanje poslovnih procesa sa zahtjevima za&scaron;tite podataka proces koji nikad ne zavr&scaron;ava, odnosno nužno je kontinuirano se prilagođavati aktualnim promjenama i rizicima, kao &scaron;to je rad od kuće &ndash; trenutno nužnost za mnoge, ali i općenito rastući trend među poslodavcima.
&nbsp;
Za vi&scaron;e informacija kontaktirajte nas na:
&nbsp;
Tel: 01/4862-690
E-mail: odvjetnicko.drustvo@owens-houska.hr

Following the Covid-19 disease pandemic, many employers have decided to allow their employees to work from home. With today's technological solutions, most employees can execute business processes from the comfort of their home as efficiently as from the office, which necessarily implies access to data stored in the internal system of a particular company. Although it opens up various possibilities, appropriate measures need to be taken so that the home office does not become a risk to the protection of personal data and trade secrets.
&nbsp;
Pursuant to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the executor and the controller of personal data processing are obliged to implement appropriate technical and organizational measures to ensure an appropriate level of data security with regard to risk. Changed data processing circumstances, such as working from home, entail a change in the type and level of data protection risk. Therefore, in accordance with the requirements of the GDPR, it is first necessary to make an assessment of the appropriate level of risk, which will take into account the risks of accidental or unlawful destruction, loss, alteration, unauthorized disclosure of personal data or unauthorized access to personal data, regarding to work of employees from home. In order to ensure that measures taken to protect the health of employees do not jeopardize data security, it is possible to adjust business processes by taking the following additional steps:
&nbsp;
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="623">
CHOOSE A SECURE METHOD OF REMOTE ACCESS
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="623">
&nbsp;
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="623">
Whether remote access is via VPN (virtual private network) or using special software (eg Teamviewer, Anydesk, etc.), it is important that the chosen solution includes technology that guarantees secure remote connection of users to the office internal network via a secure connection. It is recommended to avoid data transmission via public networks as it significantly increases the risk of unauthorized access to data.
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
&nbsp;
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="623">
INSTALL ANTIVIRUS PROGRAM ON EACH DEVICE
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="623">
&nbsp;
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="623">
Many employees use their own computers, smartphones and tablets to work from home. As they access and process protected data via personal devices, it is necessary that these devices are protected by an appropriate antivirus program, as well as computers in office premises. This reduces the risk of destruction or unauthorized access to data.
&nbsp;
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="623">
USE ENCRYPTION
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="623">
&nbsp;
Encryption is one of the technical data protection measures explicitly prescribed by the GDPR. Data is particularly at risk when transmitted over a network (Internet), so encryption is an additional guarantee that will prevent unauthorized access to their content even in the event of interception of documents. Data that is not transmitted, but only stored in the internal system, is also recommended to be protected by encryption as an additional measure of protection against unauthorized access.
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="623">
&nbsp;
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="623">
USE IMPERMEABLE PASSWORDS
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="623">
&nbsp;
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="623">
It is recommended that each employee or device has its own password, different from those used by other employees. In addition to making unauthorized access "from outside" more difficult, this also ensures that certain data can only be accessed by those employees who are authorized to do so. It is important to use stronger passwords to access user accounts and protected files and to change them periodically for an extra level of security.
&nbsp;
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="623">
DO NOT DOWNLOAD DATA TO PRIVATE DEVICES
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="623">
&nbsp;
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="623">
If a secure connection provides remote access to an office computer, then there is no real need to download data to a laptop at home, and the same certainly poses a risk to data protection. Namely, private devices of employees that are not used exclusively for business purposes, often have a lower level of security and lower quality technological solutions for data protection. Also, the data stored on the home device usually does not have a "back up", while when working on an office computer (either directly or remotely) the internal server regularly (daily or as needed) makes backups that are protected from unauthorized access, loss or destruction in the event of an attack or accident.
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
&nbsp;
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="623">
DO NOT SEND DATA TO PRIVATE E-MAIL
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="623">
&nbsp;
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="623">
As already pointed out, data is generally most at risk when transmitted over the Internet. The same is true for employee private email as it is for private devices. Official office e-mail is generally protected by strong passwords that are changed periodically, and often domains that provide a higher level of privacy and security for users are used, as opposed to the usual e-mail providers used by most people for private purposes.
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
&nbsp;
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="623">
REPORT ANY BREACH OF DATA
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="623">
&nbsp;
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="623">
Despite all measures taken, unauthorized access, loss or destruction of data can still occur, for example if the device is infected with a virus or lost, an unauthorized person intercepts data, etc. In this case, the manager must notify the Personal Data Protection Agency within 72 hours, unless it is unlikely that the breach will pose a risk to the rights and freedoms of individuals. In the event that a breach is likely to pose a high risk to rights and freedoms, respondents should also be notified without delay. Also, all reasonable measures should be taken without delay to try to mitigate the potential consequences of the injury.
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
&nbsp;
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="623">
AVOID THE USE OF PUBLIC NETWORKS
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="623">
&nbsp;
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="623">
The use of public networks (such as libraries, hotels, cafes) to access and process protected data significantly increases the risk of data breaches, as the public network can be accessed by an unlimited number of users, and the level of security it often provides is not nearly equal to internal network security.
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="623">
 CONFORM VIRTUAL MEETINGS WITH GDPR
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
&nbsp;
When organizing meetings through online services such as Skype, Zoom and others, it is advisable to inform yourself about the privacy policy and data protection rules of these applications before using them. If there is any doubt about the compliance of the software with the GDPR, then it is necessary to inquire about other options and choose the option that poses the least risk to the data of all participants, whenever possible. At each meeting, lecture or workshop (webinars) the facilitator is obliged to inform all participants about what personal data will be stored or visible to others (name, location, mobile phone number, etc.) and provide all other information prescribed by the GDPR (data on the manager, purpose and duration of processing, rights of respondents,&hellip;). This information can be provided to participants with an invitation to participate, through a link that will be provided to all when joining the online seminar, etc. Since some online platforms allow you to record meetings, any recording must be notified to each participant.
&nbsp;
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="623">
EDUCATE EMPLOYEES AND CONFORM INTERNAL ACTS
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="623">
&nbsp;
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Each head of data processing should, through authorized persons, inform all employees about appropriate measures for safe work from home, educate them on how to apply them, and, if necessary, help them establish additional protection systems. If the internal acts do not already regulate the additional steps to be taken in special circumstances, it is necessary to harmonize the regulations and records with the new way of working.
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
As always, harmonization of business with GDPR is achieved in different ways depending on the type of business, categories of data being processed, participants in the processing process, etc. But what is common to all is the fact that the harmonization of business processes with protection requirements data process that never ends, that is, it is necessary to continuously adapt to current changes and risks, such as working from home - currently a necessity for many, but also a generally growing trend among employers.
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
For more information contact us at:
&nbsp;
Tel: 01/4862-690
E-mail: odvjetnicko.drustvo@owens-houska.hr

DATA PROTECTION AND HOME OFFICE

Zaštita podataka i home office

<h3 class="p1">UVOD</h3>
U ožujku 2020. godine, Vlada Republike Hrvatske reagirala je na okolnosti prouzrokovane epidemijom bolesti COVID-19. Progla&scaron;ene su posebne okolnosti, doneseno je mno&scaron;tvo mjera, od kojih je za građane najznačajnija bila provedba moratorija nad ovrhama za ukupno 244.865 ovr&scaron;enika fizičkih osoba. Kako Vlada RH nije produljila rok donesenih mjera i trajanje posebnih okolnosti nakon 18.10.2020.g., od dana 19.10.2020.g. Financijska agencija (dalje u tekstu: FINA) nastavila je provedbu ovrhe na novčanim sredstvima po osnovama za plaćanje po kojima je privremeno zastala s postupanjem te su ponovno počele teći zakonske zatezne kamate.
<h3 class="p1">ZAKON O DOPUNAMA ZAKONA O PROVEDBI OVRHE NA NOVČANIM SREDSTVIMA</h3>
Dakle, dana 18.04.2020.g. stupio je na snagu Zakon o dopunama Zakona o provedbi ovrhe na novčanim sredstvima (&bdquo;Narodne novine&ldquo; br. 47/2020, dalje u tekstu: Zakon o interventnim mjerama), temeljem kojeg je FINA&nbsp; zastala s provedbom ovrhe na novčanim sredstvima u odnosu na ovr&scaron;enike fizičke osobe. Dodan je članak 24.a. koji definira nastale posebne okolnosti kao događaj ili određeno stanje koje se nije moglo predvidjeti i na koje se nije moglo utjecati, a koje ugrožava život i zdravlje građana, imovinu veće vrijednosti, znatno naru&scaron;ava okoli&scaron;, naru&scaron;ava gospodarsku aktivnost ili uzrokuje znatnu gospodarsku &scaron;tetu. Nadalje, navedene su i iznimke kada FINA neće zastati s provedbom ovrhe na novčanim sredstvima, a to u odnosu na ovr&scaron;enike fizičke osobe ako se ovrha provodi radi namirenja tražbine zakonskog uzdržavanja djeteta, druge tražbine kada se ovrha provodi radi namirenja budućih obroka po dospijeću, tražbine po osnovi dospjele, a neisplaćene plaće, naknade plaće ili otpremnine, ako se radi o mjerama osiguranja iz kaznenog postupka te u slučaju ovrhe po računu specifične namjene. Shodno je napomenuti kako se zastoj nije odnosio na ovr&scaron;enike pravne osobe.
Glavna intencija zakonodavca bila je deblokada računa velikog broja fizičkih osoba, s obzirom na to da je Zakonom propisano da će FINA, ako ovr&scaron;enik nakon početka zastoja provedbe ovrhe nema niti jednu osnovu za plaćanje, bankama ovr&scaron;enika poslati nalog za deblokadu računa. Unatoč činjenici &scaron;to su ovr&scaron;enici bili deblokirani za cijelo vrijeme trajanja posebnih okolnosti, FINA je imala obvezu zaprimati nove osnove za plaćanje i po njima postupati. No, u slučaju da je riječ o ovr&scaron;eniku fizičkoj osobi, FINA je osnovu za plaćanje evidentirala u Očevidnik redoslijeda osnova za plaćanje, ali bez slanja naloga bankama za zapljenom novčanih sredstava s računa ovr&scaron;enika na račun ovrhovoditelja.
Bitno je napomenuti kako je unatoč takvom postupanju, rok zapljene od 60 dana tekao za vrijeme trajanja posebnih okolnosti. Naime, s prestankom trajanja posebnih okolnosti, dakle 19.10.2020.g., FINA je mogla banci naložiti izvr&scaron;enje zapljene i/ili prijenos novčanih sredstava s obzirom na to da je rok zapljene od 60 dana mogao proteći za vrijeme trajanja posebnih okolnosti.&nbsp;
<h3 class="p1">PROVEDBA OVRHA</h3>
Na sjednici održanoj 16. srpnja 2020.g. Vlada RH donijela je Odluku o produljenju roka trajanja posebnih okolnosti do 18.10.2020.g., a potom je dana 19.10.2020.g. FINA nastavila provedbu ovrhe na novčanim sredstvima po osnovama za plaćanje po kojima je privremeno zastala s postupanjem za vrijeme trajanja posebnih okolnosti, pa je tako za sve ovr&scaron;enike fizičke osobe za koje je u Očevidniku redoslijeda osnova za plaćanje imala evidentirane osnove za plaćanje naložila banci da se provede zapljena i/ili prijenos novčanih sredstava s računa ovr&scaron;enika na račun ovrhovoditelja iz osnove za plaćanje.&nbsp;
Nadalje, odredbom članka 25.b. Zakona, kao i odredbom članka 7. Zakona o interventnim mjerama propisano je da za vrijeme trajanja posebnih okolnosti ne teku zakonske zatezne kamate. Stoga, prilikom provedbe ovrhe nakon isteka posebnih okolnosti, FINA je u obračunu zakonskih zateznih kamata, u odnosu na ovr&scaron;enike fizičke i pravne osobe za razdoblje od 18.04.2020.g. do 18.10.2020.g., zaračunavala visinu zakonskih zateznih kamata u iznosu 0%. Dana 19.10.2020.g. FINA je tako ponovno započela s obračunom zakonskih zateznih kamata.
S intencijom olak&scaron;avanja navale ovr&scaron;nih prijedloga, Ministarstvo pravosuđa i uprave predložilo je da se nakon isteka moratorija rje&scaron;enja o ovrsi počnu dostavljati ovr&scaron;enicima u tri faze:
<ul>
<li>19.10.2020.g. dostavljaju se rje&scaron;enja donesena po prijedlozima koji su zaprimljeni zaključno s 30.06.2020.g.,</li>
<li>20.11.2020.g. dostavljaju se rje&scaron;enja donesena po prijedlozima koji su zaprimljeni zaključno s 31.08.2020.g. te</li>
<li>20.01.2021. g. dostavljaju se rje&scaron;enja donesena po prijedlozima koji su zaprimljeni zaključno s 18.10.2020.g.</li>
</ul>
Međutim, na takav način do&scaron;lo je do situacije gdje se rje&scaron;enje o ovrsi, zaprimljeno po prijedlogu za ovrhu do dana 16.10.2020.g., dostavlja ovr&scaron;eniku tek nakon dana 20.01.2021. g., a ako je prijedlog za ovrhu podnesen javnom bilježniku tri dana kasnije, 19.10.2020.g., rje&scaron;enje o ovrsi dostavit će se ovr&scaron;eniku tijekom mjeseca listopada.
<h3 class="p1">ZAKLJUČAK</h3>
Nakon isteka moratorija od 6 mjeseci, dana 19.10.2020.g. nastavljen je tijek ovr&scaron;nih postupaka, uključujući ovrhu na novčanim sredstvima i ovrhu na plaći, a nastavile su teći i zatezne kamate, o čemu se neće donositi posebne odluke u svakom pojedinom slučaju, već isto počinje teći po sili zakona. Bitno je napomenuti kako je moguće da u budućnosti ponovno dođe do zastoja provedbe ovrha s obzirom na to da Vlada Republike Hrvatske može u posebnim okolnostima uslijed progla&scaron;enja epidemije bolesti COVID-19&nbsp;

Enforcement after the moratorium expires

<h3 class="p2">INTRODUCTION</h3>
In March 2020, the Government of the Republic of Croatia reacted to the circumstances caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Special circumstances were declared, many measures adopted, the most important one for the citizens was the implementation of a moratorium on enforcement claims for 244,865 natural persons. As the Government of the Republic of Croatia did not extend the deadline for the adopted measures and the duration of special circumstances after 18 October 2020, from 19 October 2020 The Financial Agency (FINA) continued to enforce the claims for which it temporarily suspended its actions and legal default interest on these claims continued to accrue.
<h3 class="p2">ACT ON AMENDMENTS TO THE ACT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ENFORCEMENT ON FINANCIAL ASSETS</h3>
On April 18 2020 the Act on Amendments to the Act on Enforcement of Financial Assets entered into force, on the basis of which FINA suspended the implementation of enforcement on funds in relation to natural persons. Article 24a was added which defines the resulting special circumstances as an event or certain situation that could not be foreseen and which could not be affected, which endangers the life and health of citizens, property of greater value, significantly impairs the environment, disrupts economic activity or causes significant economic damage. However, there were exceptions when FINA will not stop the enforcement of funds, in relation to the creditors of natural persons if the enforcement is carried out to settle the claim of legal child support, other claims when the enforcement is carried out to settle future installments, maturities on the basis of due but unpaid salaries, salary compensations or severance pay, in the case of security measures from criminal proceedings and in the case of enforcement on a specific purpose account. It is worth noting that the moratorium did not apply to legal entities as debtors.
The main intention of the legislator was to unblock the accounts of a large number of natural persons, given that the Act stipulates that if the debtor, after the start of the enforcement moratorium, does not have any active enforcement claims, Fina will send an order to unblock the debtor's bank accounts. Despite the fact that the debtors were unblocked for the entire duration of the special circumstances, Fina was obliged to receive new enforcement claims and process them. However, in the case of a natural person debtor, Fina recorded the enfrocement claim in the Register of the order of enforcement claims, but without sending orders to banks for the seizure of funds from the debtor's account to the creditor's account.
Finally, it is important to note that despite such measures, the 60-day seizure period was active for the duration of the special circumstances. Namely, with the cessation of special circumstances, ie on 19 October 2020 FINA could order the bank to seize the funds immediately, given that the 60-day seizure period may have expired during the special circumstances.
<h3 class="p2">ENFORCEMENT</h3>
At the council meeting held on July 16 2020, the Government passed a Decision to extend the duration of special circumstances until 18 October 2020, so on 19 October 2020 FINA continued to enforce the claims which it temporarily stopped enforcing in the duration of special circumstances, so all debtors natural persons, for whom the enforcement claims were recorded in the Register of the order of payment, had the bank seize and / or transfer funds from the debtor's account to the account of the creditor.
Furthermore, the provision of Article 25b of the Act, as well as the provision of Article 7 of the Act on Intervention Measures, stipulates that no statutory default interest shall accrue whilst special circumstances are in force. Therefore, during the enforcement after the expiration of special circumstances, FINA calculated statutory default interest, in relation to the debtors of natural and legal persons for the period from 18 April 2020 until 18 October 2020, in the amount of 0%. On 19 October 2020 FINA resumed the calculation of statutory default interest.
With the intention of easing the influx of enforcement proposals, the Ministry of Justice and Administration proposed that after the moratorium expires, claims begin to be delivered in three phases:
<ul>
<li class="p2">19 October 2020 for the claims received by 30 June 2020,</li>
<li class="p2">20 November 2020 for the claims received by 31 August 2020,</li>
<li class="p2">20 January 2021 for the claims received by 18 October 2020.</li>
</ul>
However, in such a way, a paradoxal situation arose where an enforcement claim, submitted on 16 October 2020, would be processed after 20 January 2021, however if the proposal for enforcement was submitted to the notary public three days later, on 19 October 2020, the enforcement claim would be processed during the month of October.
<h3 class="p2">CONCLUSION</h3>
After the expiration of the 6 month moratorium, on 19 October 2020 the course of enforcement proceedings continued, including enforcement of funds and enforcement of wages, default interest continued to accrue, on which no special decisions will be made in each individual case, by force of law. It is important to note that it is possible that in the future the implementation of enforcement will be suspended again, given that the Government of the Republic of Croatia may in special circumstances decide to suspend enforcement proceedings due to the continuation of the COVID-19 pandemic, for a maximum duration of six months.

Provedba ovrha nakon isteka moratorija

Pravni odnos između vlasnika stanova i za&scaron;tićenih najmoprimaca u Republici Hrvatskoj uređen je Zakonom o najmu stanova (&bdquo;Narodne novine&ldquo; broj 91/96, 48/98, 66/98, 22/06, 68/18, 105/20). Status za&scaron;tićenog najmoprimca stekli su stupanjem na snagu navedenog zakona pojedinci koji su u prija&scaron;njem socijalističkom dru&scaron;tvenom poretku imali pravni položaj nositelja stanarskog prava. 
Za&scaron;tićeni najmoprimci nastavili su koristiti stanove koji nikada nisu bili u njihovom vlasni&scaron;tvu, dok su vlasnici i dalje ostali bez mogućnosti vr&scaron;enja faktične vlasti na svojoj nekretnini, u većini slučajeva dužni trpjeti nametnuta zakonska ograničenja.
Nerijetko u takvim stanovima žive socijalno ugroženiji pojedinci u dru&scaron;tvu, bez druge nekretnine u vlasni&scaron;tvu pa je tako iznos za&scaron;tićene najamnine u velikoj mjeri manji od trži&scaron;nih cijena najma stanova. Opisani položaj vlasnika stanova nije pogodan, budući da predviđeni zakonski okvir ne dopu&scaron;ta istima potpunu slobodu uživanja prava vlasni&scaron;tva, kao temeljnog ljudskog prava zajamčenog člankom 1. Protokola uz Konvenciju za za&scaron;titu ljudskih prava i temeljnih sloboda.
Prekomjernim mije&scaron;anjem javne vlasti i neopravdanim ograničenjem privatnog vlasni&scaron;tva, građanima nastaje znatna materijalna &scaron;teta. Da država vlasnicima ne nameće obvezu zbrinjavanja određene skupine građana, vlasnici bi mogli navedene stanove koristiti za vlastite potrebe ili pak iznajmljivati osobama po izboru s uvjetima postavljenim po vlastitoj mjeri.
Sudska praksa je u ovom pravnom području već postavila svoje temelje, pa tako i Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske u predmetu pod poslovnim brojem Rev-2364/16, odlučujući povodom tužbe vlasnika stana u kojem stanuje za&scaron;tićeni najmoprimac radi naknade &scaron;tete, navodi kako je &bdquo;Republika Hrvatska zbog povrede Ustavom i Konvencijom zajamčenog prava vlasni&scaron;tva dužna vlasnicima stanova u kojima žive za&scaron;tićeni najmoprimci naknaditi &scaron;tetu&ldquo;. Navedena odluka uvelike otvara vrata ostalim vlasnicima da pokreću postupke radi naknade &scaron;tete te, da na taj način, izvr&scaron;e pritisak na Republiku Hrvatsku da adekvatno regulira njihov odnos sa za&scaron;tićenim najmoprimcima uvažavajući njihove naizgled suprotstavljene interese.
Konačno, recentnom odlukom Ustavnog suda br. UI/3242/2018 i dr. od 14.09.2020., ukinut je niz odredbi Zakona o najmu stanova, među ostalim i odredba koja je predviđala prestanak prava na za&scaron;tićenu najamninu s danom 01.09.2023.g. Stoga je trenutno neizvjesna budućnost odnosa između vlasnika stanova i za&scaron;tićenih najmoprimaca pa vlasnicima ne preostaje drugo nego potraživati naknadu u vidu materijalne &scaron;tete od Republike Hrvatske, koja ni nakon 25 godina od stupanja na snagu Zakona o najmu stanova nije omogućila pravičnu raspodjelu tereta zbrinjavanja za&scaron;tićenih najmoprimaca.&nbsp;

The legal relationship between apartment owners and protected tenants in the Republic of Croatia is regulated by the Apartment Rental Act (National Gazette 91/96, 48/98, 66/98, 22/06, 68/18, 105/20). The status of a protected tenant was acquired by the entry into force of the said law by individuals who, in the previous socialist social order, had the legal status of occupancy right holders.
Protected tenants continued to use apartments that were never their property, while the owners were still left without the possibility of exercising authority over their property, in most cases obliged to suffer the imposed legal restrictions. 
Often in such residents live socially disadvantaged individuals of the society, without owning any other real estate, thus the protected rent is largely lower than the market rental price. The situation described of apartment owners is not favorable, as the current legal regulation does not allow them complete freedom over their property rights, which are a fundamental human right guaranteed by Article 1 of the Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Excessive interference by public authorities and unjustified restriction of private property cause significant material damage to citizens. If the state did not impose this obligation to the owners to take care of certain groups of citizens, the owners could use these apartments for their own needs or for renting with conditions set at their own pace.
The case law in this area of ​​law has already laid its foundations, including the Supreme Court of Croatia in the case no. Rev-2364/16, whereas deciding on the lawsuit of the owner of the apartment in which the protected tenant was sued for damages, concluded that &ldquo;the Republic of Croatia, due to the violation of the Constitution and the Convention on the guaranteed property right, must compensate the damage to the owners of apartments in which the protected tenants live". This decision greatly opens the door for other owners to initiate proceedings for damages and, thus, puts pressure on the Republic of Croatia to adequately regulate their relation with protected tenants, respecting their seemingly conflicting interests. 
Finally, with the recent decision of the Constitutional Court no. UI/3242/2018 of 14 September 2020, a number of provisions of the Apartment Rental Act were repealed, including a provision that predicted&nbsp; termination of the right to protected rent on September 1st 2023. Therefore, the future of the relation between apartment owners and protected tenants is currently uncertain, so the owners are left with no choice but to seek compensation in the form of material damage from the Republic of Croatia, which after 25 years of the enforcement of the latest apartment rental law did not enable fair distribution of burden of care for the protected tenants.

Damages from the republic of Croatia - problem of protected rent

Naknada štete od Republike Hrvatske - problem zaštićenog najma

Konstantno ulažemo u obrazovanje, specijalizaciju i profesionalni razvoj na&scaron;eg dru&scaron;tva, pa tako stipendiramo nadarene studente, a na&scaron;e zaposlenike usavr&scaron;avamo dodatnim obrazovanjem i sudjelovanjem na raznim edukacijama, savjetovanjima i praktikumima, a sve kako bi se uspje&scaron;no nosili sa svim izazovima koje donose promjene u pravnom sustavu.<img src="https://oh-cms.eklekta.net/assets/1187426c-6f8a-4756-92af-9593b28bc960" alt="Photo 1449247709967 D4461a6a6103" width="1348" height="900" />

Wir sind der Meinung, dass das oben Angef&uuml;hrte, ebenso wie unsere langj&auml;hrige Erfahrung in L&ouml;sung von Problemen aus der Praxis eine Garantie f&uuml;r unsere Klienten darstellt, dass wir auf die bestm&ouml;gliche Art und Weise ihre Interessen sch&uuml;tzen, wie auch eine hochwertige und verl&auml;ssliche juristische Dienstleistung erbringen werden. <img src="https://oh-cms.eklekta.net/assets/215dbcd5-bf03-4e98-8fc8-9348b576bdb5" alt="Photo 1449247709967 D4461a6a6103" width="1051" height="701" />

We relentlessly invest in training, specialisation and professional development, and so are proud to award scholarships to gifted students, and develop our employees through further education at the world&rsquo;s most prestigious universities and through various courses, seminars and practicals, in order to continue to successfully meet the challenges arising from changes in the legal system.
<img src="https://oh-cms.eklekta.net/assets/a2fd9d89-937a-4aed-be82-108c78497ba6" alt="Photo 1449247709967 D4461a6a6103" width="1051" height="701" />

O nama

Najnoviji članci

Karijera u OWENS, HOUŠKA I PARTNERI

Kontaktirajte nas

Über uns

Neueste Schrift

Karriere bei OWENS, HOUŠKA UND PARTNER

Kontaktiere uns

Unsere Spezialgebiete

OWENS, HOUŠKA UND PARTNER

Unser Expertenteam

About us

Latest writing

Careers at OWENS, HOUŠKA AND PARTNERS

Contact Us

Our areas of specialization

OWENS, HOUŠKA AND PARTNERS

Our Expert Team

Naša područja stručnosti

OWENS, HOUŠKA I PARTNERI

Naš stručni tim

Ponosni smo i sretni &scaron;to je odvjetnik&nbsp;<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/ACoAABl447ABLj5xzGEn7Rpm73IREarNx7G0J_I" data-attribute-index="0" data-entity-hovercard-id="urn:li:fs_miniProfile:ACoAABl447ABLj5xzGEn7Rpm73IREarNx7G0J_I" data-entity-type="MINI_PROFILE">Domagoj Božić</a>&nbsp;postao partner u na&scaron;em odvjetničkom dru&scaron;tvu.
&nbsp;
Domagoj se pridružio na&scaron;em timu 2015. godine te je svojim radom i profesionalno&scaron;ću inspiracija svim kolegama.
 Na&scaron;e dru&scaron;tvo nastavlja sa svojim radom kao Owens, Hou&scaron;ka i partneri.
<img src="https://oh-cms.eklekta.net/assets/136acc06-3365-4637-a581-48642b7a288f" alt="Owens Hou&scaron;ka6" width="4096" height="2730" />

<h2 style="text-align: left;">OWENS, HOU&Scaron;KA UND PARTNER</h2>
Wir k&ouml;nnen stolz verk&uuml;nden, dass unser Anwalt Domagoj Božić ein Partner geworden ist und dass unsere Kanzlei als Owens, Hou&scaron;ka und Partner weitergef&uuml;hrt wird.
<img src="https://oh-cms.eklekta.net/assets/65bf6dfd-96ff-4814-90f0-c249298bf162" alt="Owens Hou&scaron;ka6" width="4096" height="2730" />

<h2 style="text-align: left;">OWENS, HOU&Scaron;KA AND PARTNERS</h2>
We are proud to announce that our lawyer <a style="font-family: Inter, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif, 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', serif; font-size: 16px;" href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/ACoAABl447ABLj5xzGEn7Rpm73IREarNx7G0J_I" data-attribute-index="2" data-entity-hovercard-id="urn:li:fs_miniProfile:ACoAABl447ABLj5xzGEn7Rpm73IREarNx7G0J_I" data-entity-type="MINI_PROFILE">Domagoj Božić</a> has become a Partner.
&nbsp;
Domagoj joined our team in 2015, and is a constant inspiration to all colleagues.
&nbsp;
Our law firm continues as Owens, Hou&scaron;ka and Partners.
<img src="https://oh-cms.eklekta.net/assets/d2b0eec9-0575-4f2b-bfe7-0d6426ec8171" alt="Owens Hou&scaron;ka6" width="4096" height="2730" />

Na&scaron;a potraga za dodatnim članom tima je uspje&scaron;no zavr&scaron;ena! Vjerujemo da će na&scaron;a nova poslovna tajnica Sandra Kovačićek dodatno obogatiti kvalitetu na&scaron;eg poslovanja. Želimo joj dobrodo&scaron;licu i uspje&scaron;an profesionalni razvoj u na&scaron;em uredu!
<img src="https://oh-cms.eklekta.net/assets/06c34803-e8f1-4a41-996b-d021a634b7b1" alt="Owens Hou&scaron;ka2 (002)" width="1536" height="2304" />

Our search for additional team member has been successfully completed! We believe that our new Business secretary Sandra Kovačićek will further enrich the quality of our business. We wish her a warm welcome and successful professional development in our office!
<img src="https://oh-cms.eklekta.net/assets/10d87d71-054c-4c76-b342-fcb3c6e76cd2" alt="Owens Hou&scaron;ka2 (002)" width="1536" height="2304" />

Additional team member

Our search for additional team member has been successfully completed! We believe that our new Business secretary Sandra Kovačićek will further enrich the quality of our business. We wish her a warm welcome and successful professional development in our office!
<img src="https://oh-cms.eklekta.net/assets/c0c2c469-07e3-477d-8cda-5ca4c360ef26" alt="Owens Hou&scaron;ka2 (002)" width="1536" height="2304" />

Dodatni član našeg tima

Potvrda onoga o čemu smo nedavno pisali stigla je i u obliku presude Europskog suda za ljudska prava od 10.06.2021.g., kojom je sud, postupajući u predmetu Skelin-Hrvoj i Đuričić protiv Hrvatske, odlučio kako je podnositeljima, vlasnicima stanova u kojima žive za&scaron;tićeni najmoprimci, povrijeđeno pravo na mirno uživanje vlasni&scaron;tva zajamčeno člankom 1. Protokola br. 1. Konvenciji.
&nbsp;
Time je sud potvrdio svoje stajali&scaron;te izneseno u predmetu Statileo protiv Hrvatske, zahtjev broj 12027/10, prema kojem je podnositelj trpio neproporcionalan i pretjeran teret s obzirom na to da je morao osigurati za&scaron;tićenom najmoprimcu boravak u predmetnom stanu, pri čemu nepostoji opći interes zajednice koji bi opravdao tako značajno ograničavanje, a nadležna domaća tijela, unatoč &scaron;irokoj slobodi procjene, nisu postigla ravnotežu između općeg interesa zajednice i za&scaron;tite podnositeljevih prava.
&nbsp;
U svojoj posljednjoj odluci sud je utvrdio da podnositeljima zahtjeva pripada pravo na naknadu &scaron;tete u visini izmakle dobiti koju bi vlasnici stanova u kojima stanuju za&scaron;tićeni najmoprimci ostvarili u razdoblju od prosinca 1997. (prvi mjesec nakon stupanja na snagu Konvencije u Hrvatskog) do dana podno&scaron;enja zahtjeva za naknadu &scaron;tete.
&nbsp;
Predmetna izmakla dobit iznosi razliku između najamnina koje su za&scaron;tićeni najmoprimci bili dužni plaćati i trži&scaron;nih najamnina predmetnih stanova. U skladu s tim, prvopodnositelju je utvrđeno pravo na naknadu u&nbsp; iznosu od 54.000,00 EUR, a drugopodnositelju u iznosu od 95.100,00 EUR. Pored toga, podnositeljima je priznata i naknada neimovinske &scaron;tete, svakome u iznosu od 5.000,00 EUR.
&nbsp;
Vi&scaron;e o problemu za&scaron;tićenog najma - <a href="https://www.owens-houska.hr/article/4">https://www.owens-houska.hr/article/4</a>

Confirmation of what we recently wrote also came in the form of a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 10 June 2021, by which the court, acting in the case of Skelin-Hrvoj and Đuričić v. Croatia, ruled that the applicants, owners of the apartments in which the protected tenants live, right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention has been violated.&nbsp;
&nbsp;
 The court thus upheld its position from Statileo v. Croatia, application no. 12027/10, according to which the applicant had suffered a disproportionate and excessive burden as he had to provide the protected tenant with a stay in the apartment in question, with no public interest which would justify such a significant restriction. The domestic authorities in charge, despite wide discretion, did not strike a balance between the public interest and the protection of the applicant's rights.
&nbsp;
 In its latest decision, the court found that the applicants were entitled to compensation for damages in the amount of lost profits that the owners of apartments inhabited by protected tenants would have made in the period from December 1997 (the first month after the entry into force of the Convention in Croatia) until the day of filing the claim for damages.
&nbsp;
The lost profit in question is the difference between the rents that the protected tenants were obliged to pay and the market rents of the apartments in question. Accordingly, the first applicant was entitled to compensation in the amount of EUR 54,000.00, and the second applicant in the amount of EUR 95,100.00. In addition, the applicants were awarded non-pecuniary damage, each in the amount of EUR 5,000.00.
&nbsp;
 More about the problem of protected rent - https://www.owens-houska.hr/article/4

ECHR: COURT AWARDED OWNERS OF APARTMENTS WITH PROTECTED RENT OVER 150.000,00 EUR

ESLJP: VLASNICIMA STANOVA SA ZAŠTIĆENIM NAJMOM SUD DOSUDIO PREKO 150.000,00 EUR

Ponosni smo &scaron;to je na&scaron;e odvjetničko dru&scaron;tvo bogatije za jo&scaron; jedan uspjeh pred Europskim sudom za ljudska prava.
&nbsp;
Naime, 08.10.2020.g. donesena je presuda kojom je Sud utvrdio povredu čl. 6. st. 1. Konvencije za za&scaron;titu ljudskih prava i temeljnih sloboda.
&nbsp;
Presudom je utvrđeno kako je, zbog pogre&scaron;ne pravne kvalifikacije te upute koju su nižestupanjski sudovi dali stranci, a zbog koje je njegov od&scaron;tetni zahtjev zastario, povrijeđeno njegovo pravo na pristup sudu, zajamčeno Konvencijom.
&nbsp;
Ured zastupnika Republike Hrvatske pred Europskim sudom za ljudska prava izradio je analizu presude, a istu je moguće pročitati na stranicama Vlade Republike Hrvatske.
&nbsp;
(https://uredzastupnika.gov.hr/sudska-praksa/clanak-6-pravo-na-posteno-sudjenje/159?trazi=1&amp;=&amp;page=1)
<img src="https://oh-cms.eklekta.net/assets/6d04fd29-3a2b-4557-8305-4ce642d774d4" alt="Resim1" width="1920" height="1080" />

In Vertretung unserer Partei vor dem Europ&auml;ischen Gerichtshof f&uuml;r Menschenrechte wurde am 08.10.2020 ein Urteil &uuml;ber den Versto&szlig; gegen Artikel 6 Absatz 1 EMRK verk&uuml;ndet.
&nbsp;
Das Urteil stellte fest, dass aufgrund der falschen rechtlichen Qualifikation und der Anweisung der Vorinstanzen an die Partei, die dazu f&uuml;hrte, dass sein Anspruch verj&auml;hrt, sein Recht auf ein faires Verfahren gem. Art 6 Abs 1 EMRK verletzt wurde.
&nbsp;
Der st&auml;ndige Vertreter der Republik Kroatien vor dem Europ&auml;ischen Gerichtshof f&uuml;r Menschenrechte hat eine Analyse des Urteils vorgelegt, die auf der Website der Regierung der Republik Kroatien nachzulesen ist.
&nbsp;
(https://uredzastupnika.gov.hr/sudska-praksa/clanak-6-pravo-na-posteno-sudjenje/159?trazi=1&amp;=&amp;page=1)
<img src="https://oh-cms.eklekta.net/assets/c4257cbd-f134-4ce2-a50b-7e06a08dacf8" alt="Echr" width="367" height="137" />

ANALYSE DES URTEILS GOGIC GEGEN REPUBLIK KROATIEN

We are proud that our law firm is richer for another success before the European Court of Human Rights.
&nbsp;
 The judgement of Oct 8th 2020 was rendered by which the Court found a violation of Art. 6 &sect; 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
The judgment found that his right of access to a court, guaranteed by the Convention, had been violated by the erroneous legal qualification and instruction given by the lower courts to the party, which had rendered his claim out of time.
&nbsp;
The Office of the Representative of the Republic of Croatia before the European Court of Human Rights wrote an analysis of the judgment, which can be read on the website of the Government of the Republic of Croatia.
&nbsp;
(https://uredzastupnika.gov.hr/sudska-praksa/clanak-6-pravo-na-posteno-sudjenje/159?trazi=1&amp;=&amp;page=1)
<img src="https://oh-cms.eklekta.net/assets/d72d8541-51d3-4537-8373-ddb82730b741" alt="Resim1" width="1920" height="1080" />