Search

This article aims to provide an overview of the main features of the limited liability company (hereinafter: LLC) in Croatia. LLCs are the most common company type in Croatian business practices. This is because of low amounts of minimum sharecapital, limited liability of shareholders, freedom of shareholders to regulate own internal relations and the LLC’s internal organization, which is regulated by the articles of association and holds fewer formalities to function. Interestingly, most LLCs are established as a single shareholder LLC, followed by two and three shareholders LLCs. This supports the finding that Croatian LLCs are often closely held companies, whose founders also act as directors and employees of the company. Since 2012, it is possible to form a simple LLC for a minimum share capital of 10 KN (cca. 1.32 EUR), and as of 2020, LLCs can even be established online. Thus, the simplicity and cost effectiveness to establish an LLC remain its primary advantage. Mandatory provisions that shareholders must respect are inter alia capital requirements and capital maintenance, formation, and competencies of the management board and shareholders’ meeting. The shareholders’ meeting is superordinate to other LLC bodies, allowing directors to be appointed and dismissed at any time. Shares are alienable and inheritable, but their transfer may be limited by the LLC’s articles of association. In certain cases, shareholders can be held personally liable for the LLC’s obligations (e.g., in the event of abuse of limited liability, partial payment of capital contributions, and the LLC’s dissolution without liquidation). Further specifics and current challenges of LLCs in Croatia will be analysed in detail.

On 23 February 2022, the European Commission adopted a proposal for a Directive on corporate sustainability due diligence (hereinafter: CSDD). It aims to foster sustainable and responsible corporate behavior throughout global value chains. Companies will be required to identify and, where necessary, prevent, end, or mitigate adverse impacts of their activities on human rights (e.g., child labor, exploitation of workers) and on the environment (e.g. pollution and biodiversity loss). The CSDD would apply both to the EU and non-EU companies reaching certain thresholds in terms of the number of employees and amount of net turnover, with minor exemptions when the non-EU companies are concerned. Lower thresholds apply if the EU companies are doing business in the high- risk sectors, while the higher apply if the companies are operating in the non-high risk sector. To comply with new due diligence rules, companies would be required to check whether their operations are aligned with human rights and environmental law conventions listed in the Annex of the CSDD, as well as the operation of its subsidiaries and all suppliers upstream and downstream in the value chain – with whom they have “established business relationship”. Given the fact that the new set of duties is comprehensive and their non-compliance triggers the company’s liability, the paper aims to compare these boundaries of the personal scope of the CSDD with criteria prescribed in similar national laws of the member states as well as to question defensive tactics of the target companies.

Izmjenama i dopunama Zakona o trgovačkim društvima iz 2019. godine olakšana je uplata novčanih uloga za preuzete poslovne udjele u društvima s ograničenom odgovornošću. Prije upisa osnivanja društva u sudski registar svaki član društva mora uplatiti najmanje četvrtinu novčanog uloga za preuzeti poslovni udio, a ukupni iznos svih novčanih uplata ne može biti manji od jedne četvrtine temeljnog kapitala društva. Istodobno je određen i krajnji rok za uplatu ostatka novčanih uloga te je uvedena osobna i solidarna odgovornost članova koji nisu u cijelosti uplatili uloge za obveze društva do visine iznosa neuplaćenih uloga za sve poslovne udjele u društvu. Time se ograničava sloboda članova odrediti dospijeće obveze uplate novčanih uloga te se potire načelo neodgovornosti članova za obveze društva. Interesi se vjerovnika primjereno štite odredbama o unosu i očuvanju temeljnog kapitala društva, a posebno se štite ako bi smanjenjem imovine društva bilo ugroženo namirenje njihovih tražbina. U radu se obrađuju pravne posljedice nepravodobne uplate uloga i mjere koje društvo može poduzeti prema članu. Tim se mjerama osigurava uplata novčanih uloga za preuzete poslovne udjele. Vjerovnici mogu izravno namiriti svoje tražbine prema članovima društva samo u slučaju proboja pravne osobnosti, a posebice ako postoji materijalna potkapitalizacija društva., By amendments of the Companies Act in 2019 payment of cash capital contributions for shares was facilitated in limited liability companies. Before registration of the company each shareholder must pay at least one quarter of the nominal value of each share and total amount of all payments must be equal to one quarter of the company share capital. The Companies Act sets payment duty of the rest of cash contributions in term of the one year after the company registration. It introduces personal, joint and several liabilities of shareholders who did not pay contributions in full for company debts up to the amount of unpaid contributions for all shares. This limits the freedom of shareholders to determine payment deadline for cash contributions and endangers the non-liability of shareholders for company debts. Creditors’ interests are appropriately protected by rules on payment of capital contributions and on protection of the company share capital. They are specially protected in cases of reduction of company assets which endanger fulfilment of their claims. This paper deals with legal consequences of non-payment of contributions in cash and measures which company may take against its shareholder. Creditors may directly fulfil their claims against shareholders only in cases of the piercing of the corporate veil, and especially if there is an evidence of the company undercapitalization.

U radu se analiziraju sličnosti i razlike prava na obaviještenost u društvima kapitala. Nakon što se objašnjava važnost tog (pojedinačnog) prava koje pripada skupu članskih prava u trgovačkim društvima i njegov ratio, usustavljuju se sličnosti i razlike prava na obaviještenost u društvu s ograničenom odgovornošću i dioničkom društvu s posebnim osvrtom na razloge za uskratu, te sličnosti, odnosno analogna primjena zakonskih rješenja koja vrijede za d.d. pri ex post sudskoj kontroli razloga za uskratu u d.o.o.-u. S obzirom na to da se pravi uvid u doseg prava i otvorena pitanja može steći tek analizom sudske prakse u RH i usporednim sustavima koji imaju srodna pravna rješenja, u radu se analizira bogata sudska praksa i upućuje se na granice ujednačavanja rješenja i otvorena pitanja u sudskoj praksi., The paper analyzes similarities and differences regarding the shareholder's information right in joint stock company and limited liability company. After explaining the importance of this (individual) membership's right and its function, the similarities and differences are systematized, focusing on reasons for (legitimately) withholding it. The paper also questions, whether in ex post judicial review of the legitimacy of the denied right, legal solutions applicable to a joint stock company could be analogously applied for a limited liability company. In order to ascertain real boundaries of the information right in practice and to define its open issues, the relevant Croatian case law was analyzed, as well as respective case law of the countries sharing similar legal solutions. A review of examined court practices shows the limits of applying analogous solutions and detects open issues in practice., In diesem Beitrag analysiert man die Ähnlichkeiten und Unterschiede im Recht auf Übermittlung von Informationen in Kapitalgesellschaften. Nach der Erläuterung der Wichtigkeit dieses (einzelnen) Rechtes, das der Gruppe der Mitgliedsrechte gehört, sowie seines Anteils darin, systematisiert man im Beitrag die Ähnlichkeiten und Unterschiede zwischen dem Recht auf Übermittlung von Informationen in der Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung (weitgehend: GmbH) und der Aktiengesellschaft (weitgehend: AG). Dabei legt man besonderen Wert auf die Gründe für die Verwehrung dieses Rechtes und die analoge Anwendung der für eine AG geltenden Gesetzesbeschlüsse bei der ex post Gerichtskontrolle der Gründe für die Verwehrung dieses Rechtes in einer GmbH. Da man die richtige Einsicht in den Umfang dieses Rechtes und die offenen Fragen nur durch die Analyse der Rechtsprechung in der Republik Kroatien und der vergleichbaren Rechtssysteme mit verwandten rechtlichen Lösungen bekommen kann, analysiert man in diesem Beitrag eine reiche Rechtsprechung, um endlich auf die Grenzen der Vereinheitlichung dieser Beschlüsse und offenen Fragen in der Rechtsprechung hinzuweisen., Nel lavoro si analizzano le somiglianze e le differenze del diritto all’informazione nelle società di capitali. Dopo aver spiegato l’importanza del (singolo) diritto che appartiene all'insieme dei diritti dei membri nelle società commerciali e la sua ratio, si analizzano le somiglianze e le differenze del diritto all'informazione nelle società a responsabilità limitata (di seguito: d.o.o.) e nelle società per azioni (di seguito: d.d.) con un particolare riferimento alle ragioni per il diniego, e le somiglianze ossia l'applicazione analogica delle soluzioni normative che valgono per il d.d. durante il controllo giurisdizionale a posteriori delle ragioni per il diniego nel d.o.o. Poiché l’accesso reale alla portata del diritto ed alle questioni aperte si può ottenere appena con l’analisi della giurisprudenza in Croazia e con la comparazione dei sistemi che hanno simili soluzioni legali, nel lavoro si analizza la ricca giurisprudenza, per poi alla fine del lavoro indicare le frontiere dell'uniformazione delle soluzioni e le questioni aperte nella giurisprudenza.

Odgovornost zakonskih revizora za štetu počinjenu subjektu revizije i trećim osobama pri obavljanju revizorskih usluga jedno je od otvorenih pitanja koja nisu usklađena odgovarajućim direktivama Europske unije. Ono je uređeno nacionalnim propisima država članica EU-a koji upućuju na primjenu općih ili posebnih odredbi o odgovornosti za štetu ili kombiniranu primjenu tih odredbi. Zakon o reviziji iz 2017. godine ne sadrži posebne odredbe o odgovornosti zakonskih revizora za štetu, već se primjenjuju opće odredbe o odgovornosti za štetu iz Zakona o obveznim odnosima. Zakon o reviziji predviđa obvezu zakonskog revizora sklopiti ugovor o osiguranju od odgovornosti za štetu koja može nastati subjektu revizije i trećim osobama te propisuje najmanju svotu pokrića. Također uvodi opće zahtjeve za obavljanje zakonskih revizija u svim obveznicima zakonske revizije te posebne zahtjeve koji se primjenjuju na zakonske revizije u subjektima od javnog interesa. Cilj je tih odredbi jačanje neovisnosti i objektivnosti zakonskih revizora u odnosu na subjekte revizije te osiguravanje njihova pravilnog i zakonitog rada., Civil liability of statutory auditors toward audited entities and third parties is not harmonized by EU directives. It is regulated by national provisions of Member States (general provisions, special provisions or combined application of these provisions). Croatian Audit Act from 2017 does not contain special provisions on civil liability of statutary auditors. This topic is regulated by general provisions on civil liability of the Civil Obligations Act. The Audit Act envisages mandatory insurance of statutory auditors’ civil liability toward audited entities and third parties and sets the minimum amount of coverage. It also sets general requirements for statutory audits in all audited entities and special requirements for statutory audits in public interest entities. Aim of these provisions is strengthening of independence and objectivity of statutory auditors towards audited entities., Die Haftung des Abschlussprüfers für den an geprüfte Unternehmen und Dritte verursachten Schaden bei der Ausübung von Jahresabschlussleistungen stellt eine der offenen Fragen, welche an die einschlägigen Richtlinien der Europäischen Union nicht angepasst ist. Die Frage ist durch nationale Vorschriften der EU-Mitgliedstaaten, welche auf die Anwendung von allgemeinen oder besonderen Bestimmungen über Schadenshaftung oder auf kombinierte Anwendung genannter Bestimmungen hinweisen, reguliert. Das Gesetz über Jahresabschlüsse aus 2017 beinhaltet keine besonderen Bestimmungen über die Haftung des Abschlussprüfers. Es werden dabei die allgemeinen Bestimmungen über Schadenshaftung aus dem Schuldrechtsgesetzes angewendet. Das Gesetz über Jahresabschlüsse schreibt vor, dass der Abschlussprüfer bezüglich des eventuellen an geprüfte Unternehmen und Dritte verursachten Schaden dazu verpflichtet ist, die Haftpflichtversicherung abzuschließen. Ebenfalls wird die minimale Deckungssumme der Haftpflichtversicherung im Gesetz vorgeschrieben. Allgemeine Forderungen für die Durchführung von Jahresabschlüssen in allen zum Jahresabschluss pflichtigen Unternehmen sowie auch besondere Forderungen, welche an die in Subjekten von öffentlichem Interesse durchgeführten Jahresabschlüsse angewendet werden, werden auch im Gesetz bestimmt. Das Ziel dieser Bestimmungen ist es, die Unabhängigkeit und die Objektivität von Abschlussprüfern in Bezug auf die geprüften Unternehmen zu erhöhen. Ebenfalls versucht man auf diese Weise abzusichern, dass die Abschlussprüfer richtig und im Einklang mit dem Gesetz arbeiten., revisione ed ai terzi in occasione dell’espletamento dei servizi di revisione rappresenta una delle questioni aperte che non trova soluzioni armonizzate nelle relative direttive dell’Unione europea. L’illecito viene disciplinato dalla legislazione nazionale dei singoli Stati membri dell’UE che indirizzano all’applicazione di disposizioni generali o speciali riguardanti i danni oppure all’applicazione combinata di tali disposizioni. La legge sulla revisione del 2017 non contiene disposizioni particolari in materia di illecito dei revisori legali; bensì si applicano le disposizioni generali sulla responsabilità per danni dettata dalla Legge sui rapporti obbligatori. La Legge sulla revisione prevede l’obbligo a carico del revisore legale di concludere un contratto di assicurazione per i danni che potrebbero sorgere in capo al soggetto della revisione ed ai terzi e dispone l’importo minimo di copertura. Introduce altresì pretese generali per l’espletamento delle revisioni legali con riguardo a tutti i soggetti sottoposti ad obbligo di revisione legale e pretese specifiche che si applicano nel caso di revisioni legali di soggetti di interesse pubblico. Lo scopo di tali disposizioni è quello di rafforzare l’autonomia e l’obbiettività dei revisori legali rispetto ai soggetto della revisione e di garantire l’espletamento regolare e conforme alla legge del loro operato.

Prekogranični prijenos sjedišta trgovačkih društava iz država članica Europske unije jedno je od spornih pitanja europskoga prava zbog razlika koje postoje u nacionalnim materijalnim i kolizijskim pravilima. To dovodi do poteškoća u ostvarivanju mobilnosti društava na unutarnjem tržištu Europske unije. Zbog toga se Europski sud u svojim presudama bavio problemom prekograničnog prijenosa stvarnog sjedišta društva. Pritom Europski sud pravi razliku između slučajeva useljavanja i slučajeva iseljavanja društava. Kada je riječ o prijenosu registriranog sjedišta društva, važni su sekundarni izvori europskoga prava koji uređuju prekogranični prijenos registriranog i stvarnog sjedišta nadnacionalnih društava te prekogranična pripajanja i spajanja društava kapitala. Republika Hrvatska primjenjuje teoriju osnivanja pri određivanju osobnog statuta društva, pri čemu su odredbe hrvatskoga prava usklađene sa sekundarnim izvorima europskoga prava., Cross-border transfer of company seat represents a controversial issue in the EU because of the differences in national conflict of laws and substantive provisions of the EU Member States. This adversely affects the mobility of companies in the internal market of the EU. For this reason, the ECJ case law has dealt with the problem of cross-border transfer of the actual company seat. In its judgements the ECJ distinguishes the cases of immigration from the cases of emigration of companies. Secondary legislation of the EU is important in regard to cross-border transfer of the registered company seat. It regulates cross-border transfer of the registered seat of supranational companies and cross-border company mergers. The Republic of Croatia applies the incorporation theory for determining the applicable law for companies. Its national provisions are in line with the secondary legislation of the EU.

INCOTERMS termini predviđaju različite modalitete isporuke robe i prijelaza rizika i troškova u međunarodnoj kupoprodaji. Posljednja revizija INCOTERMS termina iz 2010. godine prilagodila je njihov sadržaj poslovnoj praksi trgovaca te razvoju prometne tehnologije u posljednjem desetljeću. Specifičnost INCOTERMS termina je da prodavatelj i kupac moraju izričito ugovoriti njihovu primjenu na svoj obveznopravni odnos. U slučaju da ugovorne strane nisu u ugovoru uredile pitanje prijelaza rizika, primijenit će se odredbe Konvencije UN-a o međunarodnoj prodaji robe iz 1980. godine., The INCOTERMS terms lay down different modes of delivery of goods, risk transfer and costs in international sale. The last revision of INCOTERMS in 2010 adapted their content according to business practice of tradesmen and development of transportation technology in the last decade. Due to the fact that INCOTERMS terms are not mandatory, the seller and the buyer have to explicitly put in the contract that they adopt INCOTERMS to regulate their mutual legal obligations. In case if contractual parties did not include special provisions on risk transfer into the contract, the provisions of the 1980 United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods shall apply accordingly., INCOTERMS Klauseln sehen unterschiedliche Modalitäten der Warenlieferung und Risiko- und Kostenübertragung im internationalen Kauf und Verkauf voraus. Die lezte Revision von INCOTERMS Klauseln aus dem Jahr 2010 hat ihr Inhalt der Händlersgeschäftspraxis und der im letzten Jahrzent sichtbaren Verkehrstechnologieentwicklung angepasst. Die Besonderheit der INCOTERMS Klauseln liegt darin, dass der Verkäufer und Kaüfer die Anwendung der Klauseln auf ihr rechtlich- verpflichtendes Verhältnis ausdrücklich vereinbaren müssen. Im Falle, dass die Vertragsparteien die Frage der Risikoübertragung im Vertrag nicht geregelt haben, wird die Verordnung der UN Konvention über den internationalen Kauf und Verkauf von Waren aus dem Jahr 1980 angewendet., Gli INCOTERMS termini prevedono differenti modalità di consegna dei beni e di passaggio del rischio e dei costi nella vendita internazionale. L'ultima revisione degli INCOTERMS termini del 2010 ha adattato il loro contenuto alla prassi professionale dei commercianti ed allo sviluppo della tecnologia nei trasporti nel corso dell'ultimo decennio. La peculiarità degli INCOTERMS termini consiste nel fatto che il venditore ed il compratore debbono pattuire espressamente la loro applicazione al rapporto giuridico obbligatorio tra loro sorto. Nel caso in cui le parti contrattuali non abbiano definito la questione del passaggio del rischio, si applicheranno le disposizioni della Convenzione di Vienna 1980.

Statusno javno-privatno partnerstvo predstavlja oblik ustanovljavanja odnosa javno-privatnog partnerstva osnivanjem zajedničkoga trgovačkog društva, čiji su osnivači javni i privatni partner ili stjecanjem udjela privatnoga partnera u temeljnom kapitalu postojećega trgovačkog društva, čiji je jedini član javni partner. Prednosti primjene statusnoga javno-privatnog partnerstva očituju se u mogućnosti javnog partnera da sudjelovanjem u organima zajedničkoga trgovačkog društva ostvaruje neposredan nadzor nad razvojem i provedbom projekta javno-privatnog partnerstva kao i stjecanje iskustva u provedbi projekta javno-privatnog partnerstva. Hrvatski Zakon o javno-privatnom partnerstvu predviđa složeni postupak predlaganja, odobravanja i provedbe projekata javno-privatnog partnerstva uz naglašenu ulogu Agencije za javno-privatno partnerstvo. U postupku izbora privatnog partnera dolaze do izražaja odredbe Zakona o javnoj nabavi. U slučaju zasnivanja statusnoga javno-privatnog partnerstva postoji obveza sklapanja ugovora o ortaštvu kojim se uređuju prava i obveze javnog i privatnog partnera u postupku osnivanja zajedničkoga trgovačkog društva., An institutionalised public private partnership is a model of public private partnership based on the relationship between a public and a private partner aimed at establishing a joint undertaking. The institutionalised public private partnership is also established when the private partner acquires shares in the nominal capital of the existing company whose only member is the public partner. To establish the institutionalised public private partnership has its advantages, for example, the public partner has a possibility to maintain a direct control over realisation and implementation of a public private partnership project when participates in work of the bodies of the joint undertaking. In that way the public partner gains experience in realisation of public private partnership projects. The Croatian Act on Public Private Partnership prescribes a complex procedure to propose, approve and implement the public private partnership project with important role of the Agency for Public Private Partnerships. The provisions of the Public Procurement Act are of the most significance in selection procedure of the private partner. In case of establishment of institutionalised public private partnership, the public and private partners have an obligation to conclude a partnership contract which will govern their rights and duties in the process of establishing a joint undertaking.

Europska je komisija 2014. godine izradila Prijedlog direktive Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća o društvima s ograničenom odgovornošću s jednim članom. Prijedlog direktive uvodi Societas Unius Personae (SUP), podvrstu društva s ograničenom odgovornošću s jednim članom. SUP ne predstavlja novi nadnacionalni oblik trgovačkog društva. Od država članica se traži omogućiti neposrednu elektroničku registraciju osnivanja SUP-a uz primjenu jedinstvenog obrasca društvenog ugovora i prijave za upis. Prijedlog direktive propisuje najniži iznos temeljnog kapitala SUP-a u iznosu od jednog eura, a zaštita vjerovnika se ostvaruje primjenom provjere bilance SUP-a te sastavljanjem izjave o solventnosti prije podjele dobiti SUP-a jedinom članu. Time se žele ukloniti prepreke koje postoje u nacionalnim pravima država članica pri osnivanju društava-kćeri radi pokretanja prekograničnog poslovanja malih i srednjih trgovačkih društava., In 2014 European Commission composed Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on single-member private limited liability companies. The Proposal introduced Societas Unius Personae (SUP). It is variety of the single-member private limited liability company. The SUP is not a new supranational form of company. Member States shall ensure direct on-line registration for incorporation of the SUP with the compulsory use of the templates of Articles of Association and application for registration. The Proposal prescribes minimum capital requirement equivalent to one euro with the introduction of balance sheet test and solvency statement to protect creditors. The aim is removal of the barriers that exist in the national laws of the Member States in the establishment of subsidiaries in order to initiate cross-border business activities of small and medium enterprises.