This article presents an analysis of contractual relations in sport from the standpoint of the Croatian legislative system. Due to the complexity of the subject matter, the author considers only a small fragment of it -the significance and the role of sport in Croatian society and the law of contracts "as a cornerstone on which "sports law" has been built and which is of primary importance in most areas where there is an interface between sport and the law, irrespective of whether the sport is being played at an elite level or at a more humble one".

No abstract

U okolnostima u kojima se prekogranična mobilnost stvari i osoba uzimala zdravo za gotovo, pandemijski razmjeri epidemije virusa SARS-CoV-2 (kolokvijalno zvan koronavirus, dok je nova bolest dobila naziv COVID-19) rezultirali su dramatičnim i do jučer nezamislivim posljedicama. Naime, u redovnom tijeku stvari uglavnom smo se fokusirali na njezine pozitivne efekte, no aktualna epidemija do kraja je razotkrila i njezino „drugo lice“. COVID-19 pokazao se najboljim „stres testom“ prekogranične mobilnosti osoba i prekograničnih gospodarskih odnosa i ukazao na sve slabosti pretjeranog oslanjanja na globalizaciju per se. Učinak COVID-a 19 na svaki aspekt života i na čovječanstvo u cjelini može se nazvati kolosalnim. Pod naletom epidemije „stradali“ su brojni sektori, uključujući i sportski. Većina je sportskih natjecanja, osobito regionalnih i globalnih, otkazana ili odgođena na (ne)određeno vrijeme. Federacije i organizatori sportskih natjecanja našli su se u velikim problemima uslijed nemogućnosti ispunjenja svojih ugovornih obveza u odnosu na sponzore, medije i druge ugovorne stranke. Namjera je autorice ovog rada pokušati odgovoriti na pitanje koje ovih dana muči mnoge, a to je mogućnost isključenja ili ograničenja ugovorne odgovornosti pozivanjem na višu silu.

The history of the European Union's unease on the anti-arbitration policy is long. It dates back in 2007 and the Lisbon Treaty which transferred competence for concluding treaties from the Member States (MSs) to the European Union. In 2019 it is hard to find someone in legal circles who doesn't know about the famous and controversial Achmea judgment. Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) played hard on this topic, although Advocate General and the national court of MSs had different and thoroughly argumented opinions. By this judgment, all arbitration clauses in intra-EU BITs have been invalidated. On the other hand, CJEU didn't offer an adequate alternative for invalid arbitration clauses, nor answered on the question of substantive protection, which is provided by intra-EU BITs. More controversially, in Opinion 1/17 Court declared CETA's provision on dispute settlement valid and EU friendly. The reaction of the MSs almost validated CJEU's intervention into, by then, so carefully built mosaic of investment dispute settlements. Whether it has been given under the pressure of the Commission or at the initiative of MSs, together with the respective judgment, it was an impulsive move. In this Article, the Authors are going to explain how did the Achmea judgment disturbed the internal market and why the past system was more investment-friendly.

No abstract