Any discrimination or exclusion based on sexual orientation for the purpose of reducing equality before the law, as well as providing preferential treatment on these grounds, constitutes sexual orientation discrimination . This paper will, inter alia, address the rights of same-sex partners vis-à-vis the rights of heterosexual partners, with the aim of analyzing the current stage of the European perspective in the area where the legal arrangements of certain EU Member States

Building on the Jean Monnet International Scientific Conference "Procedural aspects of EU law" that marked the beginning of the EU and comparative law issues and challenges series (ECLIC), we are happy to be publishing the second EU and comparative law issues and challenges series issue. EU and comparative law issues and challenges series features papers presented at ECLIC research events. The publications contain papers delivered by speakers and panellists, as well as ancillary texts (draft laws and rules) debated at the conferences. The focus of this series is on publication of fully blind peer-reviewed papers, inclusion of reviewed short papers reporting on work in progress is welcome. Importantly, international representative conference program committee guarantee a strict peer-review and paper selection process. This book is a collection of scientific articles that passed the double blind peer review process and were presented at the International Scientific Conference" EU Law in context -adjustment to membership and challenges of the enlargement" that took place on 14-15 June 2018 at Faculty of Law Osijek. We take pride in the fact that this Conference brought nearly 60 academics from EU Member States and candidate countries. Starting on the same question about adjustment to membership and challenges of the enlargement numerous aspects of European, criminal, civil, international, international private, administrative and constitutional law were researched and presented. This created unique academic forum that emerged new ideas and debates.

Restrictions on freedom of movement, in particular the detention of asylum seekers as the most severe form of such restrictions, constitute an interference with fundamental human rights and must be approached with particular care. In view of the migration and refugee crisis, the Republic of Hungary has begun to amend its asylum legislation, thus tightening the conditions for the detention of asylum seekers. The introduction of the provision establishing that asylum may be sought only in transit zones has also led to the gradual detention of asylum seekers in transit zones, which Hungary did not consider as detention. This issue was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter: CJEU), which drastically changed the path taken by the Hungarian government when it comes to detaining asylum seekers. What the CJEU has found is that leaving people in transit zones without the right to free movement is to be considered detention, even though they are not specialized detention facilities. The CJEU ordered that such a practice must cease immediately. Therefore, this paper will examine the Hungarian practice following the judgment of the CJEU. The CJEU has taken a major step towards protecting the rights of asylum seekers as regards detention, and the EU recently adopted amendments as part of the new Pact on Migration and Asylum aimed at improving the existing asylum system. The second part of the paper analyzes the provisions of the new Pact on Migration and Asylum related to detention in order to determine whether the proposed amendments contribute to the Common European Asylum System and the protection of the human rights of asylum seekers or represent a step backwards.

The European humanitarian and migration crisis created by the mass influx of migrants into the European Union that began in 2015 opened up many issues and areas that have not been systematically discussed. The area of irregular entry is certainly one of the most important, precisely because of the legal gaps in the application of the Dublin III Regulation. Recently, the question of irregular entry came before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in two cases brought by Slovenia and Austria, whose outcomes have significant consequences for the Republic of Croatia. In the Court's opinion, admission of third-country nationals in the Member State, with the intention of transferring to another Member State to seek international protection, is considered irregular entry, even in emergencies such as the mass influx of migrants to the state border. Member States receiving a third-country national on their territory shall ensure that all conditions for legitimate entry are met. Without legal preconditions for entry, legitimate residence on the territory of the country of first entry or legitimate transit to another Member State is not possible. The passage of third-country nationals from the Republic of Croatia for humanitarian reasons has resulted in irregular migration because requirements for entry into the state territory were not met. Within these judgments, the CJEU has discussed issues relating to the presumption of lawful entry into the territory of the European Union and the issue of the treatment of a Member State in which a third-country national has first entered. The importance of the CJEU decision is in the fact that it clarifies that the mechanism established by the Dublin III Regulation must inevitably apply, even in exceptional circumstances. The established form of action will certainly be of great importance in the further treatment of Member States because the inflow of migrants to the external borders of the European Union is still expected. This paper will analyse the legal framework regulating the issue of irregular entry and the protection of external borders of the European Union and the main arguments of the CJEU, as well as the opinion of the Advocate General, which was opposing the opinion of the CJEU. The impact of such a Court decision will be critically analysed in this paper as well.

Izbjeglička i migracijska kriza koja je svoj vrhunac doživjela 2015. godine u Europskoj uniji, stavila je pred Republiku Hrvatsku brojne sigurnosne izazove, a samim time i pravne/normativne izazove u smislu pravne regulative upravljanja takvom krizom. Relacija odnosa između zaštite prava izbjeglica kada pristupe teritoriju i zaštite teritorija zasigurno je utjecala na (javne) politike Republike Hrvatske (u daljnjem tekstu: Hrvatska), a brojna "kršenja" ljudskih prava pala su u drugi plan iz razloga zaštite drugih prava. Suverenost i zaštita teritorija primarna je potreba svakog društva i svakog značenja državnosti, no znači li to da se taj cilj treba ostvariti pod svaku cijenu i s kojim posljedicama, odnosno u kauzalnoj vezi izbjegličke krize i zaštite teritorija/granica što ima nadnacionalnu važnost? Status izbjeglice sadrži brojna prava koja su zaštićena na međunarodnoj razini Konvencijom o statusu izbjeglica. Upravo takve činjenice prihvaćanja međunarodnopravnih obveza Republike Hrvatske postavljaju ključno pitanje stvaraju li i u kojoj mjeri međunarodnopravne obveze Hrvatske prema izbjeglicama nacionalni ili europski sigurnosni izazov. Migranti, koji su se priključili izbjegličkom valu 2015. godine, nisu nositelji prava na azil i moraju poštovati postavljena europska rješenja za zakonit ulazak i boravak u Uniji. Upravo razlikovanje migranata od izbjeglica u navedenoj krizi bio je najveći problem koji je stvorio brojne opasnosti i izazove za države članice, posebice pogranične države poput Hrvatske. Stoga će se u ovom članku analizirati pravo na azil i pristup sustavu azila u odnosu na prava država članica da zaštite svoj teritorij iz razloga nacionalne sigurnosti na primjeru Hrvatske.