Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Croatian and EC Competition Law: State and Problems of the Adjustment Process

  • Articles
  • Published:
European Business Organization Law Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to introduce and briefly analyse Croatian competition law in the light of EC competition law standards. The analysis will be kept at a general level, essentially offering an overview of Croatia’s legislative framework in the field of competition law, including the Competition Law that was in force from 1995 until October 2003 and the new Competition Law that was enacted on 21 July 2003 and entered into force on 1 October 2003. An independent Croatian competition authority, the Agency for the Protection of Market Competition, was created in 1995 and began its work in 1997. The Agency is directly responsible to the Croatian Parliament.

In addition, this article analyses the competition provisions of the EC-Croatia Stabilisation and Association Agreement, which was signed in October 2001 and is awaiting ratification by the EU Member States. An Interim Agreement including a number of competition rules has been in force since March 2002. In February 2003, Croatia applied for EU membership.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ustav Republike Hrvatske [Constitution of the Republic of Croatia], Narodne novine [Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia] 41/2000 (consolidated text) and 55/2001 (amended text).

  2. Art. 49(1) and (2) of the Croatian Constitution.

  3. Zakon o zaštiti tržišnog natjecanja [Law on the Protection of Market Competition], Narodne novine 48/95, 52/97 and 89/98.

  4. See the Second Annual Report on the Stabilisation and Association Process for South East Europe, COM (2003) 139 final, Working Paper on Croatia, SEC (2003) 341, p. 25.

  5. Zakon o zaštiti tržišnog natjecanja [Law on the Protection of Market Competition], Narodne novine 122/2003 of 30 July 2003.

  6. Art. 70 new CCL.

  7. See William E. Kovačić, ‘Institutional Foundations for Economic Legal Reform in Transition Economies: The Case of Competition Policy and Antitrust Enforcement’, 77(1) Chicago-Kent Law Review (2001) p. 266.

    Google Scholar 

  8. In Croatia, the opinion of the legislator was that the CCL should be the ‘crown’ of the market legislation that should be enacted once all other market laws and institutions were in operation. See Deša Mlikotin-Tomić, ‘Croatian and European Competition: Legislation and Practice’, in Vinko Kandžija, et al., Economic System of European Union and Adjustment of the Republic of Croatia (University of Rijeka, Faculty of Economics 1997) p. 187.

  9. See Petar Šarčević, ed., Privatisation in Yugoslavia and Croatia (London, Graham and Trotman 1992) p. 81.

    Google Scholar 

  10. See European Commission, Directorate General for Economic and Financial Affairs, The Western Balkans in Transition, Report No. 5 (January 2004) available at: <http://europa.eu.int/comm/economy_finance>.

  11. EBRD, Transition Report 2000, p. 14.

  12. See T. Winslow, ‘OECD Competition Law Recommendations, Developing Countries, and Possible WTO Competition Rules’, 3 OECD Journal of Competition Law and Policy (2001) p. 124.

    Google Scholar 

  13. See speech by Mario Monti at the 8th Annual Competition Conference between the Candidate Countries and the EC, available at: <http://europa.eu.int/competition/speeches>.

  14. The ECJ has repeatedly defined the concept of an undertaking as ‘any entity engaged in an economic activity, regardless of its legal status and the way in which it is financed’, see e.g. ECJ, Case C-41/90 Klaus Höfner and Fritz Elser v. Macrotron GmbH [1991] ECR I-1979, para 21.

  15. See Nenad Pešut, ‘Kartellrechtliche Bestimmungen in der Republik Kroatien’ [Competition Law Provisions in the Republic of Croatia], in Handbuch des Wirtschaftsrechts in Osteuropa [Handbook on Business Law in Eastern Europe] (Munich, Beck Verlag 1997) p. 41.

  16. See e.g. the Decision in Lek farmacevtska družba d.d/Servipharm AG of 14 February 2003, Narodne novine 23/2003, which falls under Croatian merger control because one of the parties had a representative office in Croatia and the other a subsidiary.

  17. Decision of the Council at its 33rd meeting of 14 December 1999.

  18. In the MAN Roland Druckmaschinen AG, Offenbach am Main/Bruder Henn Betriebs AG, Wien case, the Agency decided there was no impact on the Croatian market because only one of the parties had a subsidiary in Croatia (Decision of 2 May 2001, Annual Report of the Agency for the Protection of Market Competition (hereinafter, Annual Report) 2001–2002, p. 144). In the Shade Acquisition Corp.-Luxottica Group S.p.A., USA/Sunglass Hut International Inc., USA case, there was no impact on the Croatian market because none of the parties had a subsidiary in Croatia (Decision of 26 February 2002, Annual Report 2001–2002, p. 174).

  19. Decision of 16 May 2001, Narodne novine 95/02 of 13 August 2002.

  20. Decision of 4 October 1999, Narodne novine 114/99 of 3 November 1999.

  21. Decision of 9 April 2002, Narodne novine 113/02 of 27 September 2002.

  22. Decision of 19 February 2002, Narodne novine 119/02 of 11 October 2002.

  23. See <http://www.crocompet.hr>, Frequently-Asked-Questions (FAQ).

  24. Art. 6 new CCL.

  25. Art. 5 new CCL.

  26. Art. 7(1) new CCL.

  27. Art. 7(2) new CCL.

  28. Art. 10 old CCL.

  29. See Deša Mlikotin-Tomić, ‘Ugovor o franchisingu I pravo konkurencije’ [The Franchising Contract and Competition Law], 4 Pravo u gospodarstvu [The Law in the Economy] (2000) p. 62; I. Pezo, ‘O kažnjivosti povreda slobodnog tržišnog natjecanja’ [On the Incrimination of Competition Law Infringements], 7 Hrvatska pravna revija [Croatian Law Review] (2001) p. 97.

    Google Scholar 

  30. See European Commission, White Paper on the Modernisation of the Rules Implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty, OJ 1999 C 132/1.

  31. Art. 12 CCL.

  32. Art. 9(1) CCL.

  33. Art. 9(2) CCL.

  34. See Decision of 30 April 2003, Narodne novine 72/2003.

  35. See Decision of 5 November 1999, Glasnik (Official Gazette of the Agency for the Protection of Market Competition) 2/2000, p. 82–91.

  36. See e.g. Decision of 30 April 2003, Narodne novine 72/2003.

  37. Zakon o trgovini [Trade Act], Narodne novine 11/96, 75/99, 62/01, 109/02, 49/03 (consolidated text) and 103/03.

  38. Art. 11(3) new CCL.

  39. Art. 12(1) new CCL.

  40. Art. 11 new CCL.

  41. Art. 67(3) new CCL.

  42. See Council Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty, OJ 2003 L 1/284.

  43. See A. Deringer, ‘Stellungnahme zum Wei#x00DF;buch der Europäischen Kommission über die Modernisierung der Vorschriften zur Anwendung der Art. 85 und 86 EG-Vertrag (Art. 81 und 82 EG)’ [Opinion on the White Paper of the European Commission on the Modernisation of the Rules for the Application of Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (Arts. 81 and 82 EC Treaty)], 1 EuZW (2000) s. 11.

  44. Art. 13(3) new CCL.

  45. See Tatjana Ružić, ‘Pravo tržišnog natjecanja — gospodarski aspekti’ [The Economic Aspects of Competition Law], in Ministry for European Integration, Prilagodbe politikama unutarnjeg tržišta EU: očekivani učinci [Adaptation to Internal Market Policies: Expected Results] (Zagreb 2002) p. 79.

  46. Ibid., at p. 80.

  47. Art. 13 old CCL.

  48. Art. 49 of the Croatian Constitution.

  49. Art. 14 CCL. See the Decision in Boninovo d.o.o. of 5 July 2001, Narodne novine 64/01 of 16 July 2001.

  50. Art. 15(2) old CCL.

  51. Art. 15(3) old CCL.

  52. See the Decision in Dalmacija auto d.d. of 14 November 1997, Glasnik 1/1999, p. 38, also confirmed by the Administrative Court, Decision of 15 November 2000.

  53. Art. 19 old CCL.

  54. Art. 16 old CCL.

  55. Art. 17 old CCL.

  56. Art. 15(3) new CCL.

  57. Art. 15(1) new CCL.

  58. See Tatjana Ružić, loc. cit. n. 45, at p. 81.

  59. Ibid.

  60. See A. Mayhew, Recreating Europe: The European Union’s Policy towards Central and Eastern Europe (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 1998) p. 155.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Ibid.

  62. See Annual Report 2001–2002, p. 27.

  63. Art. 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 4064/89 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, OJ 1989 L 395/1, amended by Council Regulation (EC) No. 1310/97 of 30 June 1997, OJ 1997 L 180/1. See Commission Notice on the concept of concentration under Regulation (EEC) No. 4064/89 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, OJ 1998 C 66/5 and 4 Common Market Law Review (1998) p. 586.

  64. Art. 21(1) old CCL.

  65. Art. 21(2) old CCL.

  66. Decision of the Council at its 41st meeting of 30 January 2001.

  67. See Werner Berg, Sabine Nachtsheim and Sylvia Kronberger, ‘Zusammenschlüsse zwischen multionationalen Unternehmen und Fusionskontrolle’ [Mergers between Multinational Undertakings and Merger Control], 1 RIW (2003) p. 18.

  68. Art. 36(2) CCL.

  69. Art. 23(2) CCL.

  70. Art. 25 CCL.

  71. Council Regulation (EEC) No. 4064/89 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, OJ 1989 L 395/1.

  72. For a critical view, see N. Pešut, loc. cit. n. 15, at p. 41.

  73. Uredba o načinu vodjenja upisnika o koncentracijama [Regulation on the Administration of the Register of Concentrations], Narodne novine 30/97 of 19 March 1997.

  74. See Siniša Petrović, ‘Koncentracije — oblici povezivanja gospodarskih subjekata’ [Concentrations — Forms of Mergers between Undertakings], 8 Pravo i porezi [Law and Taxes] (1998) p. 16.

  75. See Annual Report 2001–2002, p. 8.

  76. A distinction should be made between ‘full-function’ and ‘non-full-function’ or ‘partial function’ joint ventures, which are the subject of Art. 81 EC. See R. Whish, Competition Law, 4th edn. (London, Butterworths 2000) p. 749.

  77. Art. 19(5) new CCL.

  78. See Art. 2(4) ECMR.

  79. Art. 22(2) new CCL.

  80. Art. 22(4) new CCL.

  81. Art. 39(1) old CCL.

  82. Art. 39(2) old CCL.

  83. Art. 40 old CCL.

  84. Art. 61(1) new CCL.

  85. Art. 61(2) new CCL.

  86. Art. 62(2) new CCL.

  87. Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases, OJ 1996 C 207/4.

  88. Art. 60 new CCL.

  89. See Annual Report 2001–2002, p. 13.

  90. See Report on the Work of the Agency for 1997 (short version), Glasnik 1/1999, p. 24.

  91. Zakon o op#x0107;em upravnom postupku [Law on the General Administration Procedure], Narodne novine 53/91.

  92. Ibid.

  93. See Annual Report 2001–2002, p. 27.

  94. Art. 58 new CCL.

  95. See Annual Report 2001–2002, p. 12.

  96. Art. 60 new CCL.

  97. Ibid.

  98. See I. Pezo, loc. cit. n. 29, at p. 101.

  99. See the Decisions of the Misdemeanour Court of Zagreb, Nos. 36-12319/98, 36-12310/98 and 318-18129/98.

  100. Art. 28(1) CCL.

  101. Art. 27 CCL.

  102. Art. 35(3) IA (Art. 70(3) SAA).

  103. Art. 30(1) new CCL.

  104. Art. 35(1) new CCL.

  105. Art. 32(1) new CCL.

  106. Art. 34 new CCL.

  107. Art. 32(2) new CCL.

  108. Art. 34(1) CCL; Arts. 48–50 new CCL.

  109. Art. 37a CCL.

  110. Art. 38 CCL.

  111. See Annual Report 2001–2002, p. 12.

  112. See Annual Report 2001–2002, p. 28.

  113. Second Annual Report on the Stabilisation and Association Process for South East Europe, COM (2003) 139 final, Working Paper on Croatia, SEC (2003) 341, p. 30.

  114. See Annual Report 2001–2002, p. 6.

  115. See Annual Report 2001–2002, p. 45.

  116. Second Annual Report on the Stabilisation and Association Process for South East Europe, COM (2003) 139 final, Working Paper on Croatia, SEC (2003) 341, p. 25.

  117. Zakon o državnim potporama [Law on State Aid], Narodne novine 47/03 of 25 March 2003.

  118. Second Annual Report on the Stabilisation and Association process for South East Europe, COM (2003) 139 final, Working Paper on Croatia, SEC (2003) 341, p. 26.

  119. Ibid., at p. 18

  120. Zakon o pretvorbi društvenih poduzeća [Law on the Transformation of Undertakings], Narodne Novine 19/1991, 4/1992, 83/1992, 16/1993, 94/1993, 2/1994, 9/1995 and 21/1996.

  121. See Siniša Petrović, ‘The Legal Regulation of Company Groups in Croatia’, 2 EBOR (2001) p. 285.

  122. Zakon o privatizaciji [Law on Privatisation], Narodne novine 21/1996, 71/1997 and 73/2000.

  123. See S. Petrović, loc. cit. n. 121, at p. 285.

  124. Art. 26 CCL.

  125. See Annual Report 2001–2002, p. 5.

  126. Zakon o privatizaciji INA — Industrija nafle d. d. [Law on the Privatisation of INA d.d. — Oil Industry] of 19 March 2002, Narodne novine 32/02 of 28 March 2002.

  127. Zakon o privatizaciji Hrvatskih telekomunikacija d.d. [Law on the Privatisation of Croatian Telecom d.d.] of 11 June 1999, Narodne novine 65/99 of 25 June 1999.

  128. See the Agency’s Opinion in the Deutsche Telekom AG/Hrvatske telekomunikacije d.d. privatisation case of 11 September 2001, Annual Report 2001–2002, p. 157.

  129. See e.g. the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and Kärtner Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG case, Annual Report 2001–2002, p. 136. See also the Agency’s answer to the question of a member of Parliament in Annual Report 2001–2002, p. 156.

  130. Odluka Hrvatske narodne banke o zastiti tržišnog natjecanja unutar bankarskog sektora [Decision of the Croatian National Bank on Competition in the Banking Sector] of 26 March 2003, Narodne novine 48/2003.

  131. The Council was founded according to Zakon o telekomunikacijama [Law on Telecommunications], Narodne novine 76/99, 128/99, 68/2001 and 122/2003.

  132. The Council was founded according to Zakon o regulaciji energetskih djelatnosti [Law on the Regulation of Energy Activities], Narodne novine 68/2001 of 27 July 2001.

  133. See S. Petrović, ‘Tržišno natjecanje — pravni aspekti’ [Legal Aspects of Market Competition], in Ministry for Eurpean Integration, Prilagodbe politikama unutarnjeg tržšta EU: očekivani učinci [Adaptation to Internal Market Policies: Expected Results] (Zagreb 2002) p. 52.

  134. The Croatian Parliament ratified the SAA by qualified majority on 5 December 2001, Narodne novine — medjunarodni ugovori [International Treaties] 14/2001.

  135. Council Decision 2002/107/EC of 28 January 2002 on the conclusion of an Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, of the one part, and the Republic of Croatia, of the other part — Information on the entry into force of the Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community and Croatia, OJ 2002 L 40/9.

  136. Art. 3(2) IA; Zakon o potvrdjivanju Privremenog sporazuma o trgovinskim i s njima povezanim pitanjima izmedju Republika Hrvatske i Europske zajednice [Law on the Ratification of the Interim Treaty on Trade and Trade-Related Matters between the Republic of Croatia and the European Union], Narodne novine — medjunarodni ugovori [International Treaties] 15/01.

  137. See the Preamble of the Interim Agreement.

  138. Art. 2 IA (Art. 15 SAA).

  139. See clause 15 of the Preamble of the SAA. Croatia submitted its application for EU membership on the basis of Art. 49 EC on 21 February 2003.

  140. See John Fingelton, et al., Competition Policy and the Transformation of Central Europe (Brussels, CEPR 1996) p. 179.

  141. See e.g. the EC-Poland Europe Agreement, OJ 1993 L 348/2.

  142. See the Implementing Rules for the EC-Poland Europe Agreement, OJ 1996 L 208/24.

  143. The Europe Agreements or Association Agreements were signed between the European Communities and the Candidate States in 1992. They entered into force on 1 February 1994. The bulk of these agreements are identical, but the bilateral agreement with Poland contains a few more provisions concerning the direct effect of its competition provisions. See Gabrielle Marceau, ‘The Full Potential of the Europe Agreements: Trade and Competition Issues — The Case of Poland’, 19(2) World Competition (1995) pp. 35–69 at p. 44.

  144. See the Zagrebačka pivovara d.d. case of 30 April 2003, Narodne novine 72/2003.

  145. Art. 35(3) new CCL.

  146. Art. 35(9) IA.

  147. Art. 39 IA.

  148. ECJ, Case 87/75 Bresciani v. Italian Finance Department [1976] ECR 129.

  149. ECJ, Case 104/81 Hauptzollamt Mainz v. Kupferburg [1982] ECR 3641.

  150. ECJ, Case 12/86 Meryen Demirel v. Stadt Schwabisch Gmund [1987] ECR 3719.

  151. See R. Whish, op. cit. n. 76, at p. 55.

  152. Council Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty, OJ 2003 L 1/1.

  153. See Pons, ‘Enlargement and Competition Policy’, Meeting of EPP-ED Group Bureau in Ljubljana, 16 September 2002, available at <http://europa.eu.int/competition/speeches>.

  154. A. Mayhew, op. cit. n. 69, at p. 117.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Hamburg and Europa-Kolleg, Hamburg

    Bojana Vrcek Master of European Studies (Ph.D. student, currently working)

Authors
  1. Bojana Vrcek Master of European Studies
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vrcek, B. Croatian and EC Competition Law: State and Problems of the Adjustment Process. Eur Bus Org Law Rev 5, 363–387 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03354632

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03354632

Keywords

Search

Navigation