Book of Proceedings

Varazdin Development and Entrepreneurship Agency in cooperation with

Faculty of Law, University of Split and University North

16th International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development – “The Legal Challenges of Modern World”

Editors: Zeljka Primorac, Candida Bussoli and Nicholas Recker

Book of Proceedings

Split, 1-2 September 2016

Varazdin Development and Entrepreneurship Agency in cooperation with

Faculty of Law, University of Split and University North

Editors: Zeljka Primorac, Candida Bussoli and Nicholas Recker

Economic and Social Development th

16 International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development – “The Legal Challenges of Modern World”

Book of Proceedings

Split, 1-2 September 2016

Title  Economic and Social Development (Book of Proceedings), 16th International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development – “Legal Challenges of Modern World” Editors  Zeljka Primorac, Candida Bussoli and Nicholas Recker Scientific Committee  Marijan Cingula, University of Zagreb, Croatia (President); Ayuba A. Aminu, University of Maiduguri, Maiduguri, Nigeria; Gouri Sankar Bandyopadhyay, The University of Burdwan, Rajbati Bardhaman, India; Haimanti Banerji, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India; Alla Bobyleva, The Lomonosov Moscow State University, Russia; Leonid K. Bobrov, State University of Economics and Management, Novosibirsk, Russia; Rado Bohinc, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia; Ratko Brnabic, University of Split, Croatia; Adnan Celik, Selcuk University - Konya, Turkey; Angelo Maia Cister, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brasil; Mirela Cristea, University of Craiova, Romania; Sreten Cuzovic, University of Nis, Serbia; Oguz Demir, Istanbul Commerce University, Turkey; T.S. Devaraja, University of Mysore, India; Alba Dumi, Vlora University, Vlore, Albania; Ksenija Dumicic, University of Zagreb, Croatia; Galina Pavlovna Gagarinskaya, Samara State University, Russia; Fran Galetic, Zagreb University, Croatia; Mirjana Gligoric, Faculty of Economics, Belgrade University, Serbia; Mehmet Emre Gorgulu, Afyon Kocatepe University, Turkey; Hana Horak, University of Zagreb, Croatia; Anica Hunjet, University North, Koprivnica, Croatia; Oxana Ivanova, Ulyanovsk State University, Ulyanovsk, Russia; Irena Jankovic, Faculty of Economics, Belgrade University, Serbia; Lara Jelenc, University of Rijeka, Croatia; Myrl Jones, Radford University, USA; Ana Jovancai Stakic, Univerzitet Dzon Nezbit, Belgrade, Serbia; Gorazd Justinek, Graduate School of Government and European Studies, Slovenia; Hacer Simay Karaalp, Pamukkale University,Turkey; Dafna Kariv, The College of Management Academic Studies, Rishon Le Zion, Israel; Salih Katircioglu, Eastern Mediterranean University, Northern Cyprus, Turkey; Hilal Yildirir Keser, Uludag University, Bursa, Turkey; Sophia Khalimova, Institute of Economics and Industrial Engineering of Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Science, Novosibirsk, Russia; Marina Klacmer Calopa, University of Zagreb, Croatia; Mirko Klaric, University of Split, Croatia; Vladimir Kovsca, University of Zagreb, Croatia; Goran Kozina, University North, Koprivnica, Croatia; Lejla Lazovic Pita, School of Economics and Business, University of Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Robert Lewis, Les Roches Gruyère University of Applied Sciences, Bulle, Switzerland; Ladislav Lukas, Univ. of West Bohemia, Faculty of Economics, Czech Republic; Pascal Marty, University of La Rochelle, France; Vaidotas Matutis, Vilnius University, Lithuania; Marjana Merkac Skok, GEA College of Entrepreneurship, Ljubljana, Slovenija; Daniel Francois Meyer, North West University, South Africa; Marin Milkovic, Rector, University North, Koprivnica, Croatia; Gratiela Georgiana Noja, West University of Timisoara, Romania; Zsuzsanna Novak, Corvinus University of Budapest, Hungary; Mislav Ante Omazic, University of Zagreb, Croatia; Matko Pajcic, University of Split, Croatia; Vera Palea, Universita degli Studi di Torino, Italy; Dusko Pavlovic, President DIU Libertas International University, Zagreb, Croatia; Zeljka Primorac, University of Split, Croatia; Miroslaw Przygoda, University of Warsaw, Poland; Nicholas Recker, Metropolitan State University of Denver, USA; Zeljko Radic, University of Split, Croatia; Kerry Redican, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, USA; Robert Rybnicek, University of Graz, Austria; Katarzyna Szymanska, The State Higher School of Vocational Education in Ciechanow, Poland; Ilaria Tutore, University of Naples Parthenope, Italy; Mladen Vedris, University of Zagreb, Croatia; Ilko Vrankic, University of Zagreb, Croatia; Rebeka Danijela Vlahov, University of Zagreb; Mladen Vukcevic, President of the Judicial Council of Montenegro; Thomas Will, Agnes Scott College, USA; Li Yongqiang, Victoria University, Australia; Peter Zabielskis, University of Macau, China; Tao Zeng, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Canada; Snezana Zivkovic, University of Nis, Serbia. Review Committee  Marina Klacmer Calopa (President); Ana Aleksic; Ayuba Aminu; Mihovil Andjelinovic; Josip Arneric; Lidija Bagaric; Tomislav Bakovic; Sanja Blazevic; Leonid Bobrov; Ruzica Brecic; Ratko Brnabic; Anita Ceh Casni; Mirela Cristea; Oguz Demir; Stjepan Dvorski; Robert Fabac; Ivica Filipovic; Fran Galetic; Mirjana Gligoric; Tomislav Globan; Anita Goltnik Urnaut; Tomislav Herceg; Irena Jankovic; Dafna Kariv; Oliver Kesar; Hilal Yildirir Keser; Mirko Klaric; Tatjana Kovac; Vladimir Kovsca; Petar Kurecic; Angelo Maia Cister; Vaidotas Matutis; Marjana Merkac Skok; Daniel Francois Meyer; Natanya Meyer; Josip Mikulic; Ljubica Milanovic Glavan; Guenter Mueller; Ivana Nacinovic Braje; Gratiela Georgiana Noja; Zsuzsanna Novak; Alka Obadic; Claudia Ogrean; Matko Pajcic; Igor Pihir; Najla Podrug; Vojko Potocan; Zeljka Primorac; Zeljko Radic; Sanda Renko; Souhaila Said; Armando Javier Sanchez Diaz; Tomislav Sekur; Lorena Skuflic; Mirko Smoljic; Petar Soric; Mario Spremic; Ana Jovancai Stakic; Matjaz Stor; Lejla Tijanic; Daniel Tomic; Boris Tusek; Mladen Vedris; Rebeka Daniela Vlahov; Ilko Vrankic; Thomas Will; Zoran Wittine; Tao Zeng; Snezana Zivkovic; Berislav Zmuk. Organizing Committee  Zeljka Primorac (President); Domagoj Cingula (Co-President); Hana Horak; Marina Klacmer Calopa; Erlino Koscak; Miroslaw Przygoda; Rebeka Danijela Vlahov. Publishing Editor  Domagoj Cingula Publisher  Design  Print  Varazdin Development and Entrepreneurship Agency, Varazdin, Croatia Faculty of Law, University of Split, Croatia University North, Koprivnica, Croatia Printing  Online Edition ISSN 1849-7535 The Book is open access and double-blind peer reviewed. Our Books are indexed and abstracted by ProQuest, EconBIZ and CPCI (WoS) databases and available for download in a PDF format from the Economic and Social Development Conference website: http://www.esd-conference.com © 2016 Varazdin Development and Entrepreneurship Agency, Varazdin, Croatia; Faculty of Law, University of Split, Croatia; University North, Koprivnica, Croatia. All rights reserved. Authors are responsible for the linguistic and technical accuracy of their contributions

16th International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development – The Legal Challenges of Modern World – Split, 1-2 September 2016

CONTENTS The Legal Challenges of Modern World Damir Primorac, Maja Buhovac  CRIMINAL JUSTICE ASPECTS OF CAUSING FALSE BANKRUPTCY ......................................................................................................................... 2 Ivana Markovinovic Zunko  APPLICABLE LAW FOR CONSUMER CONTRACTS ACCORDING TO THE REGULATION (EC) NO 593/2008 ON THE LAW APPLICABLE TO CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS (ROME I) .............................................................. 113 Dario Klasic  LEGAL ASPECTS OF PACKAGE TRAVEL CONTRACTS ..................... 23 Davor Muhvic  FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT STANDARD IN INVESTMENT TREATIES AND GENERAL INTERNATIONAL LAW ...................................................... 33 Ines Medic  LEX CONTRACTUS AND OVERRIDING MANDATORY RULES. WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE CJEU CASE LAW? ............................................................. 43 Ivan Vukusic  CRIMINAL PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENT - ORGANIZED CRIME AND EFFECTIVE REGRET................................................................................................... 53 Katarina Knol Radoja  THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CIVIL PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT ..................................................................................................................... 64 Nikol Ziha  CROATIAN PROPERTY LAW BETWEEN TRADITION AND TRANSITION: A REVIVAL OF THE ROMAN PRINCIPLE SUPERFICIES SOLO CEDIT .................................................................................................................................................. 73 Jelena Kasap  THE INFLUENCE OF LEGAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS ON THE APPEARANCE OF THE INSTITUTE OF PRECARIUM IN MODERN REGULATION OF CIVIL-LAW ............................................................................................................................. 84 Zeljko Mirjanic, Jasna Cosabic  PROTECTION OF WHISTLE-BLOWER'S EMPLOYMENT STATUS ...................................................................................................... 97 Zvonimir Jelinic  HOW TO ENSURE IMPARTIALITY OF ARBITRATORS? ............. 108 Ivana Radic  SOCIAL-CRIMINAL PREVENTION PROGRAMMES FOR JUVENILES ................................................................................................................................................ 117 I


Ratko Brnabic, Mario Ivancev  PECULIARITIES OF THE FORWARDING CONTRACT ................................................................................................................................................ 131 Tunjica Petrasevic  THE RELATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND MARKET FREEDOMS IN CJEU CASE LAW ............................................................................................................ 142 Ratko Brnabic  PRODUCTION SHARING CONTRACTS IN THE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY ............................................................................................................................ 151 Slavko Simundic, Danijel Barbaric, Sinisa Franjic  SAFETY OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION AND COMPUTER CRIME ............................................................... 161 Strahinja D. Miljkovic, Vanda Bozic  CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY OF LEGAL PERSONS IN THE LEGISLATION REPUBLIC OF SERBIA AND THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA .............................................................................................................................. 170 Susana Sousa Machado  THE DYNAMICS BETWEEN RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT: A JURIDICAL CHRONICLE ........................................... 185 Marija Boban  DIGITAL SINGLE MARKET AND EU DATA PROTECTION REFORM WITH REGARD TO THE PROCESSING OF PERSONAL DATA AS THE CHALLENGE OF THE MODERN WORLD ................................................................................................ 191 Visnja Lachner  LEGAL ASPECTS AND PROBLEMS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION IN LATE 19th AND EARLY 20th CENTURY IN TOWN OSIJEK .......... 202 Marko Dimitrijevic  LEGAL REGULATION OF TAX INCENTIVES FOR INVESTMENTS IN SERBIA ................................................................................................ 210 Paula Poretti  COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) NO 1206/2001 OF 28 MAY 2001 ON COOPERATION BETWEEN THE COURTS OF THE MEMBER STATES IN THE TAKING OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL OR COMMERCIAL MATTERS AS A GUARANTEE OF THE RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE JUDICIAL PROTECTION .......................................................... 219 Merica Pletikosic, Majda Tafra Vlahovic  THE PUBLIC AND INTERESTED PUBLIC IN ENVIRONMENTAL PRACTICES ....................................................................................... 227 Lucija Sokanovic  FRAUD IN ECONOMIC BUSINESS OPERATIONS IN CROATIA: PRACTICAL PROBLEMS AND LEGAL SOLUTIONS ..................................................... 235 II


Miro Gardas, Ana Gavran  CONFISCATION OF THE PROPERTY OF THE JEWS IN OSIJEK AFTER WORLD WAR II ....................................................................................... 244 Ivana Kunda  JURISDICTION AND APPLICABLE LAW IN CROWDFUNDING ...... 253 Ivana Markovinovic Zunko  IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ODR (ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION) PLATFORM ACCORDING TO THE REGULATION (EU) NO 524/2013 ON ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION FOR CONSUMER DISPUTES ........................... 264 Dejan Bodul  BANKRUPTCY POLICY, STATE ATTITUDE TOWARDS BANKRUPTCY AND STATE INTERVENTIONISM .................................................................................... 273 Maja Proso  CIVIL PROTECTION OF THE HUMAN RIGHT TO A SAFE AND HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................... 282 Dunja Duic  EU GLOBAL STRATEGY ON FOREIGN AND SECURITY POLICY AND THE ROLE OF HIGH REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNION FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND SECURITY ................................................................................................................... 289 Zeljka Primorac  EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES FOR DETECTING FRAUDULENT CLAIMS IN MOTOR THIRD PARTY LIABILITY INSURANCE .................................... 299 Mara Barun  LEGAL EFFECTS OF THE APPLICATION OF EU DIRECTIVE 2015/2302 ON PACKAGE TRAVEL AND LINKED TRAVEL ARRANGEMENTS ......................... 309 Dinka Sago  CROSS – BORDER PRACTICE OF LAW .................................................. 319 Dominika Bochanczyk - Kupka  THE MEASURES OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION ........................................................................................................ 329 Biljana Cincurak Erceg  EUROPEAN AIMS AND CROATIAN LEGAL SOLUTIONS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE ADRIATIC SEA FROM POLLUTION ............................... 336 Blanka Ivancic - Kacer  CROATIAN LEGISLATION AND PRACTICE - THE EFFECTS ON INVESTMENT PROCESSES ......................................................................................... 347 Aleksandra Vasilj  IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RAILWAY SYSTEM OF THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA IN THE EU RAILWAY SYSTEM ........................................... 354

III


Damir Primorac  ACTUAL QUESTIONS REGARDING THE CRIMINAL OFFENCE OF ABUSE OF TRUST IN BUSINESS ACTIVITY .................................................................. 363 Anton Petricevic  THE PROTECTION OF MENTAL HEALTH IN THE WORKPLACE ................................................................................................................................................ 372 Ana Radina  FOSTER CARE AS THE FORM OF ALTERNATIVE CARE FOR CHILDREN ............................................................................................................................ 380 Aleksandar Erceg  IS ABSENCE OF REGULATION AND FRANCHISING LAW OBSTACLE FOR FRANCHISING EXPANSION IN CROATIA – COMPARISON WITH OTHER COUNTRIES ........................................................................................................... 392

Economic and Social Development Anetta Wasniewska, Katarzyna Olszewska DETERMINANTS OF THE DEMAND FOR HIGHER EDUCATION SERVICES IN SELECTED EU COUNTRIES ............................. 403 Abdelatif Kerzabi  PUBLIC EXPENDITURE AND ECONOMIC CRISIS IN ALGERIA ................................................................................................................................................ 413 Agata Mesjasz-Lech  SECTOR VARIATION IN THE USE OF CRM SYSTEMS FOR ENTERPRISE LOGISTICS ................................................................................................... 420 Agnieszka Leszczynska  CONCEPTUALIZATION OF GREEN HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................................... 431 Aneta Wlodarczyk  FACTORS AFFECTING ROAD TRANSPORT CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS IN THE VISEGRAD GROUP: A PANEL COINTEGRATION APPROACH ................................................................................................................................................ 442 Daniela Majercakova, Lucia Kocisova  IMPACT INVESTING – OPPORTUNITY FOR CREATIVE INVESTMENT .................................................................................................. 452 Dunja Skalamera – Alilovic, Ivan Rubinic  THE TAX SYSTEM AS A GENERATOR OF ECONOMIC INEQUALITY IN CROATIA ......................................................................... 459

IV


EUROPEAN AIMS AND CROATIAN LEGAL SOLUTIONS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE ADRIATIC SEA FROM POLLUTION Biljana Cincurak Erceg Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek Faculty of Law Osijek, Croatia [email protected] ABSTRACT Within the European Union, there is a significant area of marine waters which are under the sovereignty and jurisdiction of the Member States. Sea and marine environment are an invaluable natural resource that must be protected and preserved from the harmful impact of human activities. The Member States of the European Union are parties to the most important conventions aimed to protect the marine environment, and the European Union has adopted a number of important directives aimed at protecting the environment. The European Union has recognised the importance of protecting the marine environment and has therefore adopted Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive) in 2008, establishing a framework within which Member States take the measures necessary to achieve or maintain good environmental status in the marine environment by 2020. As a Member State, the Republic of Croatia should develop a marine strategy for the Adriatic Sea and for that purpose it has to cooperate with both other Member States and third countries. The paper analyses the activities related to the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive which Croatia has carried out, legal solutions made for that purpose, the problems they faced as well as measures to be taken and the plans to be executed. It also gives a brief overview of the implementation of the Directive in the European Union, the existing situation and the goals of the neighbouring countries as well as a critical review of the adopted solutions. Keywords: Adriatic Sea, Good Environmental Status, Marine Strategy Framework Directive, Protection of the Marine Environment. 1. INTRODUCTION Sea and marine environment are an invaluable natural resource subject to pollution from several sources (e.g., land-based activities, vessel pollution, pollution from platforms, pollution from air, dumping, off-shore activities), hence the marine environment must be protected and preserved from the harmful impact of human activities. Marine waters under the sovereignty and jurisdiction of Member States of the European Union (hereinafter referred to as 'the EU') include waters in the Mediterranean Sea, the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea and the North-east Atlantic Ocean, including the waters surrounding the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands. Member States have recognised the importance of protecting the marine environment, and therefore the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union adopted Directive 2008/56 /EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive - hereinafter referred to as 'MSFD') in 2008. The Republic of Croatia has a large part of the Adriatic coast and is responsible for its protection and preservation. In accordance with existing regulations and commitments, the Republic of Croatia has undertaken a number of activities in order to achieve the goals planned. In addition to taking specific measures, in the case of the Adriatic Sea, cooperation with not only EU Member States but also third countries will be necessary. 336


2. THE ADRIATIC SEA AS A PART OF THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA REGION – A GEOGRAPHICAL AND LEGAL OVERVIEW 2.1. Geographical overview The Adriatic Sea is a part of the Mediterranean Sea positioned between the Italian and Balkan peninsulas. There are six countries sharing its coast, i.e., Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Italy, Montenegro and Slovenia. The length of the Adriatic Sea is 783 km, the average width is 248.3 km, and its average depth is 173 m. Its surface area amounts to 138,595 km². The length of the entire mainland Adriatic coast is 3,690 km, of which Croatia’s Adriatic Sea mainland coast is 1,777 km long, Italy’s is 1249 km, Albania’s 396 km, Montenegro’s 200 km, Slovenia’s 47 km and finally, Bosnia and Herzegovina’s is 21 km. (http://www.enciklopedija.hr/natuknica.aspx?id=28478) EU Member States’ share of surface area is 87.7% (State of Europe’s seas, 2015, p. 14). The Croatian Adriatic Sea coastline (both the mainland and islands) accounts for 75.8% of the total Adriatic shoreline (Ćorić, Debeljak – Rukavina, 2008, p. 959). Therefore, the Republic of Croatia plays an important role in the preservation and protection of the Adriatic Sea. Namely, the Mediterranean Sea is one of the most ecologically endangered seas thanks to its specific geographical location (according to Art. 122 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (hereinafter referred to as 'UNCLOS'), it belongs to the group of enclosed or semienclosed seas), but also to heavy traffic occurring there, as well as industrial and municipal waste that reaches the Mediterranean Sea through rivers. 2.2. Legal instruments relevant for the protection of the sea environment The Republic of Croatia as well as other Member States of the EU are parties to the most important conventions aiming to protect the marine environment. Legal sources relevant for the protection of the sea environment can be divided into the following three groups: international conventions, European legislation and national sources of law. 2.1.1 International conventions The MSFD recalls that both the EU and Member States should take into account the obligations under UNCLOS (Preamble, Art. 17), the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity (Preamble, Art. 18) and the fulfilment of duties and obligations under the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean, as well as its Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution from LandBased Sources. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), concluded in 1982, came into force in 1994 is the most important international treaty regulating the law of the sea in general, but also the protection and preservation of the marine environment. The Convention lays down the fundamental obligation of all States to protect and preserve the marine environment (Art. 192 of UNCLOS) and urges all States to cooperate on a global and regional basis in formulating rules and standards and otherwise take measures for the same purpose. Its provisions lay down only general principles and rules, establishing a global framework of obligations, responsibilities and powers of states in all matters of marine environment protection. Therefore, UNCLOS needs to be complemented with a further treaty law structure. “From the EU perspective, UNCLOS served as a catalyst for the member states to come up with more expansive ocean policies, as the Convention did not explicitly obligate parties to promote ecosystem-based integrated ocean governance.” (Koivurova, 2009, p. 172)

337


The Convention on Biological Diversity was concluded in 1992 and it came into force in 1993. Biological diversity means the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems. The objectives of the Convention, as defined in Art. 1, are the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilisation of genetic resources, including by appropriate access to genetic resources and by appropriate transfer of relevant technologies, taking into account all rights over those resources and to technologies, and by appropriate funding. According to the MSFD, the Adriatic Sea is a subregion of the Mediterranean Sea region, hence all conventions regulating the Mediterranean Sea region are also relevant. First of all, it is the Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution (Barcelona Convention) which was adopted in 1976 and amended in 1995 when it changed its name into the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean with its 7 protocols. The Barcelona convention is a result of the Mediterranean Action Plan, a plan adopted as a Regional Seas Programme which is one of UNEP’s most significant achievements. For the purpose of this paper, it should be pointed out that the Republic of Croatia assumed the obligations stemming from the Protocol on Integrated Coastal Zone Management in the Mediterranean on the development of the National Strategy for Integrated Coastal Zone Management. In the context of this paper, the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) has to be mentioned as well. It was concluded in 1973, and it came into force in 1983 together with the 1978 Protocol. MARPOL regulates and prevents marine pollution by ships, and covers accidental and operational oil pollution as well as pollution by chemicals, goods in packaged form, sewage, garbage and air pollution. “It should be noted that in accordance with Annexes I and V to the MARPOL Convention, the Mediterranean Sea area, and thus the Adriatic Sea area as part thereof, are defined as special areas. This includes more stringent controls, i.e., prohibition of discharge of oil and garbage from ships.” (Ćorić, Debeljak – Rukavina, 2008, p. 964) 2.1.2 European legislation The main act regulating marine environmental policy within the EU has already been mentioned, i.e., the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (see infra Chapter 3). The MSFD is not an unrelated legislative act as it complements a number of other European, regional and international instruments. According to Art. 13(2) of the MSFD, it is connected to Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (OJ L 135, 30. 5. 1991, pp. 40–52), Directive 2006/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2006 concerning the management of bathing water quality and repealing Directive 76/160/EEC (OJ L 64, 4. 3. 2006, pp. 37–51), as well as, according to Art. 13(4) of the MSFD, Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206, 22. 7. 1992, pp. 7–50) and Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ L 20, 26. 1. 2010, pp. 7–25). It should be noted that the achievement of the objectives outlined in the MSFD is also closely related to the fulfilment of obligations under Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (the Water Framework Directive) since the primary method of marine pollution is pollution from land-based sources, i.e., rivers.

338


The Marine Strategy Framework Directive is intended to provide a regulatory platform for implementing the environmental objectives of the European Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP). The MSFD it is the “environmental pillar” of the IMP (Juda 2010, p. 44). “The Directive also highlights the need for cross-cutting coordination of the present effort to protect the marine environment with a host of other EU-wide policies such as the Common Fisheries Policy, the Common Agricultural Policy, and the Directive on Water Policy as well as with relevant requirements of international agreements. In this sense, the MSFD is seen as a corrective reaction to the failures associated with earlier sectoral policies taken on a compartmentalized basis that have addressed particular marine uses at all levels of governance from local to international” (Juda, 2010, p. 38). 2.1.3 Croatian legal sources There is a great number of Croatian rules and regulations which directly or indirectly regulate the protection of the marine environment. Most of these rules and regulations are the result of relevant international conventions adopted under the auspices of the International Maritime Organisation, as well as the implementation of EU legislation. (Ćorić, Debeljak – Rukavina, 2008, p. 960). In order to achieve the objectives provided for by the MSFD, the Republic of Croatia has amended a few important acts such as the Environmental Protection Act (OG, No. 80/2013, 78/2015) and the Maritime Code (OG, No. 181/04, 76/07, 146/08, 61/11, 56/13), that were harmonised with UNCLOS, and has adopted several new ones, e.g., the Regulation on the preparation and implementation of documents under the Coastal and Marine Management Strategy (OG, No. 112/2014), the Decision on the adoption of the Coastal and Marine Management Strategy Action Programme: Monitoring and observation system for a continuous assessment of the state of the Adriatic Sea (OG, No. 153/2014), and the Maritime Development and Integrated Maritime Policy Strategy of the Republic of Croatia for the period from 2014 to 2020 (OG, No. 93/2014). The dynamics of human activities at sea and along the coast is continually growing which in turn increases the pressure on the marine environment. In addition to traditional forms of pollution, there are also some new forms - marine invasive species spread via ballast water. Therefore the Republic of Croatia adopted the Ballast Water Control and Management Ordinance (OG, No. 128/2012), which makes a significant contribution to improving the protection of the marine environment. Continuous efforts are put into drafting a proposal for the designation of the Adriatic Sea a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area, which includes a proposal for additional protective measures relating to ballast water. “The Republic of Croatia considers this institute of the MARPOL Convention a priority tool for effective protection of the marine environment of the Adriatic Sea in all coastal states of the Adriatic.” (Maritime Development and Integrated Maritime Policy Strategy of the Republic of Croatia for the period from 2014 to 2020, OG, No. 93/2014) There are significant activities focused on the prevention of the marine environment against pollution, in particular in the context of safety of navigation, and safety of human life and property. A major threat to the Adriatic Sea is also possible pollution that could arise as a result of maritime accidents. In relation to this, Croatia, Italy and Slovenia adopted the Sub-regional Contingency Plan for the prevention of, preparedness for and response to major marine pollution incidents in the Adriatic sea and there also exists a national Contingency Plan for Accidental Marine Pollution (OG, No. 92/2008).

339


Since the Republic of Croatia is a party to all international conventions mentioned above (see supra Chapter 2.1.1) and since as an EU Member State it is obliged to respect and implement EU regulations, we can say that the legislative framework relating to the protection of the marine environment from pollution is satisfactory. 3. MARINE STRATEGY FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union adopted Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (the Marine Strategy Framework Directive - MSFD). This Directive establishes a framework within which Member States shall take the necessary measures to achieve or maintain good environmental status in the marine environment by the year 2020 at the latest (Art.1). For that purpose, marine strategies shall be developed and implemented in order to: a) protect and preserve the marine environment, prevent its deterioration or, where practicable, restore marine ecosystems in areas where they have been adversely affected; b) prevent and reduce inputs in the marine environment, with a view to phasing out pollution, so as to ensure that there are no significant impacts on or risks to marine biodiversity, marine ecosystems, human health or legitimate uses of the sea (Art. 2). The MSFD prescribes that good environmental status (hereinafter referred to as 'GES') “means the environmental status of marine waters where these provide ecologically diverse and dynamic oceans and seas which are clean, healthy and productive within their intrinsic conditions, and the use of the marine environment is at a level that is sustainable, thus safeguarding the potential for uses and activities by current and future generations” (Art. 3(5)). In order to reach GES, the MSFD wants to apply an ecosystem-based approach to the management of human activities. To help Member States understand what GES means in practice, in Annex I, the MSFD sets out 11 qualitative descriptors (biological diversity, non-indigenous species, commercial fish and shellfish, food webs, eutrophication, sea-floor integrity, hydrographical conditions, contaminants, contaminants in seafood, marine litter, energy including underwater noise) which describe what the environment will look like when GES has been achieved. Further, the European Commission adopted 2010/477/EU: Commission Decision of 1 September 2010 on criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status of marine waters (notified under document C (2010) 5956) Text with EEA relevance, OJ L 232, 2.9.2010, pp. 14–24). It contains a number of criteria and associated indicators for assessing good environmental status in relation to the 11 descriptors of good environmental status laid down in Annex I of the MSFD. The scope of the MSFD are all marine waters, i.e., a) waters, the seabed and subsoil on the seaward side of the baseline from which the extent of territorial waters is measured extending to the outmost reach of the area where a Member State has and/or exercises jurisdictional rights, in accordance with the UNCLOS, and b) coastal waters as defined by Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, their seabed and their subsoil. In order to achieve good environmental status by 2020, each Member State is required to develop a strategy for its marine waters. “Term ‘marine strategy’ is best understood as an action plan for applying an ecosystem-based approach to the management of human activities in the marine environment” (Long, 2011, p. 28).

340


Marine strategies should culminate in the execution of programmes of measures designed to achieve or maintain good environmental status. Programmes of measures will be preceded by a preparatory process of the states, which consists of the following: 1. an analysis of the features or characteristics of, and pressures and impacts on marine waters, identifying the predominant pressures and impacts on those waters; 2. determination for their marine waters a set of characteristics for good environmental status; 3. establishment of environmental targets and monitoring programmes for ongoing assessment; 4. establishment and implementation of programmes of measures designed to achieve or maintain good environmental status in the waters concerned (see Articles 8–11 of the MSFD). The programme of the measures should start by 2016 at the latest. 3.1. Implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive First of all, all Member States have transposed the MSFD into their national legislation. Member States have reported under the MSFD on the state of the environment in their marine waters, and on what they consider to be GES. In its report “The first phase of implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC) The European Commission’s assessment and guidance (COM/2014/097 final)”, the European Commission stated that “Member States’ definition of good environmental status and the path they set out to achieve it shows overall limited ambition, often fails to take into account existing obligations and standards and lacks coherence across the Union, even between neighbouring countries within the same marine region.” (Report, 2014, p. 2) Further, most Member States have reported on most articles and most descriptors but the quality of reporting varies widely from country to country, and within individual Member States, from one descriptor to another. (Report, 2014, p. 5) The presence of data gaps in Member States’ reports is also significant. Another problem is that initial assessment reports often give only a fragmented overview of the state of the marine environment. Therefore “comparability of the reporting of Member States is low and makes coordinated action and analysis difficult.” (Report, 2014, p. 7) The Commission concluded that regional cooperation amongst Member States and other relevant countries by the Regional Sea Conventions is well developed in all four regions. “However, the role and the use of the results of this regional cooperation in the MSFD reporting varied considerably.” (SWD (2014) 49 final, p. 72). Since the implementation of the MSFD is complex and requires cooperation within and between the marine regions, the Commission and the EU Member States agreed to establish informal cooperation under a Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) since 2008. 4. CROATIAN ACTIVITIES REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MARINE STRATEGY FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE The implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive in Croatia consists of harmonisation of national legislation with the provisions of the MSFD (see supra 2.1.3), preparing a marine strategy for Croatian coastal waters, and the realisation/continuation of subregional cooperation with neighbouring countries surrounding the Adriatic area as well as regional cooperation in the context of the Barcelona Convention. As for the development of the Croatian Marine Strategy, it was decided that a unified strategy for marine environment and coastal zone management should be developed for achieving the objectives of the MSFD and the Protocol to the Barcelona Convention on Integrated Coastal Zone Management in the Mediterranean. The Strategy is still pending (the draft strategy of September 2015 is available at: http://mio-strategija-hr.pap-thecoastcentre.org/docs/strategija_prvi_nacrt.pdf).

341


As part of the implementation of the MSFD and in accordance with the MSFD, the Republic of Croatia prepared the documents “Initial assessment of the state and load of the marine environment of the Croatian part of the Adriatic”, “Good environmental status of the marine environment and a Set of environmental goals and related indicators” and “An economic and social analysis of the use and the cost of degradation of the coastal and marine environment”. The “Action Programme of the Marine Strategy: The monitoring and observation system for ongoing assessment of the Adriatic Sea” (OG, No. 153/2014) was adopted, and according to available data, the adoption of the Programme of measures for marine environment and coastal zone protection and management is in progress (noting that the said Programme of measures should have been adopted by the end of 2015). 4.1. Problems that may affect the implementation of the MSFD in Croatia The Initial assessment of the state and load of the marine environment of the Croatian part of the Adriatic encompasses several important problems: excessive construction in the coastal area (probably the most important influence on the biological and landscape diversity of the Adriatic Sea); pollution of the sea through ballast water (although the Ballast Water Control and Management Ordinance were adopted, due to lack of funds, they are not applied regularly, and the number of comprehensive analyses of ballast water in Croatia is rather low); marine pollution most commonly comes from land-based activities or vessels. On the other hand, it is pointed out that the quality of sea water at beaches along the Croatian coast is very high (Initial assessment of the state and load of the marine environment of the Croatian part of the Adriatic, 2012, p. 341). There are also some other significant problems like an insufficient number of studies (systematic investigations of the effect of fisheries on ecosystems have not been made, only few comprehensive analyses of ballast water have been conducted), for some pollutants there are no data at all (e.g. the introduction of pathogenic microorganisms in the marine environment), and there is generally no systematic monitoring of certain pollutants. The problem of a lack of data has come to the fore in the document “Good environmental status of the marine environment and a Set of environmental goals and related indicators” since because of that it was not possible to assess GES for some components. 4.2. Cooperation with other Member States In the Preamble, Art. 13, the MSDF states that Member States should cooperate to ensure the coordinated development of marine strategies for each marine region or subregion. “Since marine regions or subregions are shared both with other Member States and with third countries, Member States should make every effort to ensure close coordination with all Member States and third countries concerned. Where practical and appropriate, existing institutional structures established in marine regions or subregions, in particular Regional Sea Conventions, should be used to ensure such coordination.” In our situation, this implies cooperation with Greece, Italy and Slovenia as other Member States, and Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro as third countries (see map: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/eu-coast-and-marinepolicy/implementation/index_en.htm). Italy and Slovenia made initial assessments of their marine waters, determined GES and established a comprehensive set of environmental targets and associated indicators (a monitoring programme). Greece has not made a monitoring programme. Neither of three countries has prepared the programme of measures (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/eu-coast-and-marine-policy/implementation/ scoreboard_en.htm).

342


Under Art. 12 of the MSFD, the Commission was assigned to review the progress and provide to the Member States “guidance on any modifications it considers necessary”, so the Commission has published the detailed technical assessment reports for each country and each marine region (see: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/eu-coast-and-marinepolicy/implementation/reports_en.htm). In the Commission Staff Working Document (SWD(2014) 49 final), which is an Annex to the Commission Report COM(2014) 97 final, summary findings and recommendations for each Member State are available, with strong and week points of national assessments (Greece, pp. 129-132, Italy, pp. 136-139, Slovenia, pp. 159-162. Croatia did not provide its national report on time, hence the Commission did not report about Croatia). 5. THE STATE OF SEAS IN EUROPE In 2015, the European Environment Agency (EEA) published a report which gives an assessment of Europe’s seas. According to the State of Europe’s seas report, although Europe’s seas are productive, they cannot be considered to be healthy, clean and undisturbed (State of Europe’s seas, 2015, p. 188) and are unlikely to become so in the future (p. 189). Namely, 80% of the species and habitats assessments under the MSFD are categorised as 'unknown', and only 4% have achieved the 2020 target of 'good' status. (p. 54). Similarly, most of the assessed commercial stocks (58%) in Europe’s seas are not in good environmental status, whilst the status of 40% of commercial fish stocks is not assessed due to lack of data. (p. 54). There is an “evidence of significant marine biodiversity/ecosystem degradation and, in addition, of a substantial lack of knowledge on the state of marine biodiversity/ecosystems. This lack of knowledge prevents the effective management of all human activities that can damage marine ecosystem/biodiversity overall.” (p. 153). Further, the report states that it is unlikely that many improvements in the condition of marine ecosystems/biodiversity can be seen by the MSFD 2020 deadline to achieve good environmental status (p. 154). Several human-induced pressures affect the state of marine ecosystems directly: physical loss and damage to the seafloor, the capture of fish and shellfish, the introduction of non-indigenous species, pollution that comes from land and the atmosphere, marine litter and underwater noise. “Analysis performed in the Mediterranean and Black Seas shows that 20% of both regions and 60–99% of the territorial waters of EU Member States in these regions are subject to high impact from human activities, while less than 20% are classed as low impact. Very few areas — less than 1% — remain relatively unaffected by human activities“ (State of Europe’s seas, 2015, p. 94). 6. CONCLUSION The European seas are seriously endangered by land-based pollution, oil and hazardous substance discharges and spills, introduction of alien species, overfishing, port and other coastal development, eutrophication, etc. In order to protect the marine environment, in 2008, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union adopted Directive 2008/56/EC establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive - MSFD). The MSFD establishes a framework within which Member States shall take the necessary measures to achieve or maintain good environmental status in the marine environment by the year 2020. The MSFD is the first framework instrument which is aimed particularly at protecting and preserving the marine environment, preventing its deterioration or, where practicable, restoring marine ecosystems in areas where they have been adversely affected. In order to reach GES, the MSFD applies an ecosystem-based approach to the management of human activities. 343


Additionally, sustainable use of Europe’s seas and avoiding further marine ecosystem degradation and loss cannot be achieved by marine policy alone. To be effective, the MSFD is dependent on reliable scientific data and analysis. In its report, the Commission stated that a number of states have shown gaps while reporting on the state of the environment in their marine waters, and on what they consider to be GES. Lack of information prevents effective management (potential pressures on marine ecosystems and their biodiversity may not be appropriately managed, or may not be managed at all) of all activities that can harm the marine environment. Insufficient and poor quality data will be a problem and could also influence the objectives of the MSFD not to be achieved by 2020. The Republic of Croatia and other EU Member States, which are also Adriatic coastal states, have so far fulfilled their obligations relatively well (except for delays in making documents), by which they should achieve the objectives of the MSFD. What they all have in common are the disadvantages of certain data that will be needed in order to carry out MSDF implementing activities with the best quality possible. All of them also participate in the framework of the Barcelona Convention. However, they should participate more actively in the adoption of measures for the prevention and protection of the marine environment, and strengthen cooperation with other Adriatic coastal states in the protection of the seas and the marine environment. Reports indicate that the current state of Europe’s seas is not good. Since there isn't much time left by 2020, i.e. by when GES should be achieved, it is impossible not to wonder whether the European Union has set too high a goal to be achieved by Member States and whether they will manage (despite the will and a good legislative framework, but also many problems) to accomplish it. LITERATURE: 1. Article 12 Technical Assessment of the MSFD 2012 obligations, 7 February 2014, Final version (Greece, Italy, Slovenia). (2014). Retrieved 25.07.2016 from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/eu-coast-and-marinepolicy/implementation/reports_en.htm. 2. Commission Staff Working Document, Annex, Accompanying the document Commission Report to the Council and the European Parliament: The first phase of implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC) - The European Commission’s assessment and guidance COM (2014) 97 final, SWD (2014) 49 final. (2014). Retrieved 25.07.2016 from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52014SC0049. 3. Convention on Biological Diversity. (1992). United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 1760, No. 30619, pp. 79–307. 4. Ćorić, D, Debeljak - Rukavina, S. (2008). Zaštita morskog okoliša u zaštićenom ekološko-ribolovnom pojasu Republike Hrvatske, In Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Rijeci, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 959–974. Rijeka: Pravni fakultet Sveučilišta u Rijeci. 5. Decision on the adoption of the Coastal and Marine Management Strategy Action Programme: Monitoring and observation system for continuous assessment of the state of the Adriatic Sea. (2014). Official Gazette, No. 153/2014. 344


6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12. 13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. (2000). Official Journal of the European Union, L 327, 22.12.2000., pp. 1–73. Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive). (2008). Official Journal of the European Union, L 164, 25.6.2008., pp. 19–40. Good environmental status of the marine environment and a Set of environmental goals and related indicators. Retrieved 10.07.2016 from http://www.mzoip.hr/doc/skup_znacajki_dobrog_stanja_okolisa_za_morske_vode_pod _suverenitetom_republike_hrvatske_i_skup_ciljeva_u_zastiti_morskog_okolisa_i_s_nji ma_povezanih_pokazatelja.pdf. European Environment Agency (2015), State of Europe's seas, (EEA Report No. 2/2015) Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved 20.07.2016 from http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-europes-seas. An economic and social analysis of the use and the cost of degradation of the coastal and marine environment. Retrieved 10.07.2016 from http://www.mzoip.hr/doc/skup_znacajki_dobrog_stanja_okolisa_za_morske_vode_pod _suverenitetom_republike_hrvatske_i_skup_ciljeva_u_zastiti_morskog_okolisa_i_s_nji ma_povezanih_pokazatelja.pdf. Hrvatska enciklopedija, digital edition. (2016). Leksikografski zavod Miroslav Krleža, Jadransko more. Retrieved 13.07.2016 from http://www.enciklopedija.hr/natuknica.aspx?id=28478. International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). (1973 and Protocol 1978). United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 1340, No. 22484, pp. 6–265. Juda, L. (2010). The European Union and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive: Continuing the Development of European Ocean Use Management. Ocean Development & International Law, 41:1, pp. 34–54. Retrieved 02.06.2016 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00908320903285463. Juda, L. (2007) The European Union and Ocean Use Management: The Marine Strategy and the Maritime Policy. Ocean Development & International Law, 38:3, pp. 259-282. Retrieved 02.06.2016 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00908320701530466. Koivurova, T. (2009). A Note on the European Union's Integrated Maritime Policy. Ocean Development & International Law, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 171–183. Retrieved 02.06.2016 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00908320902864904. Long, R. (2011). The Marine Strategy Framework Directive: A New European Approach to the Regulation of the Marine Environment, Marine Natural Resources and Marine Ecological Services. Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law, 29:1, pp. 1-44. Retrieved 02.06.2016 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02646811.2011.11435256. Draft of Marine environment and coastal zone management strategy. Retrieved 23.07.2016 from http://mio-strategija-hr.pap-thecoastcentre.org/docs/strategija_prvi_nacrt.pdf. Initial assessment of the state and load of the marine environment of the Croatian part of the Adriatic. (2012). Retrieved 10.07.2016 from 345


19. 20.

21. 22. 23.

24.

http://www.mzoip.hr/doc/pocetna_procjena_stanja_i_pritisaka_na_morski_okolis_hrvat skog_dijela_jadrana.pdf. Regulation on the preparation and implementation of documents under the Coastal and Marine Management Strategy. (2014). Official Gazette, No. 112/2014. Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: The first phase of implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC) The European Commission’s assessment and guidance (COM/2014/097 final). Seršić, M. (2003). Međunarodnopravna zaštita morskog okoliša, Zagreb: Pravni fakultet Sveučilišta u Zagrebu. Maritime Development and Integrated Maritime Policy Strategy of the Republic of Croatia for the period from 2014 to 2020. (2014). Official Gazette, No. 93/2014. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive Scoreboard, Retrieved 21.07.2016. from https://translate.google.hr/?hl=hr#en/hr/The%20Marine%20Strategy%20Framework%2 0Directive%20Scoreboard. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). (1982). United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 1834, No. 31363, pp. 396–581.

346

16th International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development – “The Legal Challenges of Modern World”