DOCSLIB.ORG

International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES In the arbitration proceeding between GEORG GAVRILOVIĆ AND GAVRILOVIĆ D.O.O. Claimants and REPUBLIC OF CROATIA Respondent ICSID Case No ARB/12/39 AWARD Members of the Tribunal Dr Michael C. Pryles, President Dr Stanimir A. Alexandrov, Arbitrator Mr J. Christopher Thomas QC, Arbitrator Secretary of the Tribunal Ms Jara Mínguez Almeida Date of dispatch to the Parties: 26 July 2018 REPRESENTATION OF THE PARTIES Representing Georg Gavrilović and Gavrilović Representing Republic of Croatia: d.o.o.: Prof Emmanuel Gaillard Mr Grant Hanessian, Esq Dr Yas Banifatemi Mr Filip Boras, Esq Mr Rudolf Simone-Pont Mr Derek Soller, Esq Ms Arianna Rosato Dr Alexander Petsche Mr Andrew Riccio, Esq Shearman & Sterling LLP Mr Mark McCrone, Esq 7 rue Jacques Bingen Mr Thomas Obersteiner 75017 Paris Mr Jose Manuel Maza France Baker & McKenzie LLP and 452 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10018 Dr Marc Jacob United States of America Shearman & Sterling LLP Schottenring 25 Bockenheimer Landstrasse 2-4 1010 Vienna D-60306 Frankfurt am Main Republic of Austria Federal Republic of Germany and and Mr Zvonimir Buterin Mr Boris Koketi Ms Jelena Lučić-Nothig Ms Ines Videnić Desović Mr Petar Ceronja State Attorney’s Office of the Buterin & Posavec Republic of Croatia Draškovićeva 82 Gajeva 30a 10000 Zagreb 10 000 Zagreb Republic of Croatia Republic of Croatia i TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 PROCEDURAL HISTORY.............................................................................................. 1 FACTUAL OVERVIEW ................................................................................................ 17 The Gavrilović Enterprise .......................................................................................17 The First Claimant’s Alleged Purchase of the Gavrilović Enterprise from Bankruptcy ..............................................................................................................22 The Respondent Alleges the First Claimant Purchased the Gavrilović Enterprise Through a Corrupt Scheme .....................................................................................25 The Claimants Rebuild the Gavrilović Enterprise ..................................................27 The Claimants Allege the Respondent Failed to Protect and Promote Their Investment ...............................................................................................................28 The Claimants Allege That the Respondent Expropriated Their Purchase of the Gavrilović Enterprise ..............................................................................................35 THE PARTIES’ REQUESTS FOR RELIEF .................................................................. 39 The Claimants..........................................................................................................39 The Respondent .......................................................................................................40 QUESTIONS FOR DETERMINATION ....................................................................... 41 ISSUE 1: JURISDICTION ............................................................................................. 50 Issue 1.1: Is each of the Claimants an “investor” who has made an “investment” under the ICSID Convention and the BIT? .......................................................................51 Issue 1.2: Was the alleged investment made in accordance with host State law, so that the Tribunal would have jurisdiction over the Claimants’ claims? .........................66 ISSUE 2: ADMISSIBILITY ......................................................................................... 129 Issue 2.1: Does the ICSID Convention include the concept of “admissibility” as a type of preliminary objection? If not, are characterisations of admissibility otherwise relevant? ................................................................................................................130 Issue 2.2: Which party has the burden of proof regarding the Alleged Illegalities as they relate to the admissibility of the Claimants’ claims? ............................................132 Issue 2.3: Do any of the Alleged Illegalities render the Claimants’ claims inadmissible? .........................................................................................................132 Issue 2.4: Are any of the Claimants’ claims inadmissible due to the jurisdiction clause contained in the Purchase Agreement? .................................................................133 ISSUE 3: APPLICABLE LAW .................................................................................... 135 Issue 3.1: Having regard to Article 42 of the ICSID Convention and the BIT, what is the law applicable to the issues in dispute? .................................................................135 Issue 3.2: In particular, what law determines the Claimants’ alleged property rights? 136 Issue 3.3: Should the Tribunal apply one law to the whole of the dispute or does the applicable law vary on an issue by issue basis? ....................................................137 ii ISSUE 4: MERITS – GENERAL MATTERS ............................................................. 138 Issue 4.1: Is the Purchase Agreement unenforceable by reason of one, or more, of the Alleged Illegalities? ...............................................................................................139 Issue 4.2: Do the Claimants have a property interest in the claimed properties as a matter of Croatian law? .........................................................................................144 Issue 4.7: Are the actions of the following persons or entities attributable to the Respondent? ..........................................................................................................208 Issue 4.8: Is the Respondent a party to, or otherwise bound by, the Purchase Agreement? ...........................................................................................................229 Issue 4.9: Does an erroneous application of law, if any, by the Respondent give rise to a treaty violation? .....................................................................................................238 Issue 4.6: What is the effect of the Claimants’ failure, if any, to make use of available domestic remedies, including the commencement of contentious proceedings, on the merits of their claims under the BIT? ..............................................................242 ISSUE 6: MERITS – EXPROPRIATION .................................................................... 244 Issue 6.1: Has the Respondent expropriated the Claimants’ Plots? ..............................246 Issue 6.2: Has the Respondent directly or indirectly expropriated the Claimants’ contractual rights, if any, under the Purchase Agreement? ...................................256 Issue 6.3: If there has been an expropriation, is it in breach of Article 4(1) of the BIT? .......................................................................................................................256 ISSUE 5: MERITS – FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT ................................ 256 Issue 5.1: Is breach of a legitimate expectation a failure to accord “fair and equitable treatment”? ............................................................................................................257 Issue 5.2: Can there be a legitimate expectation in respect of property to which the Claimants have no property right or contractual right? .........................................259 Issue 5.3: Has the Respondent breached the obligation to afford the Claimants’ investments fair and equitable treatment under Article 2(1) of the BIT? .............261 Issue 5.4: If the Second Claimant does not have a property interest in the claimed properties under Croatian law, did the Claimants have a legitimate expectation that the companies purchased by Mr Gavrilović. would have such property interests, and would be able to register ownership over the claimed properties? .................310 ISSUE 7: MERITS – ARTICLE 8(2) OF THE BIT ..................................................... 311 Issue 7.1: Has the Respondent breached Article 8(2) of the BIT by failing to observe its obligations, if any, under the Purchase Agreement? .............................................311 ISSUE 8: MERITS – EQUAL TREATMENT ............................................................. 315 Issue 8.1: Has the Respondent breached Article 3(1) of the BIT? In particular, were the Claimants and Mr Imprić in like circumstances? Did the Respondent treat Mr Imprić—a Croatian national—more favourably than the Claimants?...................315 ISSUE 9: QUANTUM .................................................................................................. 330 Issue 9.1: Are the Claimants entitled to damages and, if so, in what amount? ............330 ISSUE 10: COSTS ........................................................................................................ 355 iii Issue 10.1: Should either Party bear some, or all, of the opposing Party’s costs?........355 AWARD ....................................................................................................................... 360 ANNEXURE 1......................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Report of the Project
    FINAL EXTERNAL EVALUATION REPORT OF THE PROJECT Strengthening Local Development and Inclusion of Vulnerable groups in Croatia NO. 00055684 Project implementer: UNDP Croatia/UNV External evaluator: Donor: The Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) of the Marina Škrabalo Federal Republic of Germany 2 Table of Contents Maps of the Region: ................................................................................................ 4 Executive Summary: ............................................................................................... 8 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 17 1. Project description and evaluation profile ................................................... 18 2. Project Relevance .......................................................................................... 25 3. Effectiveness, Partnerships and Prospects of Sustainability .................... 32 4. Efficiency of Project Implementation ........................................................... 54 5. Conclusion and Lessons Learned ................................................................ 58 6. Recommendations ......................................................................................... 60 Annexes: Annex 1 Regional Differences in socio-economic development of Croatia Annex 2 Overview of NUNV volunteers’ profiles Annex 3 List of Interviewed and Consulted Stakeholders Annex 4 Evaluation Plan and Timetable of Field work Annex
    [Show full text]
  • Dissertation Irene Schrotenboer Final
    Tilburg University Dynamics of payments, conflict and economic activity Lubberman-Schrotenboer, I.G. Publication date: 2014 Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Link to publication in Tilburg University Research Portal Citation for published version (APA): Lubberman-Schrotenboer, I. G. (2014). Dynamics of payments, conflict and economic activity: Case studies of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia. CentER, Center for Economic Research. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 28. sep. 2021 Dynamics of payments, conflict and economic activity Case studies of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia Dynamics of payments, conflict and economic activity Case studies of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan Tilburg University op gezag van de rector magnificus, prof. dr. Ph. Eijlander, in het openbaar te verdedigen ten overstaan van een door het college voor promoties aangewezen commissie in de aula van de Universiteit op maandag 1 december 2014 om 10:15 uur door Irene Geessien Lubberman-Schrotenboer geboren op 23 mei 1977 te Sneek.
    [Show full text]
  • Prijedlog Odluke O Donošenju III. Izmjena I Dopuna Prostornog Plana Sisačko-Moslavačke Županije (U Daljnjem Tekstu: Plan)
    PRIJEDLOG Na temelju članka 109. stavak 2, članka 111. i članka 113. stavka 1. Zakona o prostornom ure đenju ("Narodne novine", broj 153/13, 65/17 i 114/18) i članka 28. Statuta Sisa čko-moslava čke županije ("Službeni glasnik Sisa čko-moslava čke županije" broj 11/09, 5/10, 2/11, 3/13 i 5/18), uz prethodnu suglasnost Ministarstva graditeljstva i prostornoga ure đenja KLASA: 350-02/19-04/1, URBROJ: 531-05-19-7, od 14. ožujka 2019. godine, Županijska skupština Sisa čko-moslava čke županije na ___. sjednici održanoj _______2019. godine, donijela je ODLUKU o donošenju III. Izmjena i dopuna Prostornog plana Sisa čko-moslava čke županije TEMELJNE ODREDBE Članak 1. (1) Donose se III. Izmjene i dopune Prostornog plana Sisa čko-moslavačke županije („Službeni glasnik Sisa čko-moslava čke županije“, broj 4/01, 12/10 i 10/17). (2) III. Izmjene i dopune Prostornog plana Sisa čko-moslava čke županije izra đene su temeljem Odluke o izradi III. Izmjena i dopuna Prostornog plana Sisa čko-moslava čke županije ("Službeni glasnik Sisa čko-moslava čke županije" broj 5/18). Članak 2. (1) Sastavni dio ove Odluke je elaborat pod nazivom „III. Izmjene i dopune Prostornog plana Sisa čko-moslava čke županije", koji je izradio Zavod za prostorno ure đenje Sisa čko -moslava čke županije. (2) Elaborat iz 1. stavka ovog članka sastoji se od tekstualnog dijela (odredbi za provedbu plana i obrazloženja) i grafi čkog dijela (kartografskih prikaza i kartograma): I. ODREDBE ZA PROVEDBU PLANA II. OBRAZLOŽENJE PLANA III. GRAFI ČKI DIO Kartografski prikazi u mjerilu 1:100 000 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Combating Economic Crimes Balancing Competing Rights and Interests in Prosecuting the Crime of Illicit Enrichment
    ROUTLEDGE RESEARCH IN TRANSNATIONAL CRIME AND CRIMINAL LAW Download from:aghalibrary.com Combating Economic Crimes Balancing Competing Rights and Interests in Prosecuting the Crime of Illicit Enrichment Ndiva Kofele-Kale Download from:aghalibrary.com Combating Economic Crimes In the last decade a new tool has been developed in the global war against offi - cial corruption through the introduction of the offense of “illicit enrichment” in almost every multilateral anti-corruption convention. Illicit enrichment is defi ned in these conventions to include a reverse burden clause, which triggers an automatic presumption that any public offi cial found in “possession of inexplicable wealth” must have acquired it illicitly. However, the reversal of the burden of proof clauses raises an important human rights issue because it confl icts with the accused individual’s right to be presumed innocent. Unfor- tunately, the recent spate of international legislation against offi cial corruption provides no clear guidelines on how to proceed in balancing the right of the accused to be presumed innocent against the competing right of society to trace and recapture illicitly acquired national wealth. Combating Economic Crimes therefore sets out to address what has been left unanswered by these multilateral conventions, to wit, the level of burden of proof that should be placed on a public offi cial who is accused of illicitly enriching himself from the resources of the state, balanced against the protec- tion of legitimate community interests and expectations for a corruption-free society. The book explores the doctrinal foundations of the right to a presump- tion of innocence and reviews the basic due process protections afforded to all accused persons in criminal trials by treaty, customary international law and municipal law.
    [Show full text]
  • Memorial of the Republic of Croatia
    INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE CASE CONCERNING THE APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE (CROATIA v. YUGOSLAVIA) MEMORIAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA ANNEXES REGIONAL FILES VOLUME 2 PART I EASTERN SLAVONIA 1 MARCH 2001 II CONTENTS ETHNIC STRUCTURES 1 Eastern Slavonia 3 Tenja 4 Antin 5 Dalj 6 Berak 7 Bogdanovci 8 Šarengrad 9 Ilok 10 Tompojevci 11 Bapska 12 Tovarnik 13 Sotin 14 Lovas 15 Tordinci 16 Vukovar 17 WITNESS STATEMENTS TENJA 19 Annex 1: Witness Statement of M.K. 21 Annex 2: Witness Statement of R.J. 22 Annex 3: Witness Statement of I.K. (1) 24 Annex 4: Witness Statement of J.P. 29 Annex 5: Witness Statement of L.B. 34 Annex 6: Witness Statement of P.Š. 35 Annex 7: Witness Statement of D.M. 37 Annex 8: Witness Statement of M.R. 39 Annex 9: Witness Statement of M.M. 39 Annex 10: Witness Statement of M.K. 41 Annex 11: Witness Statement of I.I.* 42 Annex 12: Witness Statement of Z.B. 52 Annex 13: Witness Statement of A.M. 54 Annex 14: Witness Statement of J.S. 56 Annex 15: Witness Statement of Z.M. 58 Annex 16: Witness Statement of J.K. 60 IV Annex 17: Witness Statement of L.R. 63 Annex 18: Witness Statement of Đ.B. 64 WITNESS STATEMENTS DALJ 67 Annex 19: Witness Statement of J.P. 69 Annex 20: Witness Statement of I.K. (2) 71 Annex 21: Witness Statement of A.K. 77 Annex 22: Witness Statement of H.S.
    [Show full text]
  • FIGHTING CORRUPTION Incriminations
    FIGHTING CORRUPTION Incriminations by Mr Roderick MACAULEY Criminal law adviser at the Ministry of Justice of the United Kingdom Thematic Review of GRECO’s Third Evaluation Round For further information, GRECO Secretariat Directorate General I - Human Rights and Rule of Law Council of Europe F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex Tel.: + 33 (0)3 88 41 30 43 Fax: + 33 (0)3 88 41 39 55 www.coe.int/greco www.coe.int PREMS 67012 FIGHTING CORRUPTION Incriminations by Mr Roderick MACAULEY Criminal Law adviser at the Ministry of Justice of the United Kingdom Thematic review of GRECO’s Third Evaluation Round Contents Introduction ........................................................ 5 General themes and observations ...................... 9 Specific Themes ................................................ 20 Public/private distinctions ..................................... 20 Public Official ...................................................... 20 Exercise of functions ............................................ 23 Autonomous offences ........................................... 26 Elemental Deficiencies and Consistency .................. 28 Undue advantage ................................................ 31 Private Sector ..................................................... 35 Trading in influence .............................................. 39 Bribery of foreign and international actors ............... 43 ETS No. 191 (Jurors and Arbitrators) ...................... 45 Extra-territorial jurisdiction ................................... 47 Sanctions ..........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Additional Pleading of the Republic of Croatia
    international court of Justice case concerning the application of the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide (croatia v. serBia) ADDITIONAL PLEADING OF THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA volume 1 30 august 2012 international court of Justice case concerning the application of the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide (croatia v. serBia) ADDITIONAL PLEADING OF THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA volume 1 30 august 2012 ii iii CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 section i: overview and structure 1 section ii: issues of proof and evidence 3 proof of genocide - general 5 ictY agreed statements of fact 6 the ictY Judgment in Gotovina 7 additional evidence 7 hearsay evidence 8 counter-claim annexes 9 the chc report and the veritas report 9 reliance on ngo reports 11 the Brioni transcript and other transcripts submitted by the respondent 13 Witness statements submitted by the respondent 14 missing ‘rsK’ documents 16 croatia’s full cooperation with the ictY-otp 16 the decision not to indict for genocide and the respondent’s attempt to draw an artificial distinction Between the claim and the counter-claim 17 CHAPTER 2: CROATIA AND THE ‘RSK’/SERBIA 1991-1995 19 introduction 19 section i: preliminary issues 20 section ii: factual Background up to operation Flash 22 serb nationalism and hate speech 22 serbian non-compliance with the vance plan 24 iv continuing human rights violations faced by croats in the rebel serb occupied territories 25 failure of the serbs to demilitarize 27 operation maslenica (January 1993)
    [Show full text]
  • Additional Pleading of the Republic of Croatia
    international court of Justice case concerning the application of the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide (croatia v. serBia) ADDITIONAL PLEADING OF THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA anneXes volume 2 30 august 2012 international court of Justice case concerning the application of the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide (croatia v. serBia) ADDITIONAL PLEADING OF THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA anneXes volume 2 30 august 2012 ii iii CONTENTS annex 1: supreme martial court, ii K no. 111/92, 7 may 1992, decision 1 annex 2: photo of victims of vukovar, 18 november 1991, in the article by savo ©trbac, ZloËini nad Srbima na prostoru Hrvatske u periodu 1990-1999 [crimes against serbs on the territory of croatia in the period 1990-1999] 5 annex 3: official record of the statement made by a.a., 10 July 2012 6 annex 4: statement of 7 annex 5: statement of 9 annex 6: criminal complaint lodged by the independent associa- tion of Journalists in serbia with the office of the War crimes prosecutor, 1 July 2009 12 annex 7: programme statement of the management Board of radio television serbia, 23 may 2011 14 annex 8: peace initiative of the president of the republic of croatia, dr. franjo tuman, Zagreb, 1 november 1993 16 annex 9: record of the statement of i.B., 20 april 2012 19 annex 10: rsK, ministry of the interior, state security department, doc. no. 08/2-0-1224/95, Knin, 8 June 1995, with excerpt from the Weekly civilian affairs report 30 annex 11: un, coded cable from akashi to Kofi annan, meeting in Knin, 1 august 1995 32 annex 12: request for return to the republic of croatia filed by J.K., october 1995 39 annex 13: request for return to the republic of croatia filed by m.m., January 1996 40 annex 14: request for return to the republic of croatia filed by s.p., January 1996 42 annex 15: request for return to the republic of croatia filed by s.g., february 1996 43 annex 16: request for return to the republic of croatia filed by Æ.J., october 1995 44 annex 17: official note of the statement by d.–.
    [Show full text]
  • Development Ofmonitoring Instruments Forjudicial and Law
    Background Research on Systems and Context on Systems Research Background Development of Monitoring Instruments for Judicial and Law Enforcement institutions in the Western Balkans Background Research on Systems and Context Justice and Home Affairs Statistics in the Western Balkans 2009 - 2011 CARDS Regional Action Programme With funding by the European Commission April 2010 Disclaimers This Report has not been formally edited. The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of UNODC or contributory organizations and neither do they imply any endorsement. The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNODC concerning the legal status of any country, territory or city or its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Comments on this report are welcome and can be sent to: Statistics and Survey Section United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime PO Box 500 1400 Vienna Austria Tel: (+43) 1 26060 5475 Fax: (+43) 1 26060 7 5475 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.unodc.org 1 Development of Monitoring Instruments for Judicial and Law Enforcement Institutions in the Western Balkans 2009-2011 Background Research on Systems and Context 2 Development of Monitoring Instruments for Judicial and Law Enforcement Institutions in the Western Balkans 2009-2011 Background Research on Systems and Context Justice and Home Affairs Statistics in the Western Balkans April 2010 3 Acknowledgements Funding for this report was provided by the European Commission under the CARDS 2006 Regional Action Programme. This report was produced under the responsibility of Statistics and Surveys Section (SASS) and Regional Programme Office for South Eastern Europe (RPOSEE) of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) based on research conducted by the European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control affiliated with the United Nations (HEUNI) and the International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD).
    [Show full text]
  • CY19 January a Collection of Bitcoin Commentary from the Brightest
    CY19 January A collection of Bitcoin commentary from the brightest minds in the crypto community. Crypto Words CY19 January Contents Goals and Scope ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Support Crypto Words .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Cryptocurrency: The Canary in the Coal Mine.................................................................................................. 4 Tweetstorm: Bitcoin’s 10 Year Anniversary ......................................................................................................... 6 Bitcoin: Two Parts Math, One Part Biology .......................................................................................................... 8 Planting Bitcoin - Season (2/4) .................................................................................................................................... 12 Planting Bitcoin - Gardening (4/4) ............................................................................................................................ 18 Planting Bitcoin — Soil (3/4) .......................................................................................................................................... 25 Planting Bitcoin — Species (1/4) ...............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • FY 1999 FIRST QUARTER PROGRAM REPORT October 1,1998 to December 31,1998
    FY 1999 FIRST QUARTER PROGRAM REPORT October 1,1998 to December 31,1998 Strengthen Private Enterprises in War-Affected Areas of Croatia Agreement Number NIS-A-00-97-00026-00 Prepared for United States Agency for International Development Prepared by Univers~tyof Delaware 4 Kent Way Newark, DE 19716 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 Sect~onI - FLAG VUKOVAR/OSIJEK (FORMER SECTOR EAST) 6 Sectlon I1 - FLAG DARUVAIUFORMER SECTOR WEST 14 Sectlon I11 - FLAG PETRINJAIFORMER SECTOR NORTH 2 1 Sect~onIV - FLAG KNIN / NORTHERN DALMATIA (FORMER SECTOR SOUTH) 26 ATTACHMENT A - POLICY ISSUES 3 0 ATTACHMENT B - OBROVAC LIVESTOCK MARKET FEASIBILITY STUDY 35 ATTACHMENT C - ECONOMIC PROFILE - EASTERN SLAVONIA AND BARANJA 45 ATTACHMENT D - ECONOMIC PROFILE - WESTERN SLAVONIA 87 ATTACHMENT E - ECONOMIC PROFILE - FORMER SECTOR NORTH 114 ATTACHMENT F - ECONOMIC PROFILE - FORMER SECTOR SOUTH 128 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY December 31, 1998 marked not only the end of the first quarter of Fiscal Year 1999 but the end of the first full busmess year for the University of Delaware's FLAG - Croatia program The balance of this report features activities and accomplishments of the first quarter of Fiscal Year 1999 However, within this executive summary key statistics will also be highlighted from 1998 FLAG Accompl~shments Despite extensive economic challenges, 1998 saw many FLAG clients improve Additionally, some clients simply fought successfully to maintain their market position, and a few began to fall due to economic pressures Dunng 1998, FLAG expanded its activities
    [Show full text]
  • HU 2010 Croatia
    CROATIA Promoting social inclusion of children in a disadvantaged rural environment Antun Ilijaš and Gordana Petrović Centre for Social Care Zagreb Dora Dodig University of Zagreb Introduction Roma have lived in the territory of the Republic of Croatia since the 14th century. According to the 2001 population census, the Roma national minority makes up 0.21% of the population of Croatia, and includes 9463 members. However, according to the data of the Office for Ethnic Minority in Croatia, there is currently around 30 000 Roma people living in Croatia. It is difficult to accurately define the number of Roma people living in Croatia because some of them declare as members of some other nationality, and not as Roma. There is a higher density of Roma in some regions of Croatia: Medjimurje county, Osječko-baranjska county, Zagreb, Rijeka, Pula, Pitomača, Kutina, ðurñevac, Sisak, Slavonski Brod, Bjelovar, Karlovac and Vukovar. 1 Roma people in Croatia are considerably marginalised in almost all public and social activities and living conditions of Roma people are far more unsatisfactory than those of average population and other ethnic minorities. The position of Roma and their living conditions have been on the very margins of social interest for years, and this has contributed to the significant deterioration of the quality of their living conditions, as compared to the average quality of living conditions of the majority population. This regards their social status, the way in which their education, health care and social welfare are organised, the possibility to preserve their national identity, resolving of their status-related issues, employment, presentation in the media, political representation and similar issues.
    [Show full text]