DOCSLIB.ORG

B3 Croatian Courier Coöperatief U.A. V. Republic of Croatia (ICSID Case No

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
B3 Croatian Courier Coöperatief U.A. V. Republic of Croatia (ICSID Case No B3 Croatian Courier Coöperatief U.A. v. Republic of Croatia (ICSID Case No. ARB/15/5) Excerpts of Award dated April 5, 2019 made pursuant to Rule 48(4) of the ICSID Arbitration Rules of 2006 Claimant B3 Croatian Courier Coöperatief U.A. (Dutch national) Respondent Republic of Croatia (“Croatia”) Tribunal Bernard Hanotiau (President; Belgian), appointed by the co-arbitrators in consultation with the Parties under Article 37(2)(a) of the ICSID Convention Stanimir Alexandrov (Bulgarian), appointed by the Claimant Brigitte Stern (French), appointed by the Respondent Award Award of April 5, 2019 in English (unpublished) Instrument relied on for consent to ICSID arbitration Agreement on Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments between the Republic of Croatia and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, which entered into force on 1 June 1999 (the “BIT”) Procedure Applicable Arbitration Rules: ICSID Arbitration Rules in force as of April 2006 Place of Proceedings: Washington, D.C. Procedural Language: English Full procedural details: Available at https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Pages/cases/casedetail.aspx?CaseNo=AR B/15/5 Factual Background The Claimant operated a company in Croatia which provided postal services. The case concerned allegations that the Croatian Government, through the actions of the Ministry of Transport, the Competition Authority and the postal services regulator, violated the applicable regulatory framework and attempted to re-monopolize the postal services market. According to the Claimant, by failing to properly apply the regulatory framework and by discriminating against the Claimant, Croatia failed to accord the Claimant fair and equitable treatment. Also, the Claimant complained that Croatia’s treatment led to the complete destruction of the value of its investment, and therefore the measures amounted to an indirect expropriation. *** EXCERPTS INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES B3 Croatian Courier Coöperatief U.A. v. Republic of Croatia (ICSID Case No. ARB/15/5) AWARD Members of the Tribunal Professor Bernard Hanotiau, President of the Tribunal Dr. Stanimir Alexandrov, Arbitrator Professor Brigitte Stern, Arbitrator Secretary of the Tribunal Mr. Francisco Abriani Assistant to the Tribunal Ms. Iuliana Iancu Date of dispatch to the Parties: 5 April 2019 EXCERPTS B3 Croatian Courier Coöperatief U.A. v. Republic of Croatia (ICSID Case No. ARB/15/5) Parties’ representatives Representing B3 Croatian Courier Representing the Republic of Croatia Coöperatief U.A. Ms. Monika Lukacs (party representative) Ms. Zlata Hrvoj-Šipek The Bancroft Group Ms. Željka Šaškor Ms. Melina Rališ Mr. John Willems Ms. Kosjenka Krapac Ms. Noor Davies Mr. Sven Volkmer State Attorney’s Office Mr. Bachir Sayegh Gajeva 30a, Ms. Tara Agoston 10000 Zagreb Republic of Croatia White & Case LLP 19, Place Vendôme and 75001 Paris France Mr. Tim Portwood Mr. Louis-Christophe Delanoy Ms. Marina Weiss Ms. Giulia Carbone Mr. Shane Daly Ms. Julia Benke Bredin Prat 53 Quai d'Orsay 75007 Paris France 2 EXCERPTS B3 Croatian Courier Coöperatief U.A. v. Republic of Croatia (ICSID Case No. ARB/15/5) TABLE OF CONTENTS* I. THE PARTIES ......................................................................................................................7 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY .................................................................................................7 III. THE PARTIES’ REQUESTS FOR RELIEF ...................................................................16 IV. THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF THE DISPUTE .................................................16 A. The Croatian legal framework on postal services .......................................................... 16 B. Relevant entities ............................................................................................................. 16 C. The acquisition of […] ................................................................................................... 16 D. The classification of hybrid mail .................................................................................... 16 E. The interpretation of value-added services .................................................................... 16 F. The drafting of the 2012 PSA ........................................................................................... 16 G. […]’s cost accounting separation ................................................................................... 17 H. HAKOM’s regulatory supervision of […]’s prices .......................................................... 17 I. […]’s complaints with the CCA ....................................................................................... 17 J. […]’s attempted acquisition of […] .................................................................................. 17 K. […]’s network access demands ........................................................................................ 17 L. […]’s participation in public tenders under the 2012 PSA ............................................ 17 M. The establishment of […]’s compensation fund ............................................................ 17 N. The complaints before the European Commission ........................................................ 17 O. […]’s financial performance and ultimate bankruptcy ..................................................... 17 V. THE APPLICABLE LEGAL FRAMEWORK................................................................17 VI. WHETHER THE TRIBUNAL HAS JURISDICTION ..................................................19 A. Respondent’s position .................................................................................................... 19 1. Objection No. 1: The dispute resolution clause included in Article 9 of the Treaty is inapplicable........................................................................................................................... 19 2. Objection No. 2: The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction ratione voluntatis ......................... 20 3. Objection No. 3: The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction ratione materiae ........................... 20 4. Objection No. 4: The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction ratione temporis over claims pre- dating 1 April 2011 ............................................................................................................... 20 B. Claimant’s position ........................................................................................................ 20 1. Objection No. 1: The dispute resolution clause included in Article 9 of the Treaty remains applicable ................................................................................................................ 20 2. Objection No. 2: The Tribunal has jurisdiction ratione voluntatis ............................ 21 3. Objection No. 3: The Tribunal has jurisdiction ratione materiae .............................. 21 3 EXCERPTS B3 Croatian Courier Coöperatief U.A. v. Republic of Croatia (ICSID Case No. ARB/15/5) 4. Objection No. 4: The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction ratione temporis over claims pre- dating 1 April 2011 ............................................................................................................... 21 C. The Tribunal’s analysis .................................................................................................. 21 1. Objection No. 1: Whether the dispute resolution clause included in Article 9 of the Treaty is inapplicable ........................................................................................................... 21 i. The applicable law ...................................................................................................... 22 ii. The first prong of Respondent’s objection: whether Article 9 of the Treaty is inapplicable to the present dispute due to its incompatibility with EU law...................... 23 iii. The second prong of Respondent’s objection: Whether Article 9 is inapplicable to the present dispute by operation of Article 30 of the VCLT ............................................ 31 iv. The third prong of Respondent’s objection: Whether Article 9 is inapplicable to the present dispute by operation of Article 351 TFEU ........................................................... 34 v. Potential issues with enforcement ........................................................................... 36 vi. Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 36 2. Objection No. 2: Whether Tribunal has jurisdiction ratione voluntatis and/or ratione personae ................................................................................................................................ 36 3. Objection No. 3: Whether the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction ratione materiae .............. 40 4. Objection No. 4: Whether the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction ratione temporis over claims pre-dating 1 April 2011 ............................................................................................. 48 VII. WHETHER CROATIA BREACHED ARTICLE 3(1) OF THE BIT ...........................49 A. Claimant’s position ........................................................................................................ 49 1. Legal standard ............................................................................................................ 49 2. Arbitrary measures ..................................................................................................... 49 i. Extension of […]’s statutory
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • High Court Judgment Template
    Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWHC 2791 (Ch) Case No: CR-2017-005571 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION COMPANIES COURT Royal Courts of Justice Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL Date: 09/11/2017 Before : HHJ PAUL MATTHEWS (sitting as a Judge of the High Court) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between : IN THE MATTER OF AGROKOR DD AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CROSS-BORDER INSOLVENCY REGULATIONS 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Tom Smith QC and William Willson (instructed by Kirkland & Ellis International LLP) for the Applicant David Allison QC and Adam Al-Attar (instructed by Linklaters LLP) for the Respondent Hearing dates: 23-26 October 2017 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Approved Judgment I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic. ............................. HHJ PAUL MATTHEWS (SITTING AS A JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT) HHJ PAUL MATTHEWS Re Agrokor DD and the Cross-Border Approved Judgment Insolvency Regulations 2006 HHJ Paul Matthews : Introductory 1. This is my judgment on an application dated 27 (but issued by the court on 28) July 2017, by Ante Ramljak. He is the “foreign representative” within article 2(j) of Schedule 1 to the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (“CBIR”) of Agrokor DD (“the company”), a company incorporated under the laws of Croatia. The application is for recognition in Great Britain (ie England, Wales and Scotland) under the CBIR of what are called “extraordinary administration proceedings” in Croatia as a “foreign proceeding” within article 2(i) of Schedule 1 to the CBIR.
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of Anti-Discrimination Legislation in the Western Balkans
    Warsaw, 28 March 2014 Opinion-Nr..: NDISCR -BPRI/229/2013 [MWrz/AT] www.legislationline.org OVERVIEW OF ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LEGISLATION IN THE WESTERN BALKANS Ul. Miodowa 10 PL-00-251 Warsaw OSCE/ODIHR Overview of Anti-Discrimination Legislation in the Western Balkans TABLE OF CONTENTS I. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS II. INTRODUCTION III. ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. International Definitions and Standards Related to Anti-Discrimination Legislation 2. Protected Characteristics 2.1. Discrimination Based on Assumed Characteristics or Based on Association 3. Personal Scope 4. Material Scope 5. Key Definitions and Concepts 5.1. Direct Discrimination 5.2. Indirect Discrimination 5.3. Harassment 5.4. Instruction to Discriminate 5.5. Victimization 5.6. Reasonable Accommodation 5.7. Segregation 6. Exceptions from the Prohibition of Discrimination 6.1. Genuine and Determining Occupational Requirement 6.2. Religious Ethos 6.3. Other Exceptions 7. Equality Bodies 8. Remedies and Sanctions 8.1. Judicial Procedures 8.2. Third-Party Intervention 8.3. Burden of Proof Annex 1: Table of Anti-Discrimination Laws (Western Balkans) (Annex 1 constitutes a separate document) 2 OSCE/ODIHR Overview of Anti-Discrimination Legislation in the Western Balkans LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS BiH – Bosnia and Herzegovina BPRI - Best Practices for Roma Integration CERD - UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination CRPD - UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ECHR - European Convention on Human Rights ECtHR - European Court of Human Rights
    [Show full text]
  • Este Libro Forma Parte Del Acervo De La
    Este libro forma parte del acervo de la Biblioteca Jurídica Virtual del Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas de la UNAM www.juridicas.unam.mx www.bibliojuridica.org LEGAL CULTURE AND LEGAL TRANSPLANTS CROATIAN NATIONAL REPORT Marko BARETIĆ Saša NIKŠIĆ I. Legal models as a whole. 1. Historical perspective. 2. Post-modernist perspective. II. Specific instruments or legal mechanisms. Historical perspective. III. Conclusions. I. LEGAL MODELS AS A WHOLE 1. Historical perspective A. Are there any legal models that have been received by your country in the periods before those mentioned? Which ones and within what period? The Republic of Croatia became an independent state on 8th of October 1991 on the basis of the Constitutional Decision on Sovereignty and Independence of the Republic of Croatia of 25th of June 1991,1 and the Decision of the Croatian Parliament of 8th of October 1991.2 For a long time before 1991, Croatia was not an independent state and during that period foreign law was implemented in Croatia. Foreign legal models were also received voluntarily in the periods when Croatia lacked independence but had legislative autonomy, and finally after independence. The first well documented case of the reception of foreign influences in Croatian law occurred in the year 1514 (the first period according to the questionnaire). Because of the fact that Croatia in that time was, in a geopolitical sense, connected to Hungary there was a common legal source of private law – Tripartitum.3 Tripartitum was a collection of customary laws drafted by the Hungarian lawyer Werböczy. Even though Werböczy explicitly stated that Tripartitum had its origin in both Roman and Canonistic law, it represented mainly Hungarian and Croatian customary law.
    [Show full text]
  • Chambre Des Pouvoirs Locaux
    31st SESSION CG31(2016)11final 20 October 2016 Local and regional democracy in Croatia Monitoring Committee Rapporteurs: 1 Luzette KROON, the Netherlands (L, EPP/CCE) Ole HAABETH, Norway (R, SOC) Recommendation 391(2016) .............................................................................................................................. 2 Explanatory memorandum ................................................................................................................................. 5 Summary This report concerning the monitoring of local and regional democracy in Croatia is the third since the country ratified the Charter in 1997. The report notes that the Charter was ratified in its entirety in 2008, reflecting a trend towards decentralisation in the country and reinforced legislative protection for local and regional self-government. The delegation also noted with satisfaction that direct elections for mayors and prefects had been introduced since the last monitoring visit in 2007, along with the implementation of a financial equalisation policy. The rapporteurs similarly welcome the adoption, in September 2015, of legislation concerning voluntary mergers of local government units so as to simplify the territorial divisions and the provision of public services. However, the report raises certain concerns regarding the inadequacy of resources available to local and regional authorities for the exercise of their powers, a reduction in local tax revenues and the lack of formal consultation of local and regional representatives. In addition, there are territorial disparities and the notion of a universal level of public service is still far from being reached. Consequently, it is recommended that the Croatian authorities review the division of responsibilities between the central and subnational levels of government so as to avoid any overlap. With regard to the financial aspect, the rapporteurs recommend providing sufficient financial resources commensurate with the responsibilities of local authorities and which they can dispose of freely.
    [Show full text]
  • Codifications of the Law of Obligations in Central and Southeast Europe In
    TRANSFORMACJE PRAWA PRYWATNEGO 4/2020 ISSN 1641–1609 DOROTA MILER * CODIFICATIONS OF THE LAW OF OBLIGATIONS IN CENTRAL AND SOUTHEAST EUROPE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSED REGULATION OF THE FREEDOM OF CONTRACT IN A NEW POLISH CIVIL CODE 1. INTRODUCTION The freedom of contract 1 is one of the fundamental principles of Polish private law. It allows the parties to a contractual relationship to decide whether or not to enter into a contract and to specify the content of a contract 2. It is regulated in art. 353 1 of the Polish Civil Code of 1964 (PCC). This legal provision, in force since 1 October 1990 3, numbers among the general provisions of the law of obligations (Book Three of the Code). Art. 353 1 gives the parties the discretion to determine The author is grateful for the financial support provided by the Young Researchers Travel Scholarship Program of the University of Augsburg. Special thanks are given to Prof. Ádám Fuglinszky for his help in collecting literature and information regarding limitations on the freedom of contract under Hungarian law and to Matej Trkanjec for his help in obtaining literature and information on the Croatian law of obligations, as well as to Dr. Ivan Tot for clarifying the regulation on the freedom of contract under Yugoslav law. Many thanks are also offered to the participants of the Zagreb Law of Obligations Conference 2019 for their comments on a presentation based on this paper. * Doctor of Law, academic assistant at the Faculty of Law of the University of Augsburg (Chair for Civil Law, Economic Law and History of Law).
    [Show 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
    [Show full text]
  • Attempts to Harmonize the Inheritance Law in Europe: Past, Present, and Future
    A16_ZALUCKI (DO NOT DELETE) 6/11/2018 11:21 PM Attempts to Harmonize the Inheritance Law in Europe: Past, Present, and Future Mariusz Załucki* ABSTRACT: Inheritance law has gained increasing importance within the European perspective. The laws that have been considered stable are now met with the requirements of modern times and are no longer sufficient. Increasing population migration and foreign property holdings as well as multinational businesses are the features of today’s modern European society. Unfortunately, in the event of death and the subsequent cross-border inheritance proceedings the situation is highly complicated due to the various applicable inheritance laws. Indeed, the individualized legal systems of each European Union Member State have different rules regarding the fundamental issues of inheritance, including intestacy, the freedom to dispose of assets in the event of death, and the protection of relatives of the deceased. The lack of uniformity—or even compatibility—is a striking practical problem. Therefore, there is a need to harmonize the rules of inheritance in the individual Member States and establishing a common European inheritance law is a tempting solution. However, this discussion has not even begun. Nevertheless, EU Regulation No. 650/2012 addresses succession, the issues of applicable law for cross-border inheritance, jurisdiction, and establishes the European Certificate of Succession, which documents inheritance rights in all EU countries and serves as a useful guidepost for harmonization. The Regulation, however, causes numerous controversies in practice. This Article aims to analyze both the framework for inheritance law and the current trends in the legislation as well as highlight some of the more significant problems caused by the Regulation.
    [Show full text]
  • Liability of Legal Persons for Corruption in Eastern Europe and Central Asia
    OECD Anti-Corruption Network for Eastern Europe and Central Asia Liability of Legal Persons for Corruption in Eastern Europe and Central Asia OECD Anti-Corruption Network for Eastern Europe and Central Asia Liability of Legal Persons for Corruption in Eastern Europe and Central Asia About the OECD The OECD is a forum in which governments compare and exchange policy experiences, identify good practices in light of emerging challenges, and promote decisions and recommendations to produce better policies for better lives. The OECD’s mission is to promote policies that improve economic and social well-being of people around the world. Find out more at www.oecd.org. About the Anti-Corruption Network for Eastern Europe and Central Asia Established in 1998, the main objective of the Anti-Corruption Network for Eastern Europe and Central Asia (ACN) is to support its member countries in their efforts to prevent and fight corruption. It provides a regional forum for the promotion of anti-corruption activities, the exchange of information, elaboration of best practices and donor coordination via regional meetings and seminars, peer-learning programmes, and thematic projects. ACN also serves as the home for the Istanbul Anti-Corruption Action Plan. Find out more at www.oecd.org/corruption/acn/. About the thematic studies on Criminalisation of corruption and law-enforcement in Eastern Europe and Central Asia The ACN Work Programme for 2013-2015 included a thematic cross-country study (review) on the criminalisation of corruption and effective law enforcement. The first topic selected for the thematic study was the liability of legal persons for corruption.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Opinion on Draft Amendments to the Act on the National Council of the Judiciary and Certain Other Acts of Poland
    Warsaw, 5 May 2017 Opinion-Nr.: JUD-POL/305/2017-Final [AlC/YM] www.legislationline.org FINAL OPINION ON DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO THE ACT ON THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF THE JUDICIARY AND CERTAIN OTHER ACTS OF POLAND based on an unofficial English translation of the Draft Act commissioned by the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights This Opinion has benefited from contributions made by Ms. Michèle Rivet, Vice-President of the International Commission of Jurists and former President-Judge of the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal, by Professor Karoly Bard, Chair of the Human Rights Program, Legal Studies Department, Central European University - Budapest, and by Mr. Vasil Vashchanka, International Rule of Law Expert OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights Ulica Miodowa 10 PL-00-251 Warsaw ph. +48 22 520 06 00 fax. +48 22 520 0605 OSCE/ODIHR Final Opinion on Draft Amendments to the Act on the National Council of the Judiciary and Certain Other Acts of Poland TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 3 II. SCOPE OF REVIEW ................................................................................. 3 III. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................... 4 IV. ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................. 6 1. General Comments ..................................................................................................................... 6 1.1. The Role and Status
    [Show full text]