maritime domain in croatian legislation
TRANSCRIPT
Mr. sc. Ante Jelavić,dipl.iur.
MARITIME DOMAIN IN CROATIAN LEGISLATIVE
REZIME
U ovom radu autor razmatra pravnu problematiku pomorskog dobra, koji predstavlja bitan institut
pomorskog prava.
Pomorsko dobro definirano je Pomorskim zakonikom Republike Hrvatske i Zakonom o pomorskom
dobru i morskim lukama dio državnog teritorija na kopnu, unutarnje morske vode, teritorijalno more, njihovo
dno i morsko podzemlje te ima specifične geomorfološke i funkcionalne karakteristike koje treba utvrditi u
postupku određivanja granica pomorskog dobra. Određivanje granica pomorskog dobra predstavlja ključan
problem, budući da je Zakon o pomorskom dobru i morskim lukama ostavio široke mogućnosti širenja
pomorskog dobra na morsku obalu, uz ispunjenje određenih uvjeta. Pomorsko dobro jest dobro u općoj uporabi ,
namijenjeno upotrebi svih pravnih subjekata, no može se koristiti i u korist određenih pravnih subjekata kroz
institut koncesije. Postoje dvije vrste koncesija-koncesija za posebnu upotrebu i koncesija za ekonomsko
korištenje pomorskog dobra. Koncesija se može prenositi na drugu osobu, dati u zalog i potkoncesiju, te u
određenim slučajevima oduzeti i opozvati. Posebnu pažnju autor priklanja pravnom statusu građevina izgrađenih
na pomorskom dobru, kao i problemu pretvorbe i privatizacije na pomorskom dobru.
Ključne riječi : pomorsko dobro, koncesija, koncesijsko odobrenje, evidencija, pretvorba.
1. AN INTRODUCTION
Institute of maritime domain, its origin and characteristics are presented in this article.
This article is divided into three sections.
Section one defines the maritime domain as domain of special interest for Republic of
Croatia, in public use and it includes an internal sea, territorial sea, its bottom and
underground, part of mainland for public use or part of mainland that is declared to be of
such use, and also everything that is permanently attached to it on its surface of bellow. Thus,
maritime domain consists of three components: sea component, coastal component and
underwater component.
An exception to public use of maritime domain is an institute of concession.
Concession is a licence granted by the Government and given to legal entity or natural person
for performing certain services of other activities. It is usually given for a specified period of
time, and the decision about concession is brought by the Croatian Parliament on proposal of
the Government of Croatia. There are two types of concession: the concession for special use
and the concession for economic use. The terms of concession and it’s extend are regulated by
concession decision and concession agreement. It can be transferred to another person, it can
be given to sub-concession and it can be pawned or withdrawn, and this matter will be
discussed in section two.
Section three will be dedicated to the matter of rights in rem over maritime domain.
The rights of rem cannot be gained over maritime domain as for instance ownership rights,
pledge, etc. The status of the buildings built on the maritime domain for the purposes of
living, expropriation, conversion and privatization of the maritime domain will be discussed
in this section.
The Croatian version of this text is published in journal Naše more (Precious sea), Dubrovnik, No. 1-2, 2012. It
was categorised as review.
2
2. MARITIME DOMAIN – THE DEFINITION
To comprehend an institute of maritime domain, its origin and characteristics it is
necessary to define the term of maritime domain.
According to Maritime Domain and Seaports Act (Zakon o pomorskom dobru i
morskim lukama, Official Gazette1 , No. 158/03,100/04,141/06, 38/09), maritime domain
consists of an internal sea, territorial sea, their bottoms and undergrounds. Also, part of the
mainland that is used for public use, by its very nature or by declaration in that sense, and
everything permanently connected to this part of mainland weather on its surface or under it,
is included in maritime domain. Above mentioned parts of mainland are sea shore, harbours,
piers, shelf, reefs, burrs, beaches or strands, estuaries of the rivers that are sea – connected,
water ways that are sea – connected, and also natural abundances in the sea and sea
underground2 (article 3. of Maritime Domain And Seaports Act, Official Gazette, No.
158/03.100/04,141/06,38/09). Maritime domain consists of three components. The first is
water component – it includes an internal sea and territorial sea of Republic of Croatia. The
second component is an underwater component – it includes bottom and underground of
internal sea and finally we have coastal component. It includes part of the mainland used for
naval traffic or fishing, or generally other purposes related to the sea – use, and this part of
mainland has to be at least six meters wide from the line of the middle higher waters, from
where the sea coast stretches, all the way up to the line where the highest waves reach during
the storms3 (article 4. of Maritime Domain and Seaports Act, Official Gazette, No. 158/03,
100/04, 141/06, 38/09). Coastal component defines the border of the maritime domain looking
from the coast – side. Coastal area of Croatia includes 25763 km2 of mainland, and its length
is 5790 km; 1778 km of it is coastal line of the mainland, and the rest of the length of 4012
km is coastal line of islands4. Maritime domain is an old legal institute and it goes back to the
times of Roman Empire, when the seashore was defined as a good in public use, and in a time
of feudalism, it was a property of the feudal master and owner of the land that was positioned
on the shore. Kingdom of Yugoslavia has defined the maritime domain as “common or public
good” in its Directive on public maritime domain (Uredba o pomorskom javnom dobru). In
Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia maritime domain was defined by republic laws; the
Act Of Maritime And Aqua Domain, Harbours And Seaports of Socialist Republic of Croatia,
Official Gazette, No. 19/74, (Zakon o pomorskom i vodnom dobru, lukama i pristaništima
Socijalističke Republike Hrvatske), and the Act Of Maritime Domain of Socialist Republic of
Montenegro (Zakon o pomorskom dobru Socijalističke Republike Crne Gore) of year 1978.
Republic of Croatia defines the maritime domain in its Maritime Code (Pomorski zakonik) of
year 1994. and then later in a year 2003. Republic of Croatia came up with the Maritime
Domain and Seaports act. All of these laws have the same thing in common. They all define
the maritime domain as public (or common) domain of special interest for country, domain
under special protection of the country, and they also define that it is used under the terms
regulated by the law. The term of common domain or public domain means that maritime
domain cannot be under the ownership of an individual or legal entity, but it is a domain in a
common or public use.
1 Croatian original term for this gazette is Narodne novine. 2 For more details see: Ivo, Grabovac, Plovidbeno pravo Republike Hrvatske, Književni krug, Split 2003., 48. 3 For more details article 4. of Maritime domain and Seaports Act, related to the Petar, Simonetti, Stvarna prava
na pomorskom dobru i na zgradama koje su na njemu izgrađene, from collection of papers: Vinko, Hlača,
Pomorsko dobro.-društveni aspekti upotrebe i korištenja, Pravni fakultet Sveučilišta u Rijeci, Rijeka 1996., 136 4 For more details see: Ivo, Šimunović, Obalni prostor i pomorsko gospodarstvo, Zbornik radova Pomorskog
fakulteta u Rijeci, Vo. 2. Rijeka 1993., 34.
3
Two consequences come out of this: first, one is that maritime domain cannot be
object of gaining any rights in rem, and the second one is that Republic of Croatia administers
maritime domain and takes care of it directly or with assistance of the units of regional self –
government or units of local self – government.
2.1. Administering and maintenance of maritime domain
Administering is supporting, improving, and taking care about protection of maritime
domain in public use. Administering also includes the special use or economic use of
maritime domain based on the concession decision or concession agreement (art 10. of
Maritime Domain and Seaports Act-MDSA, Official Gazette, No.158/03,100/04, 141/06,
38/09).
Maintenance is taking certain measures in order to preserve the value of maritime
domain, and thus maritime domain itself, that is being registered according to the regulations
of registration of real properties5. Besides units of regional self – government, certain
authorisation regarding the maritime domain in a sense of maintenance, is also given to the
units of local self – government with new Maritime Domain and Seaports Act. This
authorisation is given to mentioned units regarding part of maritime domain in public use that
is on their territory. An author finds this regulation to be valid and straight because the units
of local self – government, i.e. districts and towns, must have certain authorities over the
maritime domain, instead of situation where such authorities are privilege of counties only.
An approval to such stand author finds in a fact that the units of local self – government are
more familiar with the condition and other questions regarding maritime domain on their
territory then the units of regional self – government. Furthermore, this is a way of achieving
decentralization, and also the way to unburden the counties. This is particularly important for
the counties that have more than half of its territory positioned on the sea (for instance County
of Istria or County of Split – Dalmatia), because these units, besides their common duties,
also have to secure and conduct registration of numerous maritime domains on their territory.
Administering of maritime domain is divided in two sub-categories; regular administering and
special administering. Regular administering is done according to an annual scheme and it
includes the care about protection and maintenance of maritime domain. Authorities in units
of local self – government are the ones that make this scheme and they have to do that till 1st
December of current year (art. 11, par. 3. MDSA , Official Gazette, No. 158/03, 100/04,
141/06, 38/09). Special administering includes damage recovery for damage that has
occurred during the extraordinary occasions on maritime domain outside of harbours, and also
making and conducting the proposals about borders of maritime domain6. Units of local self –
government, i.e. towns and districts are in charge of regular administering, and counties are in
charge of special administering. Resources for administering of maritime domain are; fees for
concession and fees for concession licence, fees that are being paid by the owners of the
sailing boats and yachts registered in the sailing boats register i.e. yachts register, for the use
of maritime domain, the compensations of damage that has occurred with pollution of the sea
bottom, and finally the means secured in budgets of the counties or towns/districts for
maritime domain on their territory (Article 11., par. 4 of MDSA, Official Gazette, No. 158/03,
100/04, 141/06, 38/09).
5 For more details see: Dragan, Bolanča, Novine Zakona o pomorskom dobru i morskim lukama, Zbornik radova
Pravnog fakulteta u Splitu (hereinafter: ZRPFS), 40., No.1-2. (69.-70), 2003., 176. 6 Vanja, Seršić, Pomorsko dobro i jedinice lokalne samouprave, paper from collection of papers Dragan,Bolanča
et alia, Pomorsko dobro, Inženjerski biro, Zagreb 2006., 295. in accordance with: Branko, Kundih, Hrvatsko
pomorsko dobro u teoriji i praksi, Rijeka 2005., 107.
4
All of these means are collected on the territories of the units of local self –
government, i.e. units of regional self – government.
2.2. The protection of maritime domain
Protection of maritime domain is secured with an order i.e. with using the maritime
domain in such manner that it is not endangered, polluted, and by inspectional and
administrative supervision in conducting the regulations about maritime domain7.
Regulations about environmental protection are used on protection of the maritime domain
from pollution, except pollution by floating objects and vessels.
In Republic of Croatia, according to Maritime Domain and Seaports Act, the units of local
and regional self – government are in charge for the protection of maritime domain. This
matter, besides the mentioned law, is regulated also by Declaration on environmental
protection in Republic of Croatia, Official Gazette, No. 34/92 (Deklaracija o zaštiti okoliša u
Republici Hrvatskoj). In the Head Three, article 4., paragraph 2, line 5. of Declaration it is
determined that for the purposes of conducting the rules of this declaration, special ministry
for environmental protection and physical planning will be established and it will be
connected to authorities in units of self – government.
Even though this ministry was established, its connection with the organs of the units
of local self – government has remained so far only law regulation with no practical use
whatsoever. Author finds that it is necessary to connect the Ministry with authorities in units
of local and regional self – government, since Republic of Croatia is maritime country at by
the regulations of the laws it is due to take care of its territory, thus it is due to take care of
maritime domain too. Through this connection, better protection would be reached more
easily, and thus an author proposes establishment of mixed commission for protection of
maritime domain. This commission would be gathered by the representatives of three above-
mentioned “bodies”.
2.3. Defining the borders of maritime domain
Defining the borders of maritime domain is a procedure of a special interest for
Republic of Croatia and it is an assumption for registration of maritime domain in real –
estates registers. Furthermore, construction of the complete system of conducting and
administering the coastal and sea resources of Republic of Croatia depends on procedure of
defining borders of maritime domain.
This procedure is conducted according to the rules of Maritime Domain and Seaports
Act and Directive about procedure of defining the maritime domain border- Directive (Uredba
o postupku utvrđivanja granice pomorskog dobra), Official Gazette, No. 8/04, 82/05. It is
conducted by Committee of Ministry for borders of maritime domain, positioned by
competent minister on proposal of three – member county committee for borders which is
established by country ruler8 (For more details see art 14. of Directive about the procedure of
giving concession upon the maritime domain, Official Gazette, No. 8/04, 82/05).
7 For more details see: Ivan Roso, Neki problemi upravljanja, održavanja i zaštite pomorskog dobra, ZRPFS,
Split br. 4 (64), 2001., 543. 8 Directive has regulated that the Committee consists of 7 members who are representatives of these bodies:
- -County governing body competent for Maritime Affairs (two members).
- -County governing body competent for physical planning and environmental protection Affairs.
- -State geodetic directorate – cadastre district office.
- -Harbour captaincy.
- -District court.
5
Jadranko Jug considers that this procedure is administrative procedure9. The author
agree with Jug and thinks that this administrative procedure because it meets all the criteria
set out a definition of administrative proceedings10. This procedure is taken up by
administrative body, in this case (Ministry) that applies substantive rules on some social
relation (maritime domain, in this case), bringing administrative acts defining the rights,
obligations and interests of subjects (maritime domain's user). Nor law nor mentioned
directive did regulate who can be member of committee; only thing regulated that is
composed of president and two members. Author finds that the members of county committee
have to be independent experts on maritime domain, named by competent authorities and
bodies of Ministry of that local or regional self – governed unit. That would also be the way
of reaching objectivity and competence while proposal of the maritime domain borders is
being made.
Directive about the procedure of defining the maritime domain borders (Uredba o
postupku utvrđivanja granice pomorskog dobra – the Directive), Official Gazette, No. 8/04,
82/05 indicates that the border of maritime domain comprehends an area that is used for
navigation and fishing on the sea, and for other purposes regarding the sea – exploitations,
according to the documents of physical planning (for more details see Directive, article 3.,
paragraph 3., line 2.).
The border of the maritime domain is defined by using the existing natural and legally
built artificial obstacles (natural mows, vegetation, plants, coastal walk – edges), (for more
details see Directive, art. 3., Official Gazette, No. 8/04, 82/05). If configuration of sea shore
does not change, maritimo line of cadastre changes will be used. Committee makes proposal
of the maritime domain border based on the Annual plan of administering, and just as an
exception, upon request and only if requested area is not under Annual plan of administering
over maritime domain.
Above mentioned request for determination of maritime domain border can be put by
the Government of Republic Croatia, over its Ministry of the sea, tourism, traffic and
development, then bodies of public administration and natural person or legal entities (art. 4.
paragraph 7. of Directive, Official Gazette, No. 8/04, 82/05). According to the practise so far,
requests have usually been directed towards couple of meters of coastal line. The procedure of
setting borders on maritime domain is slow and sluggish and this is a reason why this question
has never been completely arranged and confirmed in practise11. Together with demand, it is
necessary to attach the copy of cadastre plan of the area that needs to be border – defined, the
certificate of possession sheet and certificate of relevant documents about physical planning,
certificate of real – estates registers, geodetic shot of the area or digital ortophoto plan with
integrated copy of cadastre plan and proof about payment of the fees for defining maritime
domain borders (see art. 4. , par. 9. Directive , Official Gazette, No. 8/04, 82/05). Demand is
applied to Committee and it is due to check its status and completeness within 8 days. If
Committee finds that the demand is not complete, it will give dead line to the demander for
completing it. Mentioned dead line can not be shorter than 15 days. If the demand is
- -Local self – governing unit on whose area the borders of maritime domain are being defined
9 See: Jadranko, Jug, Pravni status općih dobara, from T., Josipović et alia, Nekretnine u pravnom prometu,
Inžinjerski biro, Zagreb 2004., 7 10The administrative procedure is a set of legal rules which regulate the mode of action of government
authorities, other government bodies and legal entities with public authority, as the body of the application of
substantive rules on specific social relation bring their administrative acts upon the rights, obligations or legal
interests of certain entities. See: art. 2. of Act of General Administrative Procedure, Official Gazette No. (47/09) 11 For more see: Boris, Fantulin, Utvrđivanje granica pomorskog dobra u okviru zakonskog dobra, in Branka,
Barišić- Marijan, Bitanga-Boris, Fantulin, et alia., Pomorsko dobro, Inženjerski biro, Zagreb 2006., 134.
6
complete, county committee is due to deliver the proposal of maritime domain border within
90 days (art. 5. of Directive, Official Gazette, No.8/04, 82/05 ) to the Committee of
Ministry12. An author finds that in order to raise an efficiency and speed of the procedure of
defining the maritime domain borders, some of these dead lines should be shorter. This
particularly refers to dead line for completing demand – 15 to 8 days; for delivering of the
borders – proposal to Committee of Ministry – 90 to 30 or 60 days top. According to
Directive, proposal of maritime domain border consists of textual part with explanation and
attachments. Textual part with explanation includes the inscriptions of the maritime domain
borders, data of eventually defined maritime domain border based on previous law
regulations, data about filling or erosion of the coast, data about configuration and existing
status of surrounding area, reasons that define the proposal of the border and data about
harmony among existing status in area and the status in the documents of physical planning
(art 7. of Directive, Official Gazette, No. 8/04, 82/05).
Border of maritime domain is concluded and defined by decision of Ministry
Committee, besides in a cases when border of harbour area is defined in a harbours opened for
public traffic. This decision includes the description of maritime domain border and list of
plots from real – estate registers and cadastres that are based on maritime domain whose
border is being defined (see art. 9. of Directive, Official Gazette, No. 8/04, 82/05).
Committee is due to deliver these decisions to the competent State bar for its
inscription in real – estate registers13. Against this decision, a party can appeal to Ministry
within 15 days.
3. CONCESSIONS AND CONCESSION APPROVAL ON MARITIME
DOMAIN
3.1. Concession- the definition and types
Concession is defined as a right to exclude completely of partially part of maritime
domain out of the public use, in order of giving it on special or economic use to legal entities
or natural persons who are registered for conducting the trade. Concession and concession approval are defined in the MDSA and Directive about the
procedure of giving concession on maritime domain- Directive about the procedure (Uredba o
postupku davanja koncesije na pomorskom dobru), (Official Gazette nr. 23/04, 101/04,
141/06, 38/09), and also in Concession Act (Zakon o koncesiji), (Official Gazette nr.125/08).
According to these laws, concession on maritime domain can be given only after the border of
maritime domain is defined and recorded in the real – estate registers (see art 7. of Maritime
Domain and Seaports Act, related to Directive about the procedure, art. 2.) However,
emerging question here is what happens if maritime domain is under the rights on rem and
other gained rights and thus it cannot be recorded into the real – estate registers? The
Maritime domain and Seaports Act does not give an answer to this question. Author finds that
in such case concession should not be given until existing status of maritime domain does not
get resolved. There are two types of concessions: concession for economic use of maritime
domain and concession for special use of maritime domain.
12 Vladušić finds this phase as pre-administrative procedure. See: J., Vladušić: Određivanje granica pomorskog
dobra, ZRPFS, 46, No.1 , 2009. , 229. 13 For more details see article 15. of Maritime Domain and Seaports Act, related to B, Fantulin, (2005.), 137.
7
3.1.1. Concession for economic use of maritime domain
Concession for economic use of maritime domain is used for conducting economic
activities and services with or without the use of existing buildings or other objects of
maritime domain14.
Concession for economic use of maritime domain is given by general rising of offer,
and the decision about rising of offer is brought by concession provider. In order
concessionaire would gain the right of concession he must be registered for performing
economic services for which the concession is given, he must have technical, organizational
and expert abilities for realization of concession, he must have guaranty for realization of the
concession plan and program, he must have all the obligations from previous concessions
annulated, and finally concession can not be taken away from him15.
Concession is given on certain period of time, and this period depends of purpose of
concession, its scale and volume, the need for investment and total economic results achieved
with such concession. Thus, concession for an economic use of maritime domain or building
of structures that are important for county is given by county government on the period of
20 years top, and previous procedure of giving concession is lead by competent county
administrative body (for more details see Maritime Domain and Seaports Act., article 20,
par. 2). Concession for an economic use of maritime domain which includes the building of
structures that are important for Republic of Croatia is given by Government of Republic
of Croatia on period of 50 years top, and previous procedure of giving concession is lead by
Ministry. Concession for building of new structures that are important for Republic of
Croatia, that demand significant investments, and economic results cannot be achieved
within 50 years, is given by the Government of Republic of Croatia on proposal of the
Parliament on period of 99 years16. After the decision about general rising of offer,
concession provider has a right of non – accepting all of incoming offers.
If concessions are related to an islands or areas that are considered to be islands in
accordance to the Islands Act (Zakon o otocima), an advantage for the offer has an applicant
whose registered office or place of residence is on island17. This solution is opposite to the
rule about the equal position of all before the law. The author thinks that residence of an
applicant cannot represent the only most important criteria for the concession on the islands.
The only criteria should be the financial viability offer. Nowadays many buildings and state-
owned companies, even islands are sold to foreigners. Accordingly, the author sees no reason
why a concession on the island could not get the person who does not reside on the island.
Then, the president of the competent body within 8 days period delivers the results and
opinion to the body competent for conducting the procedure, and this body is now due to
make a proposal of concession decision within further 8 days. Concession decision defines
the volume and the terms of special use. This decision includes: the area of maritime domain
that is given on special use or economic use, manner, terms and time of use or economic use
of maritime domain, degree of exclusion of public use upon maritime domain, concession
fees, list of an objects of sub – structure or super-structure on the maritime domain that are
14 For more see: Dragan, Bolanča, Osnovne značajke Zakona o pomorskom dobru i morskim lukama, Pomorsko
poredbeno pravo, god.43, No.158, Jadranski zavod, Zagreb 2004., 13 15 For more see: art.17-22. of Directive in according with Dragan, Bolanča:Pomorsko dobro i
koncesije,Pomorsko dobro,Zagreb,2005.,129. 16 For more see: D., Bolanča, .(2004.), 17. 17 This solution is opposite to the rule about the equal position of all before the law. For more details see Vanja,
Seršić, Koncesijsko odobrenje i načelo tržišnog natjecanja, Aktualnosti hrvatskog zakonodavstva i pravne
prakse, Godišnjak 12, Organizator, Zagreb 2005b., 555
8
also given to concession, and finally rights and obligations of concession provider and
concessionaire (art 24. of MDSA, Official Gazette, No. 158/03, 100/04, 141/06, 38/09).
Concession decision is based on the results and opinion of competent body and it
presents the assumption to conclude the concession agreement that defines the concession
more closely. It defines the purposes of concession, terms that have to be fulfilled by
concessionaire, way of paying the fees and compensations for concession and their height,
and also the guarantees of concessionaire (art. 25. paragraph 2. of Maritime Domain and
Seaports Act, Official Gazette,No. 158/03, 100/04, 141/06, 38/09). If concessionaire does not
conclude concession agreement within certain period of time, concession will be taken away
from him. Author finds this regulation justifying and righteous because if concessionaire does
not conclude this agreement it means that he is no longer interested in concession.
Concessionaire is due to pay annual fee that consists of permanent and changeable part, and
the height of fee is defined according to the economic justifiability and profitability of using
the maritime domain18.
3.1.2. Concession for special use of maritime domain
Concession for special use partially or completely excludes public use of maritime
domain for a purpose of conducting special use. This special use includes building of the
different structures on maritime domain for religious needs of community, cultural purposes,
welfare and education, science, sport, humanitarian activities, and building of various
structures for military purposes, internal affair purposes, ect19.
Specific characteristic of this concession lies in a fact that the right of economic use of
maritime domain can not be transferred on concessionaire with it. This concession is also used
for a specified period of time, and that period is defined with Directive about the procedure of
giving concession on maritime domain- Directive about the procedure (Uredba o postupku
davanja koncesije na pomorskom dobru), Official Gazette, No. 23/04, 101/04. For concession
on the objects of state importance, the period is up to 99 years and the concession granter is
Government of Republic of Croatia. For concession on objects of county importance the
period is up to 20 years, and the concession granter is County head20. Finally, concession on
the objects of local importance is given on period of up to 20 years, and the concession
granter is town head or mayor (art. 24. Directive about the procedure, Official Gazette, No.
23/04, 101/04). Concession for special use is given upon the written demand applied to the
competent body. The demand contains the name, surname, business name and place of
registered office of the applicant, the statement about the purpose of special use of maritime
domain together with the concept design, declaration of competent body for physical planning
about the importance of domain that is demanded to be put in special use, and also declaration
about harmony of concept design of use with physical – planning documentation, and finally
the proof about registration of legal entity (art. 25. of Directive about the procedure, Official
Gazette, No. 23/04, 101/04). The procedure of giving concession for special use is identical to
the procedure of giving concession for an economic use of maritime domain. Only difference
is that applicant of concession for special use has to, among other things, apply for another
demand – the demand for issuing the building licence (in a case of building on maritime
18 See more: D., Bolanča, (2005), 133-135. 19 B., Kundih, (2005) 161. 20 Split-Dalmatian County committee gave concession for the purpose of using special purpose ports -
on the part of Donja Podstrana, district Strožanac to sporting society Strožanac. The decision is founded in
Official Journal of Split-Dalmatian County, No 1/2007.
9
domain), and compliance of captaincy on concept project that is given on behalf of safety of
the navigation, because otherwise concession licence would be taken away21.
County government of Istria has given the concession of a maritime domain in a bay
called Pješčana uvala near Pula for a period of 20 years to Sport Angling Society Pješčana
uvala. This case is doubtful and controversial because concession was given without the
previous defining and registering of martitime domain boundaries. This decision has been
cancelled by Ministry of Maritime Affairs, Transport and Infrastructure22. Author finds that
concession should not have been given until the questions regarding borders of maritime
domain were resolved. Previous defining and registering of maritime domain must be realized
before the giving of concession of maritime domain. Otherwise concession could be given in
an area that is not a maritime domain. So for that reason, author finds decision of Ministry
justified.
3.2. Concessional approval
Concessional approval is legal institute given on demand of natural person or legal
entity that is registered for practising and conducting various services or businesses on
maritime domain that nor exclude nor limit the use of maritime domain23. Concessional
approval is given by Council for concession approvals and it consists of five members, it is
established for every town or district, and it is also given by public authority that
administers the protected area with the agreement of Ministry for environmental
protection, physical planning and building, if approval or concession is related to
conducting certain activities on protected areas ( article 39., par. 2-5 of MDSA). Composition
of the council for concession approvals is determined in article 7. of Directive24. Author finds
that three representatives of units of local self – government in Council should be experts on
maritime law in order of reaching objectivity in decisions made by council. Reason for
establishing this institute is maintenance and protection of maritime domain and gaining profit
for local and regional units and the whole country. Constitutional approval is given for
conducting the services on sea shore, internal seas and territorial sea of Republic of Croatia,
upon immovable cultural domain and exclusively on demand of applicant unless it comes up
to conducting services on protected areas and immovable cultural good. In this case
approval can only be obtained by general rising of the offer (art. 14. par. of Directive about
the procedure, Official Gazette, No. 23/04, 101/04). Mentioned demand has to be in harmony
with an annual plan of administering of maritime domain, it has to have already mentioned
agreement of port policy, and certificate of competent county body about micro location on
maritime domain25. Concession approval, as well as concession, can only be given to legal
entities and natural person registered for conducting the trade (art. 38., par. 1. of MDSA,
Official Gazette, No. 158/03, 101/04, 141/06, 38/09). Author agrees with this regulation
completely because concessional licence is given exclusively for conducting certain services
and thus it only can be given to the subjects that are involved with these activities and not any
21 See: B, Kundih, (2005) .163. 22 For more see: Bojan, Žižović, Sportska lučića u Pješčanoj uvali nelegalna, Glas Istre, Pula edition from 10TH
January 2013. year, 15. 23 For more see: Goran,Vojković, Pomorsko dobro i koncesije, Hrvatski hidrografski institut, Split 2003., 190. 24 Council for concession approval is composed of:
- Representative of town/district upon which area the council is being established (three
representatives).
- Physical Planning Expert named from body competent for releasing the documents.
- Financial expert- Representative of Ministry of Finance-competent Tax administration. 25 See:V., Seršić, (2005b)., 557.
10
legal entities or any natural person, as it used to be practise in ex Maritime Code (Pomorski
zakonik). Concession approval is given on period of 1 year up to 5 years. Period that is
shorter and related to days, not years, is given for activities regarding cultural, sport,
entertainment and commercial shows, and for recording commercial programs or advertising
(art 9. of Directive about the procedure, Official Gazette, No.23/04, 101/04). Concession
approval for economic use of natural goods and conducting other activities on protected areas
is given on period of up to 3 years, and for conducting activities on immovable cultural
goods on period of up to one year. According to ex Maritime Code (Pomorski zakonik),
concession approval was given on period of one year top. The MDSA regulates another new
possibility; possibility of appealing against the decision on concession approval to competent
Ministry26. This emphasizes that decision on concession approval is administrative act by its
nature27.
Activities that can be conducted based on concession approval exclusively on sea
shore and territorial sea are: transportation of passengers with vessel, ship or submarine,
renting the floating vessels, transportation of the cargo, sea – cleaning and technical labours,
and transportation of passengers, cargo and items. Activities that can be done on sea shore
are: renting of the means, catering trade and commercially – recreational activities28.
Activities that are conducted on bases of concession approval are ought to be conducted
forbearingly without endangerment of other subjects during the use of maritime domain. For
instance, renting of the sea-scooters or jet-skies can not be done on the part of maritime
domain that is meant to be used exclusively for swimming.
3.2.1. Transfer of concession and sub-concession
Concession can be transferred by written and explained transfer proposal completely
on another person under the same terms, with the agreement of concession provider29.
Authorised concessionaire of concession for economic use can assign performing of
certain side – activities that are being performed in minor volume, to other legal entities or
natural persons with permission of concession provider. These persons or entities have to use
maritime domain according to the terms of concession (art. 26. of Maritime Domain And
Seaports Act, Official Gazette, No. 158/03 100/04, 141/06 38/09). If these persons would not
respect the terms of the concession, it would, in the author's view, constituted a valid reason
for termination of the concession.
Concessionaire can give explained proposal to the concession provider regarding
sub-concession to another natural person of legal entity if he (concessionaire) is not capable
26 Differences between ex and new Maritime code are enumerated in:Dragan, Bolanča, 2004., 25. 27 Decision on concession approval completely preforming condition mentioned in definition of administrative
act:
- act of state organ or of organization,
- it is reached in performing public authorities,
- it decides about definite rights or obligations of individual or administrative organization.
For more see: Ivo,Borković, Upravno pravo, Seventh Edition, Narodne novine (Official Gazette), Zagreb 2002,
363. 28 For more see: V., Seršić, Koncesijsko odobrenje kao instrument gospodarskog iskorištavanja dobara s
posebnim osvrtom na pomorsko dobro, from D., Bolanča et alia, Pomorsko dobro, Inž. Biro, Zagreb 2005., 58.-
63. 29D, Bolanča, (2004)., 20. The Croatian Government has give a consent to the transfer of the concession of the
maritime domain for the purpose of commercial use to carry out activities in the Bay of Mali Ston to the Mussels
Crafts Pesej. For more see: Official Gazette, No (106/2012).
11
of fulfilling his obligations from concession agreement, or if he finds that conducting the
activities under concession would be more efficient if assigned to another person or entity in
sub – concession30 (art. 4.-6. of Directive about the procedure of giving concession upon the
maritime domain, Official Gazette, No. 23/04, 101/04).
Concession provider is due to give his permission to the proposal or to refuse it in a
period of 30 days counting from the day of receiving proposal, and if he gives his permission,
he is due to make new concession agreement with authorized concessionaire.
3.2.2. Revocation of concession
Concession can be withdrawn by concession provider at any time, or partially when
Croatian Parliament finds that such withdrawn is in interests of Republic of Croatia (art. 29.,
par.1. of MDSA, Official Gazzette, No. 158/03, 100/04, 141/06, 38/09). Author finds this
regulation unacceptable because it allows very wide spectra of reasons for withdrawing it any
time of for any reason. Though some authors, for instance dr.sc. Goran Vojković, consider
that concession should be withdrawn only at exceptional cases; for instance war or direct
endangerment of independence, uniqueness and survival of Republic of Croatia (art. 99.-100.
of Constitution of Republic of Croatia, Official Gazette, No. 44/01,55/01).
Author finds that the law should define the cases that are important for interests of
Republic of Croatia and when concession could be withdrawn. Author claims that this would
help to raise the levels of legal security. An authorized concessionaire who has built certain
structures on maritime domain in case of withdrawal has a right on compensation of the
expenses depending on the period of time that he was not able to use concession (art 29., par
2. of MDSA, Official Gazette, No. 158/03,100/04,141/06,38/09).
3.2.3. Concession renunciation
Authorized concessionaire can abdicate concession. Appropriate name for a
renunciation of the concession would be concession abandon, because in this case,
authorized concessionaire is giving up from the concession and he will not the authorised
concessionaire anymore.
In a case of partial renunciation, it can be done in a period of 30 days from the day of
receiving the statement about partial renunciation (art. 29. of Maritime Domain and Seaports
Act, Official Gazette, No. 158/03,100/04,141/06, 38/09). Author thinks that this statement
should be irrevocable and certified by a notary public. An example of this is renunciation of
concession for using prefabricated pier on the coats of the island Bodulaš (Municipality of
Medulin), done by Davor Buršić and Kristian Šebelić31.
3.2.4. Withdrawal of concession
Concession is subtracted in following cases: if authorized concessionaire does not
build structures or other objects for which the concession was given in a certain period of
time, if he does not comply to the law regulations and other rules or if he does not follow the
terms of concession, if he does not use concession at all, or if he does not use it in a purposes
it was given for, or if he uses it over the limits regulated by concession agreement, if he
30 The Croatian Government has give a consent to giving in sub-concession upon the part of maritime domain of
Kraljevica port to the Shipyard Kraljevica at August of 2008. 31 The decision is situated in http://www.istra-istria.hr/ fileadmin/ dokumenti/…85-10.doc:,taken from1 June
2013.
12
performs an actions on maritime domain that are not mentioned in a concession or are
opposite to the approved project without permission, if he does not pay regularly the
concession fees32 and finally if he does not protect and maintenance maritime domain on a
way regulated in concession agreement ( art 30. par.1. of Maritime Domain and Seaports Act,
Official Gazette, No. 158/03,100/04,141/06,38/09). A decision regarding subtraction of
concession is brought by concession provider and he is due to ask the concessionaire to reply
on the reasons for subtraction of concession within specified period of time (articles 9.-10.
Directive about the procedure of giving concession upon the maritime domain, Official
Gazette, No. 23/04, 101/04). Author finds that this period for reply of concessionaire should
be minimum 8 days and up to 15 days top because this would speed up the procedure of
subtraction and it would save the time. Then, the concession agreement is terminated, and
concessionaire has not a right of compensation of the damage because of agreement
termination.
3.2.5. Ending of concession
Concession ends in these cases: expiration, abdication of the concessionaire, death of
concessionaire i.e. by end of existence of legal entity if successors within 6 months counting
from the day of death or end of existence do not ask confirmation of concession, subtraction
of concession and finally agreement about termination of the concession33(art. 30, par.1. of
Maritime Domain and Seaports Act). Concessionaire does not have a right of compensation in
this case, but he has a right of taking away the structures he has built unless they are
permanently attached to maritime domain, and if it is possible by very nature without causing
damage on maritime domain34. If such removal of structures is not possible, structures will
become belonging of maritime domain according to article 33. of Maritime Domain and
Seaports Act. The laws say nothing about the compensation of damage to the concessionaire
in a case of end of concession. Author finds that concessionaire should have such
compensation of damage in cases of ending of concession for a reason of expiration or mutual
agreement about termination of concession, if concessionaire is not the one to be blamed for
termination.
3.2.6. Concession disputes
All of the questions regarding giving concession, performing it, subtraction or
changing of concession (concession disputes) are under jurisdiction of competent Ministry35.
Many legal experts do not agree to the mentioned rule. Author of this article also finds this
rule unacceptable because Ministry is not competent for giving, or for subtraction of
concession, and thus it should not be competent over concession disputes. Author finds that
for economic reasons and objectivity reasons, these disputes should be given to special
arbitral tribunals for maritime affairs, and the disputes and pleas should be lead and decided
by experts in maritime law. Some authors, for instance Vojković, consider that commercial
32 So for that reason Croatian Government has taken up the concession on the maritime domain for the purpose
of commercial use-industrial port Dugi Rat to the factory Dalmacija Dugi rat in 2003 year. For more see:
Official Gazette, (10/2003) 33 See art. 31-33. of Maritime Domain and Seaports Act, nr.(158/03,100/04,141/06,38/09)) in accordance with
Nina, Perko, Slučajevi nezakonitog korištenja koncesije na pomorskom dobru i posljedice takvog postupanja,
from journal of papers Branka, Barišić. et alia, Pomorsko dobro, Inženjerski biro, Zagreb 2006. 36. 34 N, Perko, ibid., 38. 35 Many legal experts do not agree to the mentioned rule. For more see: Mihajlo, Dika, Osvrt na rješavanje
sporova u vezi s koncesijama na pomorskome dobru, from collection of papers Vinko, Hlača: Pomorsko dobro i
koncesije, Pravni fakultet u Rijeci, Rijeka 2005., 39-42.
13
courts ought to have jurisdiction in these disputes36. Author is opposed to this opinion because
he thinks that disputes would be resolved more efficiently before an arbitrage rather than
courts. It is not possible to appeal to the decision of Ministry, but administrative dispute can
be initiated.
4. PROPERTY-LEGAL ISSUES REGARDING MARITIME DOMAIN
4.1. Gaining of rights in rem and expropriation procedure
Maritime domain, according to the Maritime Domain and Seaports Act, can not be an
object of gaining ownership or other rights in rem on no bases.
There used to be a possibility of gaining ownership over maritime domain (up to year
1974.) and mostly on buildings built on maritime domain with purpose of living in it. Thanks
to this law solution, numerous buildings and houses were built on Croatian coast for living.
Status of these buildings has been defined by Maritime Domain and Seaports Act. Existing
buildings built o maritime domain that are gained or built upon proper legal bases (built till
the year 1974.) shall be given to special use for all the time that they are used in a purpose of
living without paying fees or compensations, and user of the building is due to demand
concession. If part of that building is used for economic activities, user is due to demand
concession for economic use37 ( art. 118., of Maritime Domain and Seaports Act, Official
Gazette, No. 158/03, 101/04, 141/06, 38/09). The law never mentioned the term owner, only
user, and this user becomes concessionaire due to pay a fees for concession with upcoming of
this law. Author finds this rule illogical because if someone has built certain structures or
buildings with proper and valid legal bases he can only be owner, not user. Owner and user
can never be synonyms, since the right of use is only one of more owner’s mandates looking
way back to the Roman Empire laws. Author finds that a status of existing structure that is
gained by valid legal base and if built legitimate complying to the positive regulations and
laws, should not be changed. An authority that administers the existing structure that is
positioned on national park or special reservation is due to demand concession for special use.
Croatian Supreme Court says: Buildings and structures built on maritime domain are
belonging to the maritime domain. Explanation of this verdict said: Maritime code, as lex
specialis, does not require that buildings and structures that are built on the maritime
domain, either on the basis of the concession or on the right to build, legally, are not part of
maritime domain ( Croatian Supreme Court, GZZ 131/03 of 2nd July of 2003).
Maritime domain is considered to be protected area and upon it the procedure of
expropriation can be conducted – procedure of limitation and regaining of ownership with
compensation of market value of real estate. Market value is value that can be achieved on
market in ratio of market supply and demand in time of its determination38. The term
expropriation on maritime domain is especially actual in current process of privatization of
Croatian shipyards because some of them, for instance Brodosplit and Brodotrogir are
completely on maritime domain. The solution was found in decision made by the Government
to stop the privatization procedures until shipyards don’t get proper compensation.
Expropriation on maritime domain is conducted in a manner that former owner gets to be
36 G, Vojković, (2003.), 186. 37 Dragan, Bolanča, Stvarna prava na pomorskom dobru, Aktualnosti hrvatskog zakonodavstva i pravne
prakse,Yearbook 13, Organizator, Zagreb 2006., 77.-78. 38 For more see:, Desanka, Sarvan, Pravni status nekretnina u zaštićenim područjima, Aktualnosti hrvatskog
zakonodavstva i pravne prakse, Godišnjak 12, Informator, Zagreb 2006.,545.-546.
14
concessionaire without paying fees till the amount of determined fees for concession does not
reach the amount of proper compensation for expropriated property. Author finds this
regulation unintelligible because it is impossible to connect expropriation and concession.
Concession that is given is in this case unilateral legal action, and it can not be named
concession because concession is formed by bilateral agreement and declaration of will done
by two parties. Expropriation could be done also in a manner that former owner receives real
estate on some other area that is not maritime domain. Right of ownership on maritime
domain can be recognized only at object which authorized concessionaire built on maritime
domain during the concession. This opinion is made from attitude of Act about ownership and
other rights in rem –Act about Ownership, Official Gazette, No. 91/96, 68/98,137/99,
22/00,73/00, 114/01, 79/06, 141/06. This Act defines that objects built on maritime domain on
the basis of concession are not their component part. Maritime domain can not be an object of
gaining ownership or other rights in rem on no bases, even according to the old Austro-
Hungarian Allgemeine Grundgesetz Buch. There was a plea at Municipal Court in Šibenik
where the plaintiff sued Republic of Croatia for determination of ownership on real estate.
Mentioned real estate is situated on seacoast and represents a public domain in general use.
Plaintiff said that his father has been possessor of dispute land until 1950s. His plea was
rejected since it was determined that this real estate is in a zone of maritime domain. Because
of its position, these real estates cannot be an object of gaining ownership rights to any legal
rules (Croatian Supreme Court, Rev 17/97, 9th October 1997).
To the status of ownership on real estate that used to be on maritime domain and it is
no longer there the Maritime Domain and Seaports Act does not give any thoughts. Opinion
of State bar is that this real estate becomes the property of Republic of Croatia. This opinion
is corroborated by the attitude that Republic of Croatia is the one in charge of administering
over maritime domain, thus by the system of automatism it becomes the owner of such real
estate, and also an institute of appropriation- i.e. taking the property of someone else, or
common property on territory of Republic of Croatia that does not have known owner39(art
362. par. 2. Act About Ownership, Official Gazette, No. 91/96, 68/98,137/99, 22/00, 73/00,
114/01, 79/06, 141/06). Author agrees to this opinion completely.
4.2. Conversion and privatization of maritime domain
Conversion is a procedure of reshaping of the firm that is in common ownership into
the firm that has a specified owner40.
In nineties of XX century, or the first years of Croatian independence, conversion and
privatization of many social firms took place and some of these firms had their objects on
maritime domain. These objects were considered as basic mean in their asset, i.e. a property
that has been given to them for use. An Act About Conversion And Privatization (Zakon o
pretvorbi i privatizaciji) did not mention a thing about whether these real estates are part of
founding capital of firm, but Croatian privatization fond (hereinafter: Fond) excluded the real
estates from estimation of founding capital of the firm, and value of these objects was
included in estimation of investment in maritime domain41. The only condition for conversion
was that the specified object was capable of being under ownership, that the right that is about
to be converted is gained on proper legal basis with fulfilment of all of the presumptions that
were necessary for gaining of that right at that very moment, and finally that the current
39 S, Frković,. (2005.),. 191. 40See: Hrvoje, Kačer, Reafirmacija prava vlasništva na nekretninama u hrvatskom pravu, Zbornik radova
Pravnog fakulteta u Splitu, god. 40, No. 1-2. (69-70),2003., 37. 41 Julia, Vladušić, Evidentiranje pomorskog dobra u hrvatskom pravu, own edition, Split, 2008, 126.
15
conversion was not defined by some other special laws42. After finalizing conversion process,
new firms have put up the proposals for registration of their ownership over the real estates.
However, Fond would release the decision about concordance to conversion, and this decision
never included the list of real estates that were included in value of founding capital of the
firm, only the total value of capital, number and nominal value of stocks and thus it was not
convenient and appropriate for registration of rights on real estates. Reason for this was that
the firms were obliged to deliver the proof about the right of use on real estates together with
their demands, and after that, the Fond was allowed to determine whether some real estate is
part of founding capital of the firm or not by discretion. Fond even came up with the rule that
it is not necessary to demand the confirmation that shows whether certain real estate enters the
founding capital or not, and this caused the deception of numerous capital societies since in a
moment of finding out about that information all of the time-limits have already passed so it
was not possible to initiate administrative dispute43. In some cases of registration of rights,
courts registered only the change of the name of legal entities and the right of use over real
estate would remain registered, whilst the other registered their status changes and the right of
ownership instead the right of use. This lead to the big chaos in real estate registers44.
An example for this is Split firm Dalmacijavino that is completely positioned on
maritime domain, and its privatization was conducted despite the fact that Croatian fond of
privatization and vice-president of Government were familiar with opinion of Snježana
Frković, deputy of State bar who warned that Dalmacijavino does not have any rights over
objects on maritime domain, and also does not have a right of invest – compensation and that
it is vital to deal the possible controversies over these problems before the selling takes place.
However, opinion of State bar was not obligate for Fond, and author finds this odd because if
the opinion of State bar is not obligate then what is its purpose at all. This rule is by opinion
of author the basic ground for illegal privatization of Dalmacijavino which firm is today in a
really bad shape. It is absurd that in the action Mali maestro where businessman Svjetlan
Stanić and vice president of Fond Ivan Gotovac, among other things were sued for selling of
Dalmacijavino, both of them were released of the guilt45. The only law that was an attempt
thought late one, to remove the negative consequences of privatization was an Act About
Ownership in its edition of 2006. in art 39a (Official Gazette, No.79/06.). Author finds
interesting decision of County Court in Split about privatization of one touristic company
from Split which says: Right of use and dispose of property which are unable to be subject
property will exceed such proprietary rights in the assets of the legal successor of the socio-
legal person. These rights can not be converted into the right to ownership of the land. Such
property rights stop privatization of the Company which had previously belonged to (Split
County Court, Gž-3249/06 of 3rd January 2007 year). That rights cannot be converted into
the right of ownership of the land, because in case of conversion, that rights end.
Author finds this verdict righteous because it has shown that the conduction and
privatization of social firm was illegal. This verdict is partially based on article 1038. of
Maritime Code (Pomorski zakonik) and by author’s opinion it should be ground base for other
verdicts that should prove the illegitimacy of conversion and privatization.
42 Mladen, Žuvela, Jadranko, Crnić, Pretvorba, privatizacija, denacionalizacija-pravni status neobuhvaćenih
odnosno neprocijenjenih nekretnina-primjena čl. 47. Zakona o privatizaciji, Pravo i porezi, Zagreb No. 3., 2001.,
17 43 Hrvoje, Kačer,. Reafirmacija prava vlasništva na nekretninama u hrvatskom pravu,, ZRPFS, Year 40, No.1-2,
2003., 42. 44 Dubravka,Vukmanović, Pretvorba i privatizacija na pomorskom dobru, Pomorsko dobro, Inženjerski biro,
Zagreb 2005., 120-124. 45 For more see: Sanja, Stapić, Dalmacijavino duguje 683 milijuna kuna, Slobodna Dalmacija, edition of 19.
December 2006.
16
5. THE CONCLUSION
Maritime domain is a domain of special interest for Republic of Croatia; it is
administered and protected by Republic of Croatia directly of through the units of local and
regional self – government.
Administering can be regular or special. Special jurisdiction is under jurisdiction of
the counties. Author finds that this should be under jurisdiction of unit of local self –
government for the domains that are based on its territory. Protection of maritime domain of
pollution is determined in Declaration about environmental protection. Procedure of
determination of the borders of maritime domain is done by special committee for making
proposal of the border but it does not decide about it; Ministry Committee does. This is not
logical and on the other hand it is opposed to the an Administrative Procedure Act (Zakon o
upravnom postupku) in a sense that one procedure is being lead by two different and
separated authorities. Author finds that only one authority – county committee should lead
this procedure and come up with adequate decisions. Furthermore, concerning the case of so
called undisputable maritime domain, the registration of maritime domain without
determination of borders should be legalized, and the registration of rights on rem should be
prohibited at the same time. Procedure of expropriation can be done upon maritime domain,
and the result of it is that expropriator gets the possession of real estate with compensation of
market value to the former owner. Expropriator is Republic of Croatia and the counties should
be too if expropriation is done for a reason of building the harbour of county importance.
According to the Maritime domain and Seaports Act, existing buildings for living built of
legitimate legal bases on maritime domain shall be given to free special use, and the user of
such structure is due to demand concession for using it.
Mentioned rule does not make too much sense because no one would normally give up on
the ownership to have a right of use. Also the term legitimate legal base is used, but this term
was never defined in laws, thus it should get defined.
ABSTRACT
In this article an author presented the legal problems of maritime domain that represents an important
institute of maritime law. Maritime domain is defined by Croatian Maritime Code and the Maritime Domain and
Seaports Act as ˝part of the national territory on land, internal waters, its bed and subsoil, and has specifically
geomorphological and functional characteristics to bed determined in the process of determining the maritime
domain borders.˝ Determination of maritime boundaries represents crucial problem, because the Maritime
Domain and Seaports Act left wide possibilities of expanding the maritime coast, under certain conditions. The
maritime domain is governed, maintained and protected by Republic of Croatia directly or through its counties
and districts/towns. Maritime domain is common good in public use, but in can be also used in favour of certain
legal subjects-institute of concession.
Special attention is adhered to the status of buildings constructed in the maritime domain, as well as the
issue of privatization in the maritime domain. Key words: maritime domain, concession, registration, property, privatization
17
6. THE LITERATURE
a) Books:
BARIŠIĆ, Branka -BITANGA, Marijan- FANTULIN, Boris-
FRKOVIĆ, Snježana – JUG, Jadranko- LAMBAŠA, Draško- NAKIĆ,
Jakob- PAVLOVIĆ, Šime- PERKO, Nina- PUH, Aleksandar- SERŠIĆ,
Vanja: Pomorsko dobro, Inženjerski biro, Zagreb, 2006.
BOLANČA,Dragan-DELAČ,Damir-FRKOVIĆ,Snježana-JUG,
Jadranko-KUNDIH,Branko-NAKIĆ,Jakob-SERŠIĆ,Vanja-
VUKMANOVIĆ,Dubravka: Pomorsko dobro, Inženjerski biro,
Zagreb, 2005.
BORKOVIĆ, Ivo: Upravno pravo, 7. izmijenjeno i dopunjeno
izdanje,NN, Zagreb, 2002
GRABOVAC, Ivo: Plovidbeno pravo Republike Hrvatske, Književni
krug, Split,2003.
HLAČA, Vinko: Pomorsko dobro-društveni aspekti upotrebe i korištenja,
Pravni fakultet Sveučilišta u Rijeci, Rijeka, 1996.
HLAČA, Vinko: Pomorsko dobro i koncesije, Pravni fakultet
Sveučilišta u Rijeci,Rijeka,1995.
JOSIPOVIĆ, Tatjana-BREŽANSKI, Jasna- SESSA, Đuro- CRNIĆ,
Jadranko- ANTOLIĆ, Ljiljana-BIENENFELD, Josip- FRKOVIĆ,
Snježana- JELČIĆ, Olga- KONČIĆ, Ana-Marija- JUG, Jadranko:
Nekretnine u pravnom prometu, Inžinjerski biro, Zagreb, 2004.
KUNDIH, Branko: Hrvatsko pomorsko dobro u teoriji i praksi,Hrvatski
hidrografski institut, Rijeka,2005.
VLADUŠIĆ, Julia: Evidentiranje pomorskog dobra u hrvatskom pravu,
(mag.rad), Split, vlast. naklada, 2008.
VOJKOVIĆ, Goran: Pomorsko dobro i koncesije, Hrvatski hidrografski
institut, Split,2003.
b) Experts articles:
BITANGA, Marijan: Pomorsko dobro kroz praksu Općinskog suda u
Zadru,referat from collection of papers Barišić,B i dr: Pomorsko dobro,
Inženjerski biro,Zagreb,2006.
BOLANČA, Dragan: Stvarna prava na pomorskom dobru, Aktualnosti
hrvatskog zakonodavstva i pravne prakse, Godišnjak 13, Organizator,
Zagreb,2006.
BOLANČA, Dragan: Novine Zakona o pomorskom dobru i morskim
lukama, Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Splitu,god.40, br.1-2.(69.-
70),2003.
BOLANČA, Dragan: Osnovne značajke Zakona o pomorskom dobru i
morskim lukama iz 2003. godine, Poredbeno pomorsko pravo,
Zagreb,god.43.,br.158,2004.
BOLANČA, Dragan: Pomorsko dobro i koncesije, paper from collection
of papers: Bolanča i dr.: Pomorsko dobro, Inženjerski biro,
Zagreb,2005.
18
DIKA, Mihajlo: Osvrt na rješavanje sporova u vzi s koncesijama na
pomorskome dobru, from collection of papers Hlača, Vinko: Pomorsko
dobro i koncesije, Pravni fakultet u Rijeci, Rijeka,2005.
FANTULIN, Boris: Utvrđivanje granica pomorskog dobra u okviru
zakonske definicije, from collection of papers Barišić i dr.: Pomorsko
dobro, Inženjerski biro, Zagreb,2006.
FRKOVIĆ, Snježana: Pomorsko dobro i praksa sudova te uloga države i
državnog odvjetništva, from collection of papers Barišić i dr.: Pomorsko
dobro, Inženjerski biro, Zagreb,2006.
JUG, Jadranko: Pravni status općih dobara, from collection of papers
JOSIPOVIĆ, Tatjana-BREŽANSKI, Jasna- SESSA, Đuro- CRNIĆ,
Jadranko- ANTOLIĆ, Ljiljana-BIENENFELD, Josip- FRKOVIĆ,
Snježana- JELČIĆ, Olga- KONČIĆ, Ana-Marija- JUG, Jadranko:
Nekretnine u pravnom prometu, Inžinjerski biro, Zagreb, 2004.
KAČER, Hrvoje: Reafirmacija prava vlasništva na nekretninama u
hrvatskom pravu, Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Splitu,
god.40,br.1-2.(69-70),2003.
LAMBAŠA, Draško: Poništenje pretvorbe "Luke Rijeka" , Pravo i
porezi, br.3.,2001.
LULIĆ, Nikolina: Morsko hlađenje Marjana, Sl.Dalmacija, izdanje od
16.7. 2009.
NAKIĆ, Jakob: Učiniti vidljivim status pomorskog dobra u zemljišnoj
knjizi, Aktualnosti hrvatskog zakonodavstva i pravne prakse,
Godišnjak 13, Organizator, Zagreb,2006.
PAVLOVIĆ, Šime: Zaštita pomorskog dobra u kaznenom i prekršajnom
pravu, from collection of papers Barišić i dr.: Pomorsko dobro,
Inženjerski biro, Zagreb,2006.
PERKO, Nina: Slučajevi nezakonitog korištenja koncesije na
pomorskom dobru i posljedice takvog postupanja, from collection of
papers: Barišić, B. I dr.: Pomorsko dobro, Inženjerski biro,
Zagreb,2006.
ROSO, Ivan: Neki problemi upravljanja, održavanja i zaštite pomorskog
dobra, Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Splitu, Split, br.4(64),
2001.
SARVAN, Desanka: Pravni status nekretnina u zaštićenim područjima,
Aktualnosti hrvatskog zakonodavstva i pravne prakse, Godišnjak
12,Informator, Zagreb,2006.
SERŠIĆ, Vanja: Koncesijsko odobrenje i načelo tržišnog natjecanja,
Aktualnosti hrvatskog zakonodavstva i pravne prakse, Godišnjak 12,
Organizator, Zagreb,2005.
SERŠIĆ, Vanja:Koncesijsko odobrenje kao instrument gospodarskog
iskorištavanja dobara s posebnim osvrtom na pomorsko dobro, from D.,
Bolanča,D. et alia: Pomorsko dobro, Inženjerski biro, Zagreb, 2005.
SERŠIĆ, Vanja: Pomorsko dobro i jedinice lokalne samouprave, referat
from collection of papers Bolanča,D i dr.:Pomorsko dobro, Inženjerski
biro, Zagreb,2005.
SIMONETTI, Petar: Stvarna prava na pomorskom dobru i na zgradama
koje su na njemu izgrađene, from collection of papers: Hlača, Vinko:
19
Pomorsko dobro.-društveni aspekti upotrebe i korištenja, Pravni fakultet
Sveučilišta u Rijeci,Rijeka,1996.
STAPIĆ, Sanja: Dalmacijavino duguje 683 milijuna kuna, Slobodna
Dalmacija, izdanje od 19.12.2008. godine
ŠIMUNOVIĆ. Ivo: Obalni prostor i pomorsko gospodarstvo, Zbornik
radova Pomorskog fakulteta u Rijeci, sv.2., Rijeka,1993.
VLADUŠIĆ, Julijana: Određivanje granica pomorskog dobra, Zbornik
radova Pravnog fakulteta u Splitu, 46, No.1., 2009.
VUKMANOVIĆ, Dubravka: Pretvorba i privatizacija na pomorskom
dobru, paper from collection of papers Bolanča i dr.: Pomorsko dobro,
Inženjerski biro,Zagreb,2005.
ŽIŽOVIĆ, Bojan: Sportska lučica u Pješčanoj uvali nelegalna, Glas
Istre,Pula edition from 10TH January 2013. godine,
ŽUVELA, Mladen- CRNIĆ, Jadranko: Pretvorba, privatizacija,
denacionalizacija-pravni status neobuhvaćenih odnosno
neprocijenjenih nekretnina-primjena čl.47. Zakona o privatizaciji,
Pravo i porezi, Zagreb, br.3.,2001.
c) Laws, rulebooks and other legal acts:
Declaration on environmental protection (Official Gazette nr.34/92)
Penal Law (Official Gazette nr.110/97, 129/00,51/01,105/2004, 84/2005)
Maritime Code (Official Gazette nr.181/04,76/07)
The Rulebook about registering and marking of maritime domain
(Official Gazette nr.29/05)
Directive about the procedure of giving concession upon the maritime
domain (Official Gazette nr.23/004,101/04)
Directive about the procedure of defining the maritime domain
borders (Official Gazette nr.8/04,82/05)
The Constitution of Republic of Croatia (Official Gazette
nr.44/01,55/01)
Act of General Administrative Procedure, Official Gazette No.(47/09
Act Of Hydrographical Activities (Official Gazette nr.68/98,110/98)
Concession Act (Official gazette nr.125/08)
Act of Liability Of Legal Entities For Penal Acts (Official Gazette
nr.151/03)
Islands Act (Official Gazette nr.34/99,149/99,32/02)
Maritime Domain And Seaports Act (Official Gazette nr.158/03
100/04, 141/06 38/09)
Act Of Physical Planning And Building (Official Gazette nr.76/07)
Act About Ownership And Other Rights In Rem (Official Gazette
nr.91/96,68/98,137/99,22/00,73/00, 114/01,79/06, 141/06)
Real – Estates Registers Act (Official Gazette
nr.91/96,68/98¸137/99,114/01)
c) Decisions:
The decision about giving the concession on the part of the beach in
Seget Donji for a purpose of conducting tourist activities, (Official
Gazette nr.91/06)
20
The decision about taking away the concession on the beach Bene in
cadastre district Split, (Official Gazette of county Split – Dalmatia
nr.3/04)
The decision about giving the concession on the part of the Donja
Podstrana ( Official Gazette of Split-Dalmatia County,nr.1/2007)
Decision of giving consent to the transfer of the concession of the
maritime domain for the purpose of commercial use to carry out
activities, Official Gazette,No(106/2012)
Decision of renunciation of concession for using prefabricated pier on
the coats of the island Bodulas (Municipality of Medulin),
http://www.istra-istria.hr/ fileadmin/ dokumenti/…85-10.doc:,taken
from1 June 2013.
Decision of taking away the concession on the maritime domain for
the purpose of commercial use-industrial port Dugi Rat ., Official
Gazette, (10/2003)
County court Pula decision of 18. November of 2002., nr. Gž-2463/01-2
Croatian Supreme Court decision of 9th October 1997, Rev 17/97)
County Court Split, decision of 3rd January 2007 year ,Gž-3249/06)