Can anyone follow more than 20,000 Croatian regulations?

Ignorance of the law is harmful (lat. ignorantia iuris nocet) is a principle that has been valid since the Roman Empire.

‘I didn’t know’ is not accepted in any court proceedings, but recently there have been increasingly loud initiatives širom svijeta to at least somewhat relativize this rule, and this will likely happen sooner or later. The reason is very simple. Unlike the situation during the Roman Empire when there were relatively few legal norms, today the situation is dramatically the opposite.

Much to read

For example, on January 1, 2014, there were more than 9,000 legal norms in force in Croatia, both laws and subordinate acts published in the official gazette Narodne novine. To this, we must add at least as many various general acts adopted by local and regional self-government, and we are already at a number of at least 20,000 general acts.

It is difficult to be precise; there are those that are found on a single page of text, but also those such as the Companies Act, the Obligations Act, the Property and Other Real Rights Act, and the Land Registry Act, which occupy hundreds of pages with their text, and each has been amended from the original text on average about ten times, and a serious commentary on each of these laws occupies at least 1,000 pages.

And these are just the basic texts of legal acts, without countless amendments and supplements, and the number is increased by the fact that many acts (including laws) continue to be applied long after they are no longer in force because new acts do not have retroactive effect, and it is a situation or case that is therefore resolved according to the old act. Although the number is already enormous, after full membership in the EU, it needs to be increased by all that constitutes the European legal acquis. At this moment, there are already more than 150,000 pages of official text of legal norms, and all of this is part of the Croatian legal system, which is simultaneously an integral part of the European legal acquis. Even for a law graduate, just to read all of this (the number is constantly increasing) would take an entire working lifetime.
It is notorious then that ignorance of the law can no longer mean the same as it did 50 or 100 years ago, and those who do not recognize and acknowledge this as a major problem are easier to portray as advocates of the so-called ostrich policy (ignoring the problem, burying their head in the sand) than as someone who responsibly performs their duty.

And what about the obligation of the legislator?

Just for illustration, we can mention or ask – how many entrepreneurs know that a proposal for opening pre-bankruptcy proceedings (but also much more in that process) can only be submitted exclusively on the prescribed form (which can be found on the website of the competent court – VTS RH, administered by the relevant ministry) and if it is not submitted on the form, it will be rejected. Furthermore, how many entrepreneurs know that the delivery of documents in bankruptcy and pre-bankruptcy proceedings is carried out via the e-bulletin board of the courts, and the delivery is considered completed upon the expiration of the eighth day from the date of publication. We could list infinitely important things that, if unknown to the entrepreneur (or anyone else), can cause truly unforeseeable consequences. It is evident that not only does the legislator believe that everyone (including entrepreneurs) knows the law, but also that every entrepreneur uses a computer. If that is the case, it really raises the question of why, in the spirit of fairness and equitable distribution of burdens, the proposer and/or legislator should not have the obligation to send a warning about the act that has been adopted and about the fundamental obligations to all business entities via email.

It can be simple

It may seem like a revolution and something that is difficult to implement, but it is not so at all. All entrepreneurs could easily be encouraged to provide their data (email addresses), if not otherwise, then at least by publicly and clearly announcing that the application of the principle ‘ignorance is no excuse’ is conditioned by the entrepreneur being informed of the change via the email they have duly registered. In today’s time of technological advancement, since these are not acts aimed at individually determined legal entities, it would not be a special effort or cost for the state either. On the other hand, entrepreneurs (perhaps this model should later be expanded to others) would finally feel that the state is a friend, not an enemy, and when that happens, it would certainly be better for everyone in the ‘food chain.’