Edis Felić: Officials vs. Entrepreneurs: The Phones Are Ringing, No One Picks Up the Receiver

Very often, on the Facebook page of the Association Voice of Entrepreneurs, one can come across posts where entrepreneurs complain that no one answers their calls in state or local institutions, and they are in dire need. I follow this group, and given the number of such posts, I can say that this is one of the bigger problems people are facing.

Thus, one entrepreneur writes that no one has responded to an email sent multiple times to the HZZ for eight days and comments that in that institution 'they have jobs, salaries, and contributions on those salaries thanks to us. If someone answers the phone, they pass the ball to another office', writes the entrepreneur, clearly angry at everyone in that institution. While acknowledging the engagement of people in the HZZ who are surely also nervous due to the new obligations they received during the pandemic, it is incredible that there is no one to respond to the entrepreneur’s inquiry sent several times.

It is forbidden to respond!

It is not excluded that, besides disorganization, the reason is also poor organization, but my friends, after more than two months, there is no excuse for such treatment of entrepreneurs. I believe that after a month, the HZZ could have organized itself and functioned normally, with acceptable delays of a day or two, although even such delays are too much for entrepreneurs in this situation.

Her fellow entrepreneur also does not hide her anger while describing communication with the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD, I assume with some of our bodies within the Ministry of Agriculture) and says: 'I am really angry. I called the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development today to find out if my father-in-law, who has a family farm, can apply for measure 1.6.2, i.e., the development of non-agricultural activities – rural tourism. The gentleman who answered me stated that he cannot answer my two questions because the interest in the competition is too great, and they were ordered not to answer questions!! They have a service for questions, but they decided to abolish it because the competition is approaching. Is it okay that I cannot and must not receive information?'

If this is really true, then it is condemnable. Not providing information simply because there is already a high interest in applying for money from the EU fund has nothing to do with logic, because while the competition is ongoing, everyone has the right to apply, which means that anyone can call and request clarification regarding the competition. Here, even the entrepreneur’s father-in-law has not missed the competition, so I recommend that they definitely apply, but also report to the authorities in the body that announced the competition that they were told they were not wanted to answer questions 'because the interest in the competition is too great, and they were ordered not to answer questions.'

Fortunately, there are also diligent ones

The entrepreneur received only one thousand kuna in support for his job from the HZZ, so he called several times, after which they finally told him it was a mistake, promising to pay the rest of the money. However, he did not receive the money, so he also sent emails, without a response. Finally, a kind lady contacted him, who checked what was going on and discovered that he was registered for half-time work. However, she was diligent enough to check the JOPPD form and contacted the HZMO, after which she found out that the employer was registered for full-time work. Thus, even what was previously determined to be a mistake was not corrected by the officials, which clearly shows how they were not diligent compared to the lady in the same institution.

I hope these examples will encourage the authorities in the institutions to better organize the work they manage.

POST SCRIPTUM

One entrepreneur complains because he received a decision for the payment of monument rent. It has been calculated for all 12 months of 2020 with a payment deadline for the first quarter of 15 days from receipt (June 12) and for the second quarter by June 15. Thus, practically within 15 days, he must pay the monument rent for six months.

He sent an objection because if the monument rent is paid due to 'the use of business premises,' as stated in the decision, and the activity was completely prohibited for two months, after which it was allowed in a limited form, should its payment not be proportional? He also asks, if the building is marked as 'temporarily unusable' (orange sticker), what is the correlation with the mentioned tax? I believe the entrepreneur is right.

{embed_digitalno_izdanje}{/embed_digitalno_izdanje}