| Abstract | U radu izlažem temeljne razlike između glavne skupštine dioničkog društva te skupštine društva s ograničenom odgovornošću. Nakon uvodnog dijela u kojem pojašnjavam problematiku teme, rad je podijeljen na poglavlja u kojima usporednim pregledom oba organa izlažem glavne razlike između istih. Pregled razlika započinje komparativnom analizom zakonskog teksta o nadležnosti oba organa. U tom dijelu obrađujem paralelno Zakon o trgovačkim društvima, praksu sudova te knjige profesora Barbića, kako bih pristupio analizi sa što većim opsegom informacija, a u službi toga da kasniji deduktivni zaključak bude što precizniji. Nastavno, analiziram proces sazivanja oba organa te sve popratne radnje koje se uz sazivanje vežu. Tu prednjače razlozi sazivanja, vrijeme sazivanja te ovlast za sazivanje skupštine, dok se za dobivanje konačnih rezultata osvrćem i na rokove te dnevni red saziva glavne skupštine, odnosno skupštine. Nadalje, predstavljam ulogu predsjednika glavne skupštine, odnosno predsjedatelja skupštine. Analiziram i uspoređujem te dvije bitne uloge za funkcioniranje ovih organa te njihovu povezanost i razlike. Prije završnog dijela, rezerviranog za zaključak i konačni rezultat ovog rada, osvrćem se na odluke koje glavna skupština, odnosno skupština donosi. Tu je bitno vidjeti kako dolazi do donošenja odluka pa u radu analiziram sve aspekte tog procesa, od predlaganja odluka pa sve do glasovanja i konačno donošenja. Rad je zamišljen kao komparativna analiza, što znači da ću usporedbu glavne skupštine i skupštine raditi naizmjenično i neposredno kroz određena poglavlja, tako da na pod istim podnaslovom objasnim njihove ključne razlike, a tek onda prelazim na idući dio rada, pa sam ga tako pokušao i koncipirati. Ne preporučam učenje ili pripremu za određeni kolegij ili dio kolegija isključivo na temelju ovog rada, prvenstveno zbog kompleksnosti materije, ali se nadam da će osobi koja vlada istom dobro doći kao podsjetnik te širenje vidika zadane teme, pogotovo kod razumijevanja prava društava. |
| Abstract (english) | In this paper I expose the fundamental differences between the general shareholders meeting of the joint stock company and the congregation of a limited liability company. After an introductory part explaining the topic, work is divided into chapters where simultaneous examination of both organs expose the main differences between them. The review of the differences shall be initiated by a comparative analysis of the legal text on the competence of both organs. In that regard, I am working in parallel to the Commercial Society Act, the practice of courts, and the book by Professor Barbić, in order to approach the analysis with as much information as possible and in the ministry that the later deductive conclusion is as precise as possible. Further, I analyse the process of convening both organs and all the accompanying actions that bind together. There are the reasons for the convening, the time of the convening, and the authority to convene the congregation, with the final results looking over and the time limits and the agenda shall be called by the general congregations or congregations. In addition, I present the role of the president of the general meeting, or the chairman of the congregation. I analyse and compare these two essential roles for the functioning of these organs and their relationship and the difference. Before the final part, reserved for the conclusion and the final result of this work, I refer to decisions that the general assembly, or congregation, brings. It is important to see how it comes to decision-making, so I analyse all aspects of this process, from proposing decisions and until voting and final adoption. The work is designed as a comparative analysis, which means that I will make the comparison between the general meeting and the congregation alternately and directly through certain chapters, so that under the same subheading I explain their key differences, and then I move on to the next part of the work, so I tried to counter it. I do not recommend teaching or preparation for a particular course or part of the college solely on the basis of this work, primarily because of the complexity of matter, but I hope that the person who rules the same good will come as a reminder and broaden the horizons of a given subject, especially in understanding the rights of societies. |
