Croacia / Casos nacionales
Vrijeme je za jazz — director coauthorship and employee-work remuneration questions
Casos nacionales. La inclusión en esta ficha no convierte una referencia extranjera en una decisión nacional. Se conserva el estado y el alcance de la fuente.
Expediente y fuentes
- Nombre
- Vrijeme je za jazz — director coauthorship and employee-work remuneration questions
- Cita
- Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia, Revd-74/2025-3, 2 October 2025 (published 21 April 2026)
- record kind
- judicial_decision
- Tribunal
- Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia
- Instancia
- national supreme court, leave-to-revise stage
- Fechas
- Decisión
- 2025-10-02
- Publicación
- 2026-04-21
- first instance
- 2024-03-07
- Recurso
- 2024-06-11
- Estado
- final order refusing or rejecting leave grounds
- Resultado
- Legal-question leave refused; fundamental-rights limb rejected; HRT response costs refused.
- Resumen
- No. Director coauthorship was not disputed below. The remuneration question rested on a false premise because the HRT rule itself contemplated regulation by employment instrument or author consent. The remaining questions attacked case-specific procedure, not qualifying general law.
- Antecedentes
- A director of Croatian Radiotelevision programs 'Vrijeme je za jazz' pursued copyright claims against HRT. His proposed questions asked whether directing is authorship and whether HRT's unilateral internal rules could exclude remuneration for an employee-created work without the author's consent.
- Historia procesal
- The Zagreb Commercial Court decided P-1234/2018-54 on 7 March 2024; the High Commercial Court partly varied it in Pž-2346/2024-2 on 11 June 2024. The Supreme Court refused the legal-question limb and rejected the fundamental-rights limb of the leave application.
- Cuestión jurídica
- Did the proposed director-authorship and employee-remuneration questions require Supreme Court review for uniform law?
- Criterio
- No. Director coauthorship was not disputed below. The remuneration question rested on a false premise because the HRT rule itself contemplated regulation by employment instrument or author consent. The remaining questions attacked case-specific procedure, not qualifying general law.
- Fundamento decisivo
- Leave review does not decide abstract questions unnecessary to the dispute or founded on a premise contrary to the findings. The clear lower-court reasons on the director's economic rights also defeated the constitutional intervention route.
- Límites
- The order did not decide a new merits rule, applied the predecessor Act to the underlying employment relationship, and is not an AI case. It does not displace current Articles 96 and 100.
- Relevancia
- doctrina-general
- Referencias relacionadas
- Peso del precedente
- Limited admissibility-stage guidance; confirms the disputed/undisputed boundary but does not create a substantive GenAI or employee-work test. Integración/votación: Five-judge panel; no dissent or vote breakdown published, so unanimity is not asserted.
- Fuente
- Referencia
- Vrijeme je za jazz — director coauthorship and employee-work remuneration questions
- Enlace
- Consultar fuente
- Autoridad
- Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia
- Tipo
- primary_judicial_full_text_cross_checked_reproduction
- Tipo de evidencia
- primary_judicial_full_text_cross_checked_reproduction
- Método de comprobación
- Full-text reproduction read; it supplies the official decision URL and official metadata. The source was newly located during the second review.
- Localizador
- disposition and paras. 1, 4-10; official metadata for dates and finality
- Verificación documentada
- Sí