Vol. 18 No. 1 (2026): LeXonomica

This publication is financially supported by ARIS - Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency 

Izdajo publikacije finančno podpira ARIS - Javna agencija za znanstvenoraziskovalno in inovacijsko dejavnost Republike Slovenije

Editorial

Before you is the Vol. 18, No. 1 (2026) issue of LeXonomica journal, containing five scientific articles addressing current legal and economic issues.

The first article (“Procedural Balance or Structural Disadvantage? Legal Remedies and Defence Rights in European Investigation Order”) written by Teodora Kordiš, analyses certain legal dilemmas in connection to the European Investigation Order. Despite its advanced and structured regulation, the position of the defence in the EIO procedures remains uncertain in some countries. Directive 2014/41/EU does not provide a sufficient legal basis for the defence to issue an EIO independently, nor does it establish an explicit right to appeal against its issuance or execution. Although fundamental rights under the EU Charter and the ECHR apply to EIO proceedings, these standards are broadly framed and allow national discretion. The CJEU has taken a step forward, notably in Gavanozov II, highlighting the importance of legal remedies in EIO proceedings. Nonetheless, national criminal procedures still differ in key aspects, and significant gaps remain at the EU level in ensuring effective defence rights.

The second article (“Passing of Risk under CISG and Incoterms 2020 Rules: Legal framework and Contractual Autonomy”) written by Nastja Gorenc, analyses the relationship between CISG and Incoterms as key instruments regulating international sales contracts. Both frameworks reflect party autonomy, enabling parties to adapt contractual terms to the needs of modern global trade. CISG applies by default to international sales contracts under Art. 1 CISG, unless expressly excluded, while Incoterms apply through contractual incorporation or established usage. The article examines that Incoterms do not replace CISG but function alongside it, particularly regarding delivery and transfer of risk. Because Incoterms connect risk transfer to logistical events and CISG relies on legal criteria, inconsistencies may cause disputes when contracts are poorly drafted. In such cases, courts and tribunals interpret the parties’ agreement through Arts. 8, 9 CISG rather than redefining obligations. The article emphasizes that, despite some ambiguities in CISG’s risk provisions, it remains a major achievement in harmonizing international sales law. When combined with Incoterms, it provides a more effective framework for allocating risk and responsibilities. The article concludes that disputes are best avoided through clear drafting that regulates CISG’s role, the relevant Incoterms rule, and defines the parties’ obligations.

The third article (“Athletes' Data Protection Under the Slovenian, EU and International Regulations”) written by Suzana Kraljić and Ema Turnšek, outlines the athletes' data protection framework in Slovenia and addresses selected internationally recognised issues within this context. When it comes to athletes' data, we distinguish the competition data and performance data. The latter is particularly vulnerable and, at the same time, desired by various clubs or event organisers who want to monetise this data solely for their own benefit. In some cases, misuse or unlawful disclosures occur due to a lack of legal bases. However, in some other examples, the legal basis is provided by law – that is, especially common in cases of more comprehensive data collections gathered by official bodies or authorities, such as the Ministry of Sport. Furthermore, the article presents several legal acts that either directly or indirectly protect athletes' data. Even though the protection does not always specifically address athletes, but rather individuals in general, that does not mean the protection is inadequate or insufficient. Finally, the paper also addresses more specific topics – athletes' data protection in the event of anti-doping rule violations, as well as the particular regulation of athletes' health data.

The fourth article (“Copyright in the Republic of Croatia in Light of the New Copyright and Related Rights Act”) written by Blanka Mateša and Bruno Putnik, analyses the key changes introduced by the Croatian Copyright and Related Rights Act of 2021, particularly in the context of harmonisation with European Union law. Special attention is devoted to the historical development of copyright, the legal framework, and the digital environment, including the liability of online platforms, new rules governing the use of content, and the expansion of the rights of right holders. The paper also examines criticisms of the new Act, as well as the challenges and issues that have emerged in practice following its adoption. A range of scientific methods is employed, including inductive and deductive reasoning, methods of analysis and synthesis, abstraction and concretisation, generalisation and specialisation, classification, description, historical analysis, compilation, and comparative analysis. The paper concludes by confirming the initial hypothesis. It finds that the new Act represents an important step in the modernisation of the Croatian copyright system; however, its full effectiveness will depend on how its provisions are applied and interpreted in legal practice.

The fifth article (“Codification of Inspection: A Comparative Analysis of Croatia, Slovenia and Serbia”) written by Paula Šamanić Matijević and Klara Babić, analyses the contribution of codifying inspection rules to the more effective implementation of this procedure. Particular attention is given to the normative framework governing inspection in Croatia, which is currently regulated by numerous laws. Using a comparative legal method, the paper examines the legal frameworks in Slovenia and Serbia as examples of neighbouring countries where the rules on inspection have been codified. Based on the analysis conducted, the advantages of codifying inspection rules are assessed, and consideration is given to how the introduction of such codification could improve the quality of the legal regulation of inspection in the Republic of Croatia.