On 1 July 2013 everything changed for the Croatian judiciary. Harmonisation of the Croatian legal system with the acquis communautaire brought about fundamental changes to the entire national regulation, and not always in a satisfactory manner, leaving the judiciary to its own devices to find their own way in the new situation. Direct application of a part of the acquis means that the Croatian judiciary must be well acquainted with it from the first day of being a member of this legally complex association. Was the Croatian judiciary provided adequate support in preparing for this radical change prior to accession? What modes of continuous education of judges and lawyers have been envisaged for training and monitoring further development of EU law? As regards the area of transport law, the situation appears to be even more complex. The legal regulation of transport, due to its predominantly international character, has always been special and multi-layered. Apart from national regulations, most of the positive transport law in all areas of transport consists of international conventions which equalise the legal regulation of many issues at the international level, and their application poses a special challenge. On top of this basic two-layered construct a third layer is added – that of EU acquis. The transport-related part of the acquis represents its third largest area. The reason for this lies in the fact that the EU has assumed jurisdiction in this area almost to the full, which has resulted in, as it is estimated, several tens of thousands pages of EU legal regulations in this area, along with over a hundred judgments of the Court of Justice of the EU and the General Court. Often marginalised due to its particular nature and a small absolute number of cases appearing before courts – which is often used as an argument against specialism in this area – this area of law is, however, of enormous importance to the industry. Transport-related cases frequently involve high amounts of claim; for this reason, any insecurity on the part of the judge regarding this complex area, combined with lengthy proceedings, may have extremely detrimental effects on the economic viability of undertakings. Any risks carried by a transport route will be compensated by the selection of a different route, but what are the consequences of that on the national transport industry? The shipping industry typically opts for specialized arbitration as the alternative dispute resolution method, but is that the only way? Can opting for domestic or foreign arbitration improve the state of affairs in other areas of transport, as well? Will a judicial reform in Croatia really contribute to the specialization of judges and how? Survival and development of the transport industry requires good and swift judicial protection. Does the Croatian transport industry enjoy good quality support of the judiciary and/or specialized lawyers, and what are the improvements that could be made to the system? Before we answer these and other topical questions, it will be particularly interesting to hear how this problem is handled by the Netherlands, a small country, yet a transport industry giant, which approaches the issue of specialized judiciary and legal protection of the industry with extreme care, respecting the tradition, but also leaving room for quick innovations and adaptations to the development of this very dynamic industry.
