ࡱ> 9 )bjbj-?{X&l<<<PCCC8Ct8DTPG:G"GGGHN!I=Ilnnnnnn$ <MIHHMIMIPGGPPPMIx8G<GlPMIlPHPSzD$<8~GG āP<>CJ{&8~40{BL8~PPP DECISION MAKING AUTONOMY IN THE EUROPEAN INTEGRATION PROCESSES A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF STUDENTS OPINION Key words: survey, decision making autonomy, European Union, comparative statistical analysis, questionnaire ABSTRACT The paper aims to establish the attitudes of student population on the desirable level of autonomy of the Republic of Croatia when deciding on the analyzed economic and social issues. Choosing the students as the target group of the survey was based on the assumption that today's younger age groups (i.e. current students at the Faculty of Economics) will be active participants in future integration processes. An opinion survey of student population regarding European integration processes was conducted at the Faculty of Economics in Osijek in 2004 (second round of research) and compared with the data collected in 2001 at the Faculty of Economics in Osijek (first round of research) . The questionnaire used to compile the students' opinions is a modified version of the standard Eurobarometer 54, which is used to survey the attitudes of EU citizens. The collected data were analyzed by the methods of multivariate statistical analysis. Apart from the results of the statistical analysis the paper also contains the modified questionnaire, which could be used to follow the investigated problem longitudinally and thus influence the necessary future activities with the aim of successful association of the Republic of Croatia with the European Union. INTRODUCTION The European Union is an integration of democratic European countries committed to peaceful and prosperous co-existence. The EU is not a state aiming to replace the existing states, however, its member states delegate part of their sovereignty to the Union which allows issues of mutual interest to be resolved democratically at the European level. Having joined the EU, each state gains certain rights, advantages and benefits, but also assumes obligations that it must be ready to fulfill, thus subordinating part of its autonomy to higher common causes. The citizens' views on the Union and all its features could be an important step in understanding and accepting the legal, economic and sociological tenets that the Union is based on. This in turn leads to accepting the obligations posed by the membership in the EU. All the candidate countries have been conducting information campaigns for several years, as well as regular opinion polls on different phases in the preparation for EU accession. This is done by means of questionnaires known as the Eurobarometer. In February 2005, among other EU member countries, the Eurobarometer No. 62 featured for the first time the attitudes of Croatian citizens regarding current issues in the EU. The Eurobarometer (EB) survey series is a programme of cross-national and cross-temporal comparative social research conducted on behalf of the European Commission and is designed to monitor social and political attitudes. In the early seventies nationally representative samples in all European Union (European Community) member countries are interviewed in each spring and each autumn. Since autumn 1990 (EB No. 34.1) separate supplementary surveys on special issues have been conducted in nearly every EB. One of the issues systematically monitored by Eurobarometers is the CFSP (Common Foreign & Security Policy), a key issue in the European Constitution. A clear notion of judicature, tax and immigration policies, autonomy aspirations of each member country, i.e. the level of cooperation in the context of European globalization, will all have a critical impact on defining and implementing the EU Constitution. The research presented here is aimed at data collecting on student attitudes and based on a modified Eurobarometer No 54. The key assumption of the research is that in the near future students of economics will be active and instrumental in the integration processes and their implementation in the Republic of Croatia. Both data analysis and comments are therefore concentrated on their support of the EU and the integration processes, then on attitude analysis regarding Croatia's obligations in the integration processes, and finally on students' approval of the level of Croatia's cooperation with the EU when deciding on the integration processes. EU AND CROATIA CURRENT SITUATION The Croatian Government has set Croatia's swift joining the EU as a priority. In early 2004 Croatia officially became a candidate country, and membership negotiations are expected to start in 2005. According to the criteria adopted by the European Council at the meeting in Kopenhagen (13 December 2002), Central and Eastern European countries wanting to become EU members shall join the Union at the time when they are capable of assuming a member's obligations by fulfilling economic and political conditions as follows: A candidate country must have attained stable institutions that guarantee democracy, rule of law, human rights, respect for and protection of minorities, The country must have a functioning market economy, and must be able to cope with the competitive pressures and market forces within the Union, The country must be able to undertake the obligations connected with the membership, which includes accepting the goals of political, economic and monetary union. When considering Croatia's application, the Commision analyzed the current situation and medium-term prospects in the country, paying particular attention to Croatia's capability to fulfill the stated political criteria. Every six months since the year 2000, the Croatian Ministry of European Integrations has been conducting public opinion polls, mostly based on Eurobarometers, which were actually created by research teams of EU member countries. The Eurobarometer questionnaires are used to continuously survey the attitudes of EU citizens. The respondents in the survey conducted by the Croatian Ministry of European Integrations are randomly chosen from the whole population of Croatia aged 15 and older (the results are available at the Ministry's site  HYPERLINK "http://www.mei.hr" www.mei.hr). Until April 2005 there have been ten research waves of data collecting. The aim of the survey is to monitor public opinion on European integrations, and on ways and sources of information on the topic. Our research is based on the assumption that the attitudes of today's young generation, future graduate economists, i.e. future participants in business and economic policy of Croatia, will be crucial for the course of integration processes, as well as for all the activities following the integration. This is why the sample in the first and second wave of research was chosen randomly among the students of the Faculty of Economics in Osijek. The questionnaire tried to find out the level of knowledge regarding the EU, and the respondents' attitudes on advantages and disadvantages of future integration processes. METHODOLOGY The methodology of our research is based on a modified version of the Eurobarometer 54 (Horvat, Marijanovi, 2002). The main reason for using the old version of standard Eurobarometer (e.g. Eurobarometer 54) to collect data was the intention to compare the new data with the information obtained with the same version of the questionnaire in the 2001 survey. There is a fundamental difference between our survey and similar surveys carried out by the Ministry of European Integrations. Looking into the results obtained by the Ministry of European Integrations, it can be noted that they refer mostly to the attitudes of the entire population of Croatia over 15 years of age. Since it is most likely that the attitudes of today's younger generation will be crucial for the course of future integration processes, as well as for all the activities following the integration, the sample for the 2004 survey was chosen among the students of the Faculty of Economics in Osijek. The survey included the students of all four years of study, and the data were compared to the ones obtained in an identical research conducted at the Faculty of Economics in Osijek in 2001. 3.1. Sample As already stated above, the starting assumption is that the current attitudes of today's younger generation, future graduate economists, i.e. future participants in business and economic policy of Croatia, will be crucial for the course of integration processes, as well as for all the activities following the integration. The research presented here was carried out in two waves of data collecting the first wave in December 2001, and the second in April 2004. In both rounds of research the data were collected at the Faculty of Economics in Osijek (the first wave n = 148, the second wave n = 469). Data collecting was carried out by paper and pencil method with the investigator present. The investigator showed each of the questions from the questionnaire on the overhead projector, and explained to the respondents what they need to do regarding each question. In the analysis of the sample, we compared the chosen demographic variables for the data obtained in Osijek in 2001 (first wave), and in 2004 (second wave). Table 1 shows demographic characteristics of all the data collected at the Faculty of Economics in Osijek in both waves, and the chi-square test indicator refers to testing the assumption of equality of demographic variables in the first and second wave of data collected in Osijek. Table 1 Description of demographic characteristics of the sample obtained in Osijek in both waves, and testing their equality according to the chosen demographic characteristics by chi-square test indicator Variables First wave OsijekSecond wave OsijekGender2 = 0.006, signif. = 0.937male45 (30.4%)141 (30.1%)female103 (69.6%)328 (69.9%)I grew up in2 = 2.219, signif. = 0.330a town/city86 (58.1%)249 (53.1%)Close to a town/city24 (16.2%)102 (21.7%)In the country38 (25.7%)118 (25.2%)Where do you want to spend most of your life?2 = 7.417, signif. = 0.191Where I grew up36 (26.5%)116 (30.1%)Within 100 km of the place where I grew up32 (23.5%)107 (27.7%)Close to the place where I'm studying12 (8.8%)24 (6.2%)In other places in Croatia25 (18.4%)74 (19.2%)In one of the EU countries28 (20.6%)49 (12.7%)In a non-European country3 (2.2%)16 (4.1%)Plans regarding education2 = 1.474, signif. = 0.831I might discontinue my studies0 (0.0%)4 (0.9%)I will graduate85 (57.4%)267 (57.1%)After graduation I'll do professional training40 (27.0%)131 (28.0%)I will take a master's degree19 (12.8%)54 (11.5%)I will take a doctor's degree4 (2.7%)12 (2.6%) ** Mean Difference was significant at the 0.01 level (P<0.01) * Mean Difference was significant at the 0.05 level (P<0.05) A closer look at the analyzed demographic variables shows that the chosen samples are homogenous, i.e. there are no statistically significant differences of feature modality. Statistically significant differences were established only with two demographic variables: The estimate of living standards moved towards increased living standards (2 = 17.998, signif. = 0.000), and Education of the respondent's father (2 = 11.378, signif. = 0.023). The remaining demographic variables (gender, place where they grew up, education of respondent's mother), and two variables indicating life preferences of the students (the place where they want to spend most of their lives and education plans) did not show any statistically significant differences. It is therefore possible to conclude that the samples collected in the first and second wave at the Faculty of Economics in Osijek are homogenous according to the majority of demographic variables. 3.2. Measurement instruments The measurement instrument was the modified version of the standard Eurobarometer questionnaire No. 54. The Standard Eurobarometer survey series is a unique program of cross-national and cross-temporal comparative social research.The standard Eurobarometer was established in 1973. Each survey consists of approximately 1000 face-to-face interviews per Member State (except Germany: 2000, Luxembourg: 600, United Kingdom 1300 including 300 in Northern Ireland). Reports are published twice yearly. In Croatia, the surveys based on the standard Eurobarometer have been carried out since the year 2000 by the agency GfK for the needs of the Ministry of European Integrations. The Eurobarometer series is designed to provide regular monitoring of the social and political attitudes in the European Unionpublics through specific trend questions. The Eurobarometer public opinion surveys are conducted on behalf of the European Commission, which regularly publishes the corresponding survey reports. In this research, we used most of the questions from the standard Eurobarometer No. 54; however, some questions were adapted according to the requirements of the research problem. For example, our respondents were asked a modified question no. 30 from the Eurobarometer no. 54, which had the following original wording: For each of the following areas, do you think that decisions should be made by the (NATIONALITY) government, or made jointly within the European Union? (ROTATE) READ OUT(NATIONALITY)JOINTLY WITHIN EUDKGOVERNMENT1) Defence1232) Protection of the environment1233) Currency1234) Health and social welfare1235) Basic rules for broadcasting and press1236) The fight against unemployment1237) Agriculture and fishing policy1238) Supporting regions which are experiencing economic difficulties1239) Education12310) Scientific and technological research12311) Foreign policy towards countries outside the European Union12312) Cultural policy12313) Immigration policy12314) The fight against organised crime12315) Police12316) Justice12317) The fight against drugs123 Originally, question no. 30 from the standard Eurobarometer 54 contained 25 items, but only the above 17 items were retained, since a pilot test indicated that the remaining items were not suitable for surveying the attitudes of student population. Furthermore, the question on the conditions that have to be met in order to join the EU (in the standard Eurobarometer that is question no. 38) was adapted in the following way: the dichotomous scale with two modalities and a possible answer I don't know was replaced by a five-grade Likert scale (1 not important, 5 very important), so the final wording of this multi-item was as follows: Does it seem important to you or not, in deciding whether a particular country should join the European Union, or not?: The country has to respect Human Rights and the principles of democracy Its level of economic development should be close to that of other member states It has to accept whatever has already been decided and put in place through the process of building Europe It has to be prepared to put the interest of the European Union above its own It has to fight organized crime and drug trafficking It has to protect the environment It has to be able to pay its share of the European Union budget Apart from these two questions that were adapted to better suit the characteristics of student population, respondents were asked also other questions from the Eurobarometer 54, however, as they were not significantly altered, they will be briefly commented upon in the analysis of the survey results. RESULTS The analysis of the data, and consequently the comments of the research results are oriented towards analyzing the preference for the EU and integration processes, analyzing how students view the obligations of Croatia in integration processes, as well as how much they accept the level of cooperation between Croatia and the EU when deciding on integration processes. When analyzing the students' preference for the EU and integration processes, four questions were repeated in 2004. The questions asked about the levels of the attachment to town, region, country and Europe (measured on a four point scale), and the estimate of their own knowledge about the EU (measured on a ten point scale). The aim was to test the hypothesis that claimed how there were no relevant statistical differences in students' attitudes in 2004 compared to students' attitudes in 2001. Table 2 shows the values of t-test indicator and the levels of statistical relevance of our survey. Table 2 Levels of the attachment to town, region, country and the EU, and estimate of own knowledge about the EU (test indicator t-test) Measured onHow are you attached to?YearNMeanStandard deviationt-testp valuefour point scale 1- very attached 2 fairly attached 3 not very attached 4 not at all attached  town20011483.06.85-1.6010.11120044643.19.80 region20011482.78.82-.654.51420044642.83.81 Croatia 20011483.19.801.745.08220044633.06.82 Europe 20011482.77.712.656.008**20044412.59.73. ten point scale 1- know nothing at all; 10 know a great dealHow much do you feel you know about the European Union, its policies, its institutions20011484.211.58-7.563.000**20044675.452.17 ** Mean Difference was significant at the 0.01 level (P<0.01) * Mean Difference was significant at the 0.05 level (P<0.05) As shown in Table 2, statistically relevant differences were found in the level of attachment to the EU (the mean decreased from 2.77 to 2.59), and in the estimate of own knowledge about the EU (the mean rose from 4.21 to 5.45). This indicates that with the increase of knowledge about the EU the student population feels less attached to Europe. This issue should be studied in more detail over time, because connected with the mean regarding the EU level of information is the exceptionally high deviation of 2.17, which leads us to consider a future use of 1 to 5 scale to measure students' knowledge about the EU (Likert five point scale is usual in the Croatian education system; it is therefore to be expected that it would be much more reliable in surveying the attitudes of Croatian population). The next research hypothesis was that in the period of three years there wouldn't be any statistically relevant differences in student responses regarding integration processes: the questions were whether joining the EU would be positive for Croatia, whether they want the EU to play a more or less important role in their future lives, and finally whether they personally support Croatia's joining the EU. The results of chi-test indicator applied to these category variables are shown in Table 3. Table 3 Differences in expectations of students at the Faculty of Economics in Osijek (2001 vs. 2004) regarding the EU (test indicator chi-square) Osijek 2001Osijek 2004Chi square and significanceGenerally speaking, do you think that membership in the European Union is &  2=90.408 sig.=0.000** & a bad thing10 (6.9%)196 (52.4%)& a good thing135 (93.1%)178 (47.6%)Would you like the EU in your daily life to play a &  2=47.850 sig.=0.000**& less important role6 (4.1%)122 (29.7%)& same role26 (17.6%)86 (20.9%)& more important role116 (78.4%)203 (49.4%)Level of support for Croatia's joining the European Union 2=113.364 sig.=0.000**confirm200(83.7%)195(41.7%)against16 (6.7%)122(26.1%)don't know23 (9.6%)151(32.3%) ** Mean Difference was significant at the 0.01 level (P<0.01) * Mean Difference was significant at the 0.05 level (P<0.05) The most significant difference indicates that as many as 52.4% of students in 2004 think that membership in the EU would be a bad thing for Croatia as compared to 6.9% of students who held the same view in 2001. Furthermore, in 2004, 29.7% of respondents (vs. 4.1% in 2001) would like the EU to play a less important role in their daily life, and finally, 26.1% in 2004 (vs. 6.7% in 2001) are against Croatia's membership in the EU. Thus, the tested research hypotheses were not accepted on none of the variables analyzed in Table 3. This can be explained by a general trend of increasing Euro-scepticism that has been revealed in all the relevant public opinion polls in the past three years. The second part of the analysis dealt with the student attitides regarding the level of autonomy of Croatia in future decisions within the, from the moment Croatia becomes a full member. The obtained data were analyzed by chi-square test indicator, and it was expected that no statistically relevant difference between student attitudes in the years 2004 and 2001 would be revealed. The analysis comprised the 17 items stated in the chapter Measurement instruments, however, Table 4 shows two that are of greatest interest. Table 4 Major differences in attitudes of students at the Faculty of Economics in Osijek (2001 vs. 2004) regarding the level of autonomy of Croatia in future decisions about specific areas of administration (test indicator chi-square) Osijek 2001Osijek 2004Chi square and signifficanceDefence 2=2.561 sig.=0.110Nationality government71(48.0%)251 (55.5%)Jointly within European Union77 (52.0%)201 (44.5%)Protection of the environment 2=8.374 sig.=0.003**Nationality government27 (18.2%)142 (30.7%)Jointly within European Union121 (81.8%)320 (69.3%) ** Mean Difference was significant at the 0.01 level (P<0.01) * Mean Difference was significant at the 0.05 level (P<0.05) Out of 17 stated hypotheses, only one was accepted, namely, the one referring to student attitudes, which is due to the fact that there is no statistically relevant difference in students attitudes in year 2004, compared to year 2001 regarding the level of authonomy of Croatia in future decisions about specific areas of administration within EU. For all the other areas of administration (currency, health and welfare, basic rules for broadcasting and press, the fight against unemployment, agriculture and fishing policy, supporting regions which are experiencing economic difficulties, education, scientific and technological research, foreign policy towards countries outside the EU, cultural policy, immigration policy, the fight against organised crime, police, justice, the fight against drugs) there was a statistically relevant difference in favour of Croatia's autonomy in decisions, except in the protection of environment, where we also found a statistically relevant difference, but in favour of joint decisions with the EU. Since the above analysis showed that student attitudes were significantly changed in 2004 as compared to 2001, it was to be expected that their attitudes were changed also regarding the conditions that candidate countries should meet before joining the EU. The attitudes in this set of questions were collected using a five point Likert scale, and research hypotheses were tested by t-test indicator presented in Table 5. Table 5 Differences in student attitudes at the Faculty of Economics in Osijek (2001 vs. 2004) regarding the conditions that have to be met before joining the EU (t-test indicator) VariablesYearNMeanStandard deviationt-testp valueThe country has to respect human rights and the principles of democracy20011484.84.42.663.50820044674.81.54Its level of economic development should be close to that of other member states20011473.78.93-1.357.17620044653.901.06It has to accept whatever has already been decided and put place throughout to process of building Europe 20011463.89.893.361.001**20044443.591.05It has to be prepared to put the interest of the European Union above its own20011453.32.98-.597.55120044383.381.20It has to fight organized crime and drug trafficking20011484.43.87-.147.88420044684.44.96It has to protect the environment 20011474.151.00-2.331.021*20044694.37.97It has to be able to pay its share of the European Union budget20011484.10.926.533.000**20044393.481.20 ** Mean Difference was significant at the 0.01 level (P<0.01) * Mean Difference was significant at the 0.05 level (P<0.05) The calculated differences are represented graphically in Figure 1, where the two lines indicate the differences in mean values obtained in two rounds of research. Figure 1 Mean values of student attitudes at the Faculty of Economics in Osijek (2001 vs. 2004) regarding the conditions that have to be met before joining the EU, measured on a five point Likert scale  EMBED Excel.Chart.8 \s  Both Table 5 and Figure 1 show that statistically relevant differences were found in responses to the items It has to accept whatever has already been decided and put in place through the process of building Europe and It has to be able to pay its share of the European Union budget, where mean values in 2004 were decreased in comparison to 2001. In the item It has to protect the environment there was also a statistically relevant difference, but in the opposite direction, i.e., the mean values were higher (4.37 in 2004 vs. 4.15 in 2001). There is a fear of outvoting Croatia, which is obvious in the changed attitudes in 2004, namely a higher proportion of students (41.3% in 2004 vs. 20.9% in 2001) believe that decisions in the EU should be made only by consensus. DISCUSSION The research conducted in 2004 aimed to establish possible changes in the opinions on the EU in student population at the Faculty of Economics in Osijek, i.e. how they see the advantages and disadvantages of joining the EU. The data collected in 2004 were compared to the ones collected in the first round of research in 2001. The questions that the respondents had to answer (using the modified Eurobarometer 54) can be put in several groups intended to measure: the feeling of national affiliation and affiliation to Europe, expectations of respondents regarding Croatia's joining the EU, attitudes on autonomous decisions of the Republic of Croatia in specific economic and political areas, and attitudes on meeting the criteria for joining the EU. Statistical analysis of these questions intended primarily to establish the differences in student opinions in 2004 as compared to the survey conducted in 2001. In the question about national affiliation, i.e. the attachment to Europe, there is a noticeable difference in student attitudes in 2001 and 2004. There is a statistically relevant decrease in the attachment to Europe in 2004 (arithmetic mean = 2.59, standard deviation = 0.73) in comparison to 2001 (arithmetic mean = 2.77, standard deviation = 0.71). The answers regarding the support of Croatias joining the EU are logically connected to the preceding estimate of the attachment to Europe in 2004. There is a significant increase of respondents who are confused with integration processes (the answer I don't know 32.3% in 2004 vs. 9.6% in 2001), as well as those who oppose the EU membership (26.1% in 2004 vs. 6.7% in 2001). Significant differences were found also in the expectations of students regarding the EU. As many as 52.4% of respondents view EU membership as something unfavourable for Croatia (vs. 6.9% in 2001), and 49.4% want the EU to play a more important role in their daily lives in the future (vs. 78.4% in 2001). On the other hand, the level of knowledge about the European Union was estimated as higher in 2004 (the mean 5.45 on a scale 1 to 10) in comparison to 2001 (the mean 4.21). As this was accompanied by a higher percentage of respondents who don't see membership in the EU as something favourable for Croatia, the need arises to look into the reasons of rising Euroscepticism in younger age groups. The analysis of key issues of CFSP (Common Foreign & Security Policy), which are crucial in implementing the European Constitution, indicates that in all areas of administration (defence, currency, health and welfare, basic rules for broadcasting and press, the fight against unemployment, agriculture and fishing policy, supporting regions which are experiencing economic difficulties, education, scientific and technological research, foreign policy towards countries outside the EU, cultural policy, immigration policy, the fight against organised crime, police, justice, the fight against drugs) a statistically relevant proportion of our respondents were more in favour of Croatia's autonomy when deciding on such matters. The exception is environment protection, where the majority of students want cooperation with the EU. The research presented in this paper indicates that political integrations are harder to attain than the economic ones. This claim is supported by the current EU achievements in integration processes: first of all SEA (single European market), tariff policy, single agricultural sector, environmental standards, health care and monetary policies of Eurozone member states. However, building up political unity and thus also the European Constitution as a model of unified European modus operandi with the judiciary, tax and immigration policy that are not decided upon by each country individually, requires a process in which a range of activities will be employed to educate in this direction all age groups (especially younger generations) in both EU member and candidate countries. REFERENCES Biluai, P. at all (2004), Peto proairenje Europske unije: 2004., Ministarstvo za europske integracije, Zagreb Bttcher, B., Schularick, M., (2001), Public Opinion  stumbling block for enlargement, EU Enlargement Monitor, Deutsche Bank Research Brn i, A.; Leppee, P.; Moanja, I. (2004): Hrvatska na putu u Europsku uniju: Od kandidature do lanstva, Ministarstvo za europske integracije, Zagreb Doj inovi, G., Puntari, S., (2002), 100 pitanja o europskim integracijama, Ministarstvo za europske integracije, Zagreb European Commission (2001), Public Opinion in the European Union, EUROBAROMETER, Report No. 54, Horvat, J.; Marijanovi, G. (2002): Transitional impacts and the EU enlargment complexity. Transitional impacts and the EU enlargment complexity. Kumar, Andrej ; Kand~ija, Vinko (ed.). Ljubljana: Faculty of Economics, pp. 159-166. Kand~ija V. (2003.): Gospodarski sustav Europske unije, Ekonomski fakultet Sveu iliata u Rijeci Laughland, J. ( 2005.):Zatrovani izvor  nedemokratski korijeni europske ideje , Slovo, Zagreb Mintas  Hodak LJ. ur. ( 2004.): Uvod u Europsku uniju, MATE d.o.o., Zagreb Ministarstvo za europske integracije (2001), Komunikacijska strategija za informiranje hrvatske javnosti o pribli~avanju Republike Hrvatske europskim integracijama, Zagreb Ministarstvo za europske integracije (2002), Implementation Plan for the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between Republic of Croatia and the European Communities and their Member States, Zagreb Ministarstvo za europske integracije (2004), Short survey of the results of the ninth public opinion poll on the European integration in the Republic Croatia, Zagreb Ministarstvo za europske integracije (2005), Short survey of the results of the ten public opinion polls on the European integration in the Republic Croatia, Zagreb Internet site of the Ministry of European Integrations:  HYPERLINK "http://www.mei.hr" http://www.mei.hr www.europa.eu.int  Horvat, J.; Marijanovi, G. (2002): Transitional impacts and the EU enlargement complexity. Kumar, Andrej; Kand~ija, Vinko (ed.). Ljubljana: Faculty of Economics.  http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb62/eb62_en.htm  European Commission, Eurobarometer, Public Opinion in the European Union, Report No. 54, April 2001.     PAGE  PAGE 11 mp{ $ Ƚzh]O@O5>*CJ\aJmHnHsH 5CJ\aJmHnHsH CJaJmHnHsH #j0J6CJU]mHnHsH 0J6CJ]mHnHsH 6CJ]mHnHsH 6CJ]mH nH sH uCJmH nH sH u#56>*CJ\]aJmHnHsH CJaJmHnHsH 6CJ\]mHnHsH 6CJ\]mH nH sH uCJaJmHnHsH 5aJ"mH nH sH u5CJAmnopFG $ %  & F h0`0$a$ S^`S$a$P&($ % hij V!"0l]i·yppcpScHcpp0JCJmHnHsH jCJUmHnHsH jCJUmHnHsH CJmHnHsH #5B*CJ\aJmHnHphsH 5>*CJ\aJmHnHsH B*CJOJQJ^JaJphCJPJmH nHsH tHuCJaJmHnHsH #5B*CJ\aJmHnHphfsH !j0JCJUaJmHnHsH CJaJmHnHsH B*CJaJmHnHphsH % ij -W  hh^h` & F hh^h & F h0`0 $[$\$a$$a$[\]ij""""=%?%K%M%&&((t*u*F+G+$a$ $ _$h^ha$ $ _$a$ _$ & F h0`0ij" "6"#;%<%=%K%M%%&S&(v*F+,,,,V.Z.4181222222222333383;3ҸҸҸҸҧ|j|j#6B*CJ]aJmHnHphsH CJaJmHnHsH B*CJaJmHnHphsH  B*CJH*aJmHnHphsH  B*CJH*aJmHnHphsH CJH*aJmHnHsH 5CJ\aJmHnHsH CJaJmHnHsH B*CJaJph6CJ]aJCJaJCJaJ5CJ\aJ'G+Q+R+]+d+p+w+x++8,oii$If$$IfTl4    Fv x    T  t0    6    4 lal $$Ifa$ 8,:,D,Z,r,t{{ $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$q$$IfTl4    0v x  ,   t0    64 lalr,t,,,,zqhh $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$$$IfTl4    Fv x  T t0    6    4 lal,,,-ztt$If$$IfTl4    Fv x    T  t0    6    4 lal-- -6-N-{{ $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$q$$IfTl4    0v x  ,   t0    64 lalN-P-z-------zqhhzqhh $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$$$IfTl4    Fv x  T t0    6    4 lal--T..z,tt$If$$IfTl4    Fv x    T  t0    6    4 lal.....{{ $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$q$$IfTl4    0v x  ,   t0    64 lal..4/J/b/d/////0&0<0z qhhzqhhzqhh $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$$$IfTl4    Fv x  T t0    6    4 lal <0>0t0000000zqhhzqhh $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$$$IfTl4    Fv x  T t0    6    4 lal0021j1ztt$If$$IfTl4    Fv x    T  t0    6    4 lalj1l1111{{ $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$q$$IfTl4    0v x  ,   t0    64 lal111222?2J2V2W2u222zqhhzqhhzqhh $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$$$IfTl4    Fv x  T t0    6    4 lal 22222222;3<3zqhhzb\\Z^^ $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$$$IfTl4    Fv x  T t0    6    4 lal ;3<3*5.55555577788v8w8{8::3<:===>======> > > > >>>>>>𹫹獊|qjqjqjqjejqjeqCJaJ CJPJaJCJaJmHnHsH CJaJB*CJaJphCJ5CJ\aJmHnHsH j0JCJUaJCJaJ5CJ\aJmHnHsH CJaJmHnHsH 6CJH*]mHnHsH 6CJ]mHnHsH CJH*mHnHsH CJmHnHsH B*CJaJmHnHphsH %<34p555788z8{8::<<==>===== > > $$Ifa$$If $ _$a$ & F VVq^V`q$ & F VVq^V`qa$$a$ > >>>>>s<mdmm $$Ifa$$If$$If4\@:`E``622 2 22 24a>>->/>1>3>`{rrr $$Ifa$ >$If^>y$$If4\@:E62 24a>%>,>->.>/>0>1>2>3>4>6>=>Z>[>\>]>^>_>`>a>b>d>k>s>t>u>v>w>x>y>z>{>}>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>?????? ? ? ? ??2?3?4?5?6?7?8?9?:?4>[>]>_>a>b>t>v>x>z>{>ukbbbudkbbbu $$Ifa$ >$If^>$$If\@:E62 222224a {>>>>>>>>>>b$$If\@:E62 222224a $$Ifa$ >$If^> >>??? ?ukbbb $$Ifa$ >$If^>$$If\@:E62 222224a ? ?3?5?7?9?:????ukbbbu@Tbbq$If^`q $$Ifa$ >$If^>$$If\@:E62 222224a ?????????????????????????????@@@@@@ @!@"@%@)@8@9@:@;@<@=@>@?@@@C@G@Y@Z@[@\@]@^@_@`@a@d@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@CJaJmHnHsH CJaJmHnHsH CJaJCJaJmHnHsH  CJPJaJS???????lhb >$If^>$$If\@:E62 222224a $$Ifa$??????ukbbb $$Ifa$ >$If^>$$If\@:E62 222224a??@@@!@u(g^^^ $$Ifa$8$If^`8$$If\@:E62 222224a!@"@9@;@=@?@uxkbbb $$Ifa$ >$If^>$$If\@:E62 222224a?@@@Z@\@^@`@a@@@@@@ukbbbukbbbuT $$Ifa$ >$If^>$$If\@:E62 222224a @@@@@@@@@@@@bXb$$If\@:E62 222224a $$Ifa$ >$If^> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@AC+DEEEFFGGwHxHJXKZKfKgKKKKKKKKKùíßÁßísssss;CJaJmH nH sH uB*CJaJmHnHphsH 5>*CJ\aJmHnHsH 5CJ\aJmHnHsH CJaJmH nH sH uCJmH nH sH uCJaJmHnHsH CJaJCJaJmHnHsH CJaJCJaJmHnHsH  CJPJaJCJaJmHnHsH -@@@@@@AAjCkCClccaaaa $ _$a$$$If\@:E62 222224a $$Ifa$ C+D|DD5EjEEEEFFFGGwHxHJJYKZKgKKKK $$7$8$H$Ifa$$a$ & F h0`0$ & F h^`a$KKKKK $$7$8$H$Ifa$KKKKK*MYMMMMMM!N(N*N+N,N;NfNgNhNS2T4TT8UU VtVxVzVWX X}ocoWoWoCJH*aJmHnHsH ;CJaJmHnHsH 5CJ\aJmHnHsH CJmHnHsH B*CJaJmHnHphsH #6B*CJ]aJmHnHphsH CJaJmHnHsH B*CJaJmHnHphsH  B*CJH*aJmHnHphsH CJaJmHnHsH mH nH sH u;CJaJmH nH sH uCJaJmH nH sH u"KK 4$$IfT    ִ d ;i3 Z    ^      t0        aKKKKKLLL"L&L+L/L6LL?LDLHLMLQLRLSL $$7$8$H$Ifa$ $$7$8$H$Ifa$SLTL$$IfT4    ִ d ;i 3 Z  ^   t0        aTLUL^LcLgLlLpLvL{L $$7$8$H$Ifa$ $$7$8$H$Ifa${L|L\$$IfT4    ִ d ;i 3`Z  ^`` t0        a|L}L~LLLLLLL $$7$8$H$Ifa$ $$7$8$H$Ifa$LL$$IfT4    ִ d ;i 3 Z  ^   t0        aLLLLLLLLLL $$7$8$H$Ifa$ $$7$8$H$Ifa$ LL\$$IfT4    ִ d ;i 3`Z  ^`` t0        aLLLLLLLLL $$7$8$H$Ifa$ $$7$8$H$Ifa$LL$$IfT4    ִ d ;i 3 Z  ^   t0        aLLLLLLLLLL $$7$8$H$Ifa$ $$7$8$H$Ifa$ LL\$$IfT4    ִ d ;i 3`Z  ^`` t0        aLMMM MMMMM $$7$8$H$Ifa$ $$7$8$H$Ifa$MM*M $7$8$H$If$$IfT4    ִ d ;i 3  Z    ^        t0        a*MYMMMMMMMM $$7$8$H$Ifa$ $$7$8$H$Ifa$ $7$8$H$IfMM`$$IfT4    ִ d ;i`3 `Z    ^   ` `  t0        aMMMMMMMMM $$7$8$H$Ifa$ $$7$8$H$Ifa$MMM$$IfT4    ִ d ;i 3 Z  ^   t0        aM*NgNhNQQSSSS2T4T6TNTfTT $$Ifa$$If$a$TT8U:UNUhUjUdWNNHH$If $$Ifa$ $$If]a$$$IfTl4    \_   T  7     t0    4 lajUlUUUUUsjj $$Ifa$ $$If]a$ h$If^hu$$IfTl4    0V  `   t0    4 laUUUUVVdZMDD $$Ifa$ $$If]a$ h$If^h$$IfTl4    \_  T 7    t0    4 laV VtVvVVVd8WQHQ $$Ifa$$If $$If]a$$$IfTl4    \_   T  7      t0    4 laVVVVVVsjd$If $$Ifa$ $$If]a$ h$If^hu$$IfTl4    0V  `   t0    4 laVWW.WDWFWHWtWdZMD>dZ$If $$Ifa$ $$If]a$ h$If^h$$IfTl4    \_  T 7    t0    4 latWWWWWXX4XUPLCC $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$$$IfTl4    \_   T  7      t0    4 la$If $$Ifa$ X"XYYY8YYYYYYYYZZZK]^^____```2a6a8abbb,bPbYbZb[bjbbbbbbfȽȫȽȫȜwȽȫȽȫȜnCJmHnHsH ;CJaJmHnHsH 5CJ\aJmHnHsH CJmHnHsH tHB*CJaJmHnHphsH #6B*CJ]aJmHnHphsH CJaJmHnHsH B*CJaJmHnHphsH  B*CJH*aJmHnHphsH CJaJmHnHsH CJH*aJmHnHsH +4XNXPX`XvXXXzqq $$Ifa$ h$If`hu$$IfTl4    0V  `   t0    4 la$IfXXXXXXXXXd|ZQQKdZQ$If $$Ifa$ h$If`h$$IfTl4    \_  T 7    t0    4 laXYYYYYZZ\\USQQSSS$$IfTl4    \_  T 7    t0    4 la$If $$Ifa$ \^^______ $$Ifa$$If$a$____`(`bxULLF$If $$Ifa$ $$If]a$$$IfTl4    \ MY    j     t0    64 la(`*`X`l```~uuu $$Ifa$ h$If^hv$$IfTl4    0Y#  `   t0    64 la``````bXOOO $$Ifa$ h$If^h$$IfTl4    \ MY  j    t0    64 la``2a4aFa`abYSJS $$Ifa$$If $$Ifa$$$IfTl4    \ MY    j      t0    64 la`abaaaaa~uuo$If $$Ifa$ h$If^hv$$IfTl4    0Y#  `   t0    64 laaaa bbbbbbXOOIbG$If $$Ifa$ h$If^h$$IfTl4    \ MY  j    t0    64 labYbbbffOhPhiiiiii'i1i8i@i $$7$8$H$Ifa$$a$$a$fPhhhiiiiiiiii0i1i7i8i?i@iAiiiiii+j,jBjCjjjjjPkQkgkhkkkkkllllllllĸĸĸĸĸĸĮҕ{{CJaJmHnHsH B*CJaJmHnHphsH  B*CJH*aJmHnHphsH mH nH sH u;CJmHnHsH CJaJmH nH sH u;CJaJmH nH sH uCJaJmHnHsH 5CJ\mHnHsH 5CJ\aJmHnHsH CJmHnHsH 0@iAii8)L$7$8$H$If^L$$IfT    ֞ 1Q          t0    !a iiiiiii $$7$8$H$Ifa$iii6X'L$7$8$H$If^L$$IfT4    ֞ 1Q`       ` `  t0    !a iiiiiii $$7$8$H$Ifa$ii j6'L$7$8$H$If^L$$IfT4    ֞ 1Q      t0    !a  jjjjj&j+j $$7$8$H$Ifa$+j,j-j6\'L$7$8$H$If^L$$IfT4    ֞ 1Q`  `` t0    !a -j2j6j;j@jAjBj $$7$8$H$Ifa$BjCjj6,'L$7$8$H$If^L$$IfT4    ֞ 1Q      t0    !a jjjjjjj $$7$8$H$Ifa$jjj6\'L$7$8$H$If^L$$IfT4    ֞ 1Q`  `` t0    !a jjjjjjj $$7$8$H$Ifa$jj3k6'L$7$8$H$If^L$$IfT4    ֞ 1Q      t0    !a 3k8k>*CJaJmH sH CJaJmH sH 5CJ\aJmH nH sH uCJaJmH nH sH ujCJUmHnHsH &j7 F CJUVaJmHnHtHuCJmHnHsH jCJUmHnHsH 5CJ\mHnHsH 5CJ\aJmHnHsH #5B*CJ\aJmHnHphsH B*CJaJmHnHphsH #6B*CJ]aJmHnHphsH B*CJaJmHnHphsH  mmmnnnnppqqqqqss\u]uvvnyoyz $[$\$a$ h[$\$^h & F h0[$\$`07$8$H$$a$$a$qs:x;xoyz{R};~+OP\6ނ,FXh„ĄlN؆ ҈ɾɰ|v|vnv|vviai[ 6CJaJ6CJ]aJCJaJ0J6CJ] 6CJ]CJaJ 0JCJaJ0J6CJ]aJCJ \mHsHCJaJ6CJPJmH nHsH tHuCJPJmH nHsH tHuCJaJmHnHsH CJaJmHnHsH 5B*CJ\aJmH phsH 5B*CJ\aJmH phsH 5CJ\aJmH sH #zz:~;~OPQ\]ނ ֆ؆jl*,Ċ$a$ $[$\$a$j*nĊ =PQҌy>Ž&(,PRT*,.02 ytttt jU6CJ]aJj0J6CJU]aJ *5B*CJ\aJphf5B*CJ\aJphfCJaJj0JCJUB*CJaJphj0JCJUaJCJmHnHsH 0JB*CJphjgCJU jCJU 6CJ]6CJCJCJaJ-ĊƊڌیNP*,P0 h]h&`#$ !"#()CJmHnHsH 0JCJmHnHu0JCJj0JCJU0J j0JU #$%&'()h]h&`#$+ 01h. A! "M # $ %DyK  www.mei.hryK &http://www.mei.hr/Dd b  c $A? ?3"`?2C&,눹 NIGY`!C&,눹 NIx#/`E+xZ]hU>gv3iQֶZjM1DC-ژbv.uwIU"F|CPB ҇Ї0<(D}>Bsܹ3hIrs7;w vCVkpF;?#ZXu#Z 5Q{P=bЙ{koz+|fA~Q:(J+=T2b_  :\.4չ9eU2ٱ'et1p,ic<,NkŦ,[3y}4,AM5f]F3-GOэsR RX ; ؼuscs2* NW'Qp ɺQ\M|ךZ_El.K,R#YҦ悃M)lJa)֥.%Py5g<3n,Y Q،n)V#G! );'JoNTW.jCM !4;`k~Wob<*2h^m d'iUw]SKY-J^I{feuXcP++430S"K֦."miҪ$3܃8BYr޻O?W}< 'E{`[5Wuؿv\{$U<$/ވX,c5 pxD\mwDxFZAx9QƪBvшXJ cՃЋyě(6m>Q!EFLnxy5a7̜%;fdיߋe|<)es/gg)="5O粆1q;8erٳ_dO"l-Z.D 2GTXkP++mWl'],{ٮAj\6ce-B竅;6qa_'/Gԥ!~czɞFޖ~*|w'}? |oLroIqktF_Š=uӷU_!^}c{O7"gmmIC }ιh3%tF)< ڑ8=?LRE֯{n-:S^/:;ܕ݇BSz'EDyK http://www.mei.hryK &http://www.mei.hr/  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry  Fp Data WordDocument -ObjectPool`p _1187777847!F``Ole PRINTL(CompObjb ! !FMicrosoft Excel ChartBiff8Excel.Chart.89qOh+'0@HXh ProfkaahostMicrosoft Excel@z61@+214 "   `   '' Arial-"SystemdH---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------'- _ -- ? !!---'--- _ -- $C C C----'---  CT~ ` +C + JCJ jCj C C ---'--- _ T~ ` -C     CC---'--- _ -C  C * C+*+CJ*JCj*jC*C*C C  %C C%s s% % % %1 1%` `%   ---'--- > !!---'--- $ .---'--- ! .--  :"j(gr- :j&6--$---'--- ! .  $   ---'--- ! .: $:O:%:---'--- ! ."j $j "j7U"j ---'--- ! .( $(=(---'--- ! .g $Rg|gR---'--- ! .r $] rr]---'--- ! .-- ---'--- ! .  ---'--- ! .: O%---'--- ! .j )U---'--- ! .& ;---'--- ! .6 K!---'--- ! .  ---'--- ! .---'--- $ .---'--- _ ---'--- _ ---'--- _   2 0 - 2 1 - 2 2 - 2 :3 - 2 Y4 - 2 x5 ----'--- _ ---'--- _ -------'--- >c Arial-2 oo democracy--D-(-)(------'--- _ -------'---  > Arial-2 ?economyn-)---C)------'--- _ -------'--- |:> Arial-2 *decision--)(--------'--- _ -------'--- j> Arial-2 interest of Eu---(-6-------'--- _ -------'--- 6> Arial-2 crimei)C-------'--- _ -------'--- >- Arial-2 9 environment --)--C--------'--- _ -------'--- Y> Arial-2 budget-----------'--- _ ---'--- _ -- U~ ` ---'--- S} a ---'--- S} a -   B -$B W B - B  2 r 2001-------'--- S} a ---'--- S} a -   B -.W -  2  2004-------'--- S} a ---'--- _ ---'--- _ -- ? !!---' ' 'ObjInfo Workbook8SummaryInformation( DocumentSummaryInformation8, u'\pahost Ba= =Zd9X@"1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial#,##0\ "kn";\-#,##0\ "kn"##,##0\ "kn";[Red]\-#,##0\ "kn"$#,##0.00\ "kn";\-#,##0.00\ "kn")$#,##0.00\ "kn";[Red]\-#,##0.00\ "kn">*9_-* #,##0\ "kn"_-;\-* #,##0\ "kn"_-;_-* "-"\ "kn"_-;_-@_->)9_-* #,##0\ _k_n_-;\-* #,##0\ _k_n_-;_-* "-"\ _k_n_-;_-@_-F,A_-* #,##0.00\ "kn"_-;\-* #,##0.00\ "kn"_-;_-* "-"??\ "kn"_-;_-@_-F+A_-* #,##0.00\ _k_n_-;\-* #,##0.00\ _k_n_-;_-* "-"??\ _k_n_-;_-@_-                + ) , *  `/ Grafikon1 List1 RList2 EList3`iZR3  @@  Y democracyeconomybudget environmentcrimeinterest of Eudecision   u'MHP LaserJet 6L (PCL)? dXXA4.HP LaserJet 6L (PCL)2xUn! Wlͭ=TzIaq+U+.<~5尽A !x| fzرPҁ-`dσ=@=*p-PMwDSDh(DR2]_S/bQ`"NBjXP ^'; d7TUmJ}>9^ׯwRRw&5k&3@(>X%`"oDvg/ .ꨈ't)_/@:)J£CNle70kd٦)|txBYk}2o~ X@[oF(k4Tk?0yG!dw.㠈ғPHcFeu??.De" dXX??3` /` /h3d23 M NM4 3Q:  2001Q ; Q ;Q3_4E4 3Q:  2004Q ; Q ;Q3_4E4D $% M=3O&Q4$% M=3O&Q4FA V 3OU 3 b#M-43*@?#M! M4523  O43" D :?3OD % M@ 3OQ44444e democracy democracyeconomyeconomydecisiondecision%interest of Eu%interest of Eucrimecrime environment environmentbudgetbudgete\(\@= ףp=@= ףp=@333333@Q@Q @(\ @ ףp= @Q@(\@@{Gz@ffffff@ףp= @e> ףp= u'  dMbP?_*+%"4??U          D@P@  @~@~@  w@`x@  Px@pv@  t@ u@  {@{@  y@P{@  y@u@  $$$$$$(  p  6NMM? ]`  u'"??3` /` /?p3d23 M NM4 3Q:  2001Q ; Q ;Q3_4E4 3Q:  2004Q ; Q ;Q3_4E4D $% M=3O&Q4$% M=3O&Q4FA6  3OS y3 b#M43*@?#M! M4523  O43" R -l3OR % M@ 3OQ44444eee >@7 u'  dMbP?_*+%"??U>@7 u'  dMbP?_*+%"??U>@7 ՜.+,0 PXd lt| k List1List2List3 Grafikon1  WorksheetsChartsOh+'0 0 @L h t  1TableSummaryInformation( DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObj kUMEASURING THE OPINION OF STUDENT POPULATION REGARDING EUROPEAN INTEGRATION PROCESSESAEASProfkaNrofNormalNProfkaN2ofMicrosoft Word 9.0O@F#@[E@{@{e՜.+,D՜.+,@ hp  !catiL      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKw4| UMEASURING THE OPINION OF STUDENT POPULATION REGARDING EUROPEAN INTEGRATION PROCESSES Naslov 8@ _PID_HLINKSA ihhttp://www.mei.hr/ihhttp://www.mei.hr/ i@@@NormalCJ_HaJmHnHsHtH uX@X Naslov 1dd@&[$\$!5CJ0KH$\aJ0mH sH tHuV@V Naslov 3$$5$7$8$9D@&H$a$5CJaJmH sH u<@<Naslov 4$@&5CJ\aJsH 6A@6 Zadani font odlomka6@6 Tekst fusnoteCJaJ6&@6 Referenca fusnoteH*4B@4 Tijelo teksta$a$>Q">Tijelo teksta 3xCJaJ.U@1. Hiperveza >*B*ph@V@A@ SlijeenaHiperveza >*B* phb^@Rb Standard (Web)dd[$\$$B*OJPJQJ^JmH phsH u@ @b@ Podno~je  _$aJmH sH uFPrFTijelo teksta 2$dha$CJsH O goohl0&X@& Emphasis6]*)@* Broj stranice22 Zaglavlje  !@@ Balloon TextCJOJQJ^JaJ .|WZ|| AmnopFG$ %   ij -W[\]ijQR P!Q!v#w#1%2%&&&&&!&-&4&5&<&X&Y&^&i&u&v&}&&&&&&&&&&&&''' '+'7'8'f'''''''''''(((()(D(O(Z([(v((((((((((())#)$)4)?)K)L){))))))))))))):*w*x*++9,:,-.K.L...0022y3z344%434E4H4I4J4U4V4W4X4i4k4m4o4p444444444444444455555@5B5D5F5G5o5q5s5u5v55555555555 66666W6Y6[6]6^6u6w6y6{6|6666666666666666666667777778899:g::#;q;;;< <7=8=9=A=B=>> A AAAAAAAAAAAAAB#B9BQBRBYB^BbBgBkBrBxByBzB{BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBCC C CCCCCCC C$C)C-C3C:C;C?@K Xflq )ORUdhmtx% G+8,r,,-N--..<00j112<3 >>3>{>> ????!@?@@@CKKKA?A? @@@.@6@9@=@=@F@G@Q@R@\@]@}@}@@@ A A A A AAAAAAAAAABB"B#B8B8B&D&D'DDIIJJLLLCM RR0S1SSTSTTTT.VXZR[W[^Z__````ccdddLecenegghikk4mps-{>{?{{{|||||||||||||||SacoOC:\Documents and Settings\Saco\My Documents\3rd_Horvat__Marijanovic__Forjan.docSacowC:\Documents and Settings\Saco\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of 3rd_Horvat__Marijanovic__Forjan.asdProfkaKC:\Documents and Settings\Jasna\Desktop\3rd_Horvat__Marijanovic__Forjan.docProfkatC:\Documents and Settings\Jasna\My Documents\IZBORI U ZVANJA\Clanci\EU\ljubljana\3rd_Horvat__Marijanovic__Forjan.doc o02.mH*/ h\˒-!BY !*R%c3>(#,B0<OmEWE^ hHR?z|P$t9WVV*f=\T`v\48 R/c|lV^`o()^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.hh^h`o(.hh^h`o(..0^`0o(...0^`0o(.... 88^8`o( ..... 88^8`o( ...... 88^8`o(....... `^``o(........ `^``o(.........^`OJPJQJ^Jo(- ^`OJQJo(o pp^p`OJQJo( @ @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o PP^P`OJQJo(hh^h`OJPJQJ^Jo(-88^8`OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH  ^ `OJQJo(hH  ^ `OJQJ^Jo(hHoxx^x`OJQJo(hHHH^H`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH ^`B*OJPJQJ^Jo(ph- ^`OJQJo(o pp^p`OJQJo( @ @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o PP^P`OJQJo(hTh^T`o()h^`.hpLp^p`L.h@ @ ^@ `.h^`.hL^`L.h^`.h^`.hPLP^P`L.^`>*o(. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`o(.^`o(..808^8`0o(...808^8`0o(.... ^`o( ..... ^`o( ...... ^`o(....... `^``o(........ `^``o(......... ^`o()^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.^`o(.^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.Th^T`o()^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.Th^T`o()^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.^`OJPJQJ^Jo(-^`OJQJ^Jo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hHFF^F`OJPJQJ^Jo( ^`OJQJo(o   ^ `OJQJo(   ^ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o VV^V`OJQJo( &&^&`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo(h^`.h^`.hpLp^p`L.h@ @ ^@ `.h^`.hL^`L.h^`.h^`.hPLP^P`L.^`o(.^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.`v\*/R/c,BE2.-! oOmEt9W !* hH?z|Pf=\%c3>h\:         ;        $$$$$$$$kxJ3 ( j