ࡱ> `bjbjss8o :::Pdddx!!!84"|"Tx~f###(### $T*%,eeeeeee$hhje9d}.##}.}.edd##8f000}.dd#d#e0}.e00A`lddd## p9@W!.da*eLNf0~fakE/kTdkddV% (0)+V%V%V%ee-0XV%V%V%~f}.}.}.}.xxx!xxx!xxxdddddd  A PARALLEL IN THE EVOLUTION OF THE CROATIAN AND ROMANIAN ACCOUNTING HARMONIZATION PROCESSES ^tefana CRISTEA, PhD Student Babe_-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania E-mail address:  HYPERLINK "mailto:stefana_cristea@yahoo.it" stefana_cristea@yahoo.it Ivana DRA}I LUTILSKY, M.Sc. Graduate School of Economics and Business University of Zagreb E-mail address: idrazic@efzg.hr Abstract At the moment, the field of the international accounting becomes more and more interesting for the East-European researchers, due to the fact that many of these countries decided to join the process of international accounting convergence. Therefore, it entails the study of the impact that international regulations have on national legislation. Actually, here lays, the necessity and the importance of knowledge in this field and of the present article. The immediate advantage is the fact that it stimulates the professionals curiosity, which consequently determines them to study thoroughly certain aspects related to their specific field of interest. Its true that the benefits tend to amplify and diversify once the multinational enterprises will enter these new markets and these countries will get more effectively involved in the international reform process of accountancy. Ergo, in the presentation of the actual knowledge stage it is necessary to bring forward, in an explanatory manner, certain aspects and trends at the international, European and national level. Keywords: accounting systems, IFRS, European Directives, accounting harmonization and convergence Introduction The process of international accounting harmonization was initiated as a result of the mondialisation of the economies and of the globalisation of the financial markets in order to respond to the compatibility and comparability requirements concerning the listed companies financial statements. Harmonization implies a more flexible approach then standardization, which suggests a much strict approach and, by being a rigid set of rules, does apply sometimes the same standard to numerous situations. Harmonization, on the other hand, establishes the limits among which, according to the national differences, the accounting practices may vary. But, at this point, comes into the scene the concept of convergence. The convergence takes place on two levels: firstly, we talk about convergence between IASB (International Accounting Standard Board) and FASB (Financial Accounting Standard Board) regulations and secondly (but in any way less important), the convergence between IAS (International Accounting Standards) and national regulations. We could consider that the apparition of the concept of convergence, considered to be to some extend synonym with harmonization, has to do with the moment in which IASB has changed its name and its structure, finding inspiration in the FASB system. The process of international accounting convergence started up in October 2002, when FASB and IASB announced the issuance of a memorandum of understanding entitled Norwalk Agreement [1: See more information on site  HYPERLINK "http://www.iasplus.com" www.iasplus.com]. This decree will remain in the history of the international accounting as a mutual compromise of adopting high quality compatible solutions to the present and future accounting issues. Anyway, due to the volume and complex nature of the differences existing between the two sets of standards, FASB considers that many of these will persist beyond 2005 [2: Starting with 2005 the European Union requires listed European Companies to comply with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) for their group financial statements]. The conclusion might be that IASB is still a private and global public interest organization, but the title change coincides with a strategy change, with a new way of getting rid of the harmonization disadvantages by adopting a new concept suitable to the new image. Does the term convergence offer the harmonization process more chances to succeed or does it grant a precise target? This question will remain subject of debate and so will the fine line that delimitates these concepts. The answer tends to be yes, because by its direct approach of FASB, IASB has demonstrated to the entire world that it is willing to transform its rival into an ally and give a true meaning to the word international. Worldwide trends regarding the accounting convergence Following, we will focus on the global reaction to the convergence process, by trying to answer the questions bellow: Are the countries willing to get involved in such a process? And if so, in what extend? Thus, the GAAP CONVERGENCE 2002 survey carried out by the six largest accounting firms in the world [3: BDO, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, Ernst&Young, Grant Thornton, KPMG, PricewaterhouseCoopers, GAAP CONVERGENCE 2002- A Survey of National Efforts to Promote and Achieve Convergence with IFRS], shows that 95% of the 59 surveyed countries either have adopted, intend to adopt or intend to converge with IFRS, considering IASB the appropriate body to develop a global accounting language. But, adopting IAS implies for a state to give up its sovereign right to deal with accounting being absolutely necessary to hands it over to the IASB which is an independent private sector body run by a foundation. Contrary, in the case of interference with the IASB decisions, the states must reflect upon Sir David Tweedies question: Do you want an independent board or one subject to political pressures? [4: Tweedie speaks out, Accountancy, January 2004, pag.56-58] Another highly relevant aspect of the above mentioned survey is that it identifies some of the significant obstacles to achieving convergence, such as: Disagreements with the requirements of certain significant IFRS - for example, financial instruments and other standard based on fair value accounting (39% of the cases); Tax-driven nature of the national accounting regime and the tension wield on the capital markets and companies which desire to adopt IFRS (47%); Complicated nature of particular standards may have as a result the limited implementation of IFRS to listed companies, widening the gap between IFRS and the national accounting standards used by small and medium-sized entities SMEs (51%); Insufficient guidance on first-time application of IFRS (35%); Limited capital markets (30%); Satisfaction with national accounting standards among investors/users (21%); Translation difficulties (18%). Romania and Croatia are among the countries that have to face some of these obstacles. Our countries confronts themselves with the first five impediments in achieving convergence and, in order to eliminate them, all the categories of financial information users must concentrate their efforts in this direction. Also, 72% of the surveyed countries have a formal policy to adopt or converge with IFRS (of the 39 of these countries, 25 are EU Member States or states that plan to join the European Union). The intention to converge can take either the form of a governmental requirement (in 57% of the cases) or a policy announced by the national accounting standard setting body. In the majority of the cases, only the listed companies will have to adopt IFRS while, in other countries, national accounting standard setter will try to remove the differences between IFRS and national standards, covering listed and unlisted companies. An alternative choice pursued sometimes is that of a combination of these two strategies. Thus, 60% of the surveyed countries intend to replace their national regulations with IFRS for listed companies, supplemented only for national issues not addressed in IFRS. At the beginning of year 2004, Sir David Tweedie, president of UK-ASB, subsequently elected president of IASB talked about the convergence process in these words: European Union gave us a lot of credibility []. By 2005, 91 countries will either allow or require IASs. However, EU adoption means that companies have to be able to start applying IASs at the start of the fiscal year 2004, so that they have comparable results for the 2005 adoption deadline [5: Ibidem 4]. However, the year 2005 proved itself to be more difficult than expected since more issues emerged. A particular attention was given (and it is still) to the sensitive balance between consistency and flexibility of the accounting regulations and practices across Europe. Also, a fervent debate was caused by the certain users and countries request for an additional layer of interpretations of the IFRS. There still to be seen where these discussions will take in 2006... The present stage of the Croatian accounting harmonization process In Croatia, the Accounting Act or Accounting Law was amended in 1992 in order to adopt a more investor oriented approach. The Act took the important step of requiring all companies to prepare IAS financial statements [6: World Bank, Report on the observance of standards and codes, (ROSC) June 20, 2002]. Therefore, there is no standards gap in Croatia; there are only significant variations in the level of compliance with IAS/IFRS. Hence, there is no enforcement and monitoring of compliance with IAS/IFRS. Accounting Act or Law is the basic institutional framework which regulates accounting field. In accordance with the Accounting Act, companies must comply with the International Financial Reporting Standards when preparing their financial statements. But also, companies are required to submit different financial information at different moments to separate authorities. Also, some financial information about companies that are available to the general public may not be reliable. The Accounting Act is in compliance with IAS/IFRS and the Act incorporates the balance sheet and income statement formats of the EU 4th Directive, the Bank Accounts Directive and the Insurance Accounts Directive. There were, however, several situations of accounting policies or presentations that did not comply with IAS/IFRS; missing disclosure and other information. Examples of deficiencies in the IAS/IFRS-based financial statements include: Missing segment disclosures (in conflict with IAS 14); Misclassification of income and expenditure items as extraordinary items (in conflict with IAS 8); Confusing disclosures about property valuations, in particular about whether privatization values and IAS 29 adjustments in 1992 represent re-valuations; Limited disclosures about the fair value of financial assets many companies considered that carrying amounts always approximated fair value (potential conflicts with IAS 32); Inconsistencies over the recognition of deferred tax assets arising from tax loss carry forwards (possible conflict with IAS 12); and The IAS 19 and IAS 26 are not used in Croatia [7: Ibidem 6]. The proposal of new Accounting Act, which is now adopted and in use from January 01, 2006, has included all Directives, Regulations, Decisions, Recommendations, Interpretative Communications and Commission Comments. This is all part of the acquis communautaire, which must be adopted by all candidate countries in order to join the European Union. In regard to this, Croatia has to enhance institutional framework for consistent applying and interpreting IFRS [8: Official website:  HYPERLINK "http://www.mei.hr" www.mei.hr; National Stabilization and Association Agreement Pact (official site of Ministry for European integrations) visited on 16 of November 2005]. According to the new Accounting Act, Croatian Accounting Standards Board ceases to exist and his role would be taken by the Financial Reporting Council. This body shall be established by the Croatian Government. Also, regarding Croatian National Stabilization and Association Agreement Pact, they are obligated to prepare and develop Professional Accounting Licence Programme. Audit regulations are mostly in compliance with acquis communautaire. But nevertheless, it is important to enhance internal audit but also super audit meaning on the control of audit companies. Also, regarding Croatian National Stabilization and Association Agreement Pact, they are obligated to prepare and develop Professional Auditing Licence Programme [9: Ibidem 8]. Croatia is also obligated to prepare a Code of ethics for professional auditors and accountants in accordance with IFAC Ethic Code. The mainstream and trend in EU is that all countries are leaving behind (especially transition countries) the concept of Accounting Law and try to prepare National Accounting Standards for SMEs. Croatian accounting regulations is still based on Accounting Act (according to the Law all entities have to use IFRS). Thus, it is very difficult for SMEs to apply all the IFRS. So, Croatian SMEs are mostly using Corporate income tax Act and VAT Act because it is simpler and then they are not obligated to prepare two sets of financial statements but only one which can be used for both purposes: state (tax) purpose and owner purpose. Croatia is one of those countries which is conceptually using dual concept of financial reporting. Nevertheless, tax regulations are much more detailed then accounting regulations and SMEs are rather using tax regulations when they are preparing financial statements. So, we can say that tax regulations prevail over accounting regulations. So, it is the authors opinion that it would be better for Croatian SMEs to start working on National Accounting Standards instead of making such authority out of IFRS. Therefore, the process of harmonization is not completed in Internal Market of the EU. Croatia and every other country applying for membership can only try to harmonize all legislation with acquis communautaire because some Directives and Recommendations are not applicable even in all Member States. Comparing accounting regulations, Croatia is definitely keeping up with all actions and happenings on the European scene in the last ten years. Future trends in the evolution of the Croatian accounting harmonization By signing the Stabilization and Association Agreement Pact, Croatia has committed on adoption, implementation and enforcement off all chapters of the acquis in order to become an EU Member State. So, with a detailed Country Action Plan (CAP) some policy recommendations should be developed and implemented [10: Ibidem 6]. The main recommendations are regarding the oversight of accounting and auditing regulations. Due to the fact that it is still not clear enough which units/departments are responsible for general accounting and auditing legislation within the Ministry of Finance. This institution considers the establishment of a Council (Croatian Financial Reporting Council) in order to ensure that, in the public interest, all relevant interested parties participate in this overseeing process of the accounting and auditing requirements. Some recommendations in preparation of financial statements include: To retain the requirement for full IAS/IFRS compliance by all public interest companies such as: listed companies, banks, insurance companies, financial institutions and other entities; To embrace the fully modified Accounting Act in which are incorporated the EU Council Directives; To give advantage for SMEs and to develop National Accounting Standards for them because there is no public interest requirement for preparation and publication of financial statements, with objective to avoid confusion with demanding IFRS and domination of tax regulations; To establish more structured and accountable, transparent and properly resourced arrangements to ensure the timely and proper translation of IAS/IFRS and the development of necessary guidance. The present stage of the Romanian accounting harmonization process The Romanian accounting, due to the desire to enter the European Union, wishes to respond to the global need of harmonization. The fervent debates from the last years, which have as a core the use of the term harmonization, refer to the fact that this process lacks a clear target. The alternative is the term convergence, and the destination is a global consistency with IAS. This international challenge in the field of accounting faces obstacles at all levels: internationally, regionally and nationally. And Romania is not an exception. Thus, the accounting regulations issued in accordance with the national legislation, European Directives and IAS reflect more or less the features of the Directives and the majority of the standards (for example, the fact that IAS 29 is not applied raises questions regarding the efficiency of the entire implementation process; IAS 8 in not applicable in Romania, and so on). The idea to implement these two systems in parallel and within the same national regulations raises controversial questions such as that of their lack of compliance. When it decided to adopt the current accounting legislation, Romania intended to be ready to cope with the future accounting changes. In spite of the initial zeal, the practical application of the Orders of the Ministry of Finance (OMPF) mentioned hereinafter - OMPF no.403/2000 (which was revoked shortly after issuance), OMPF no.94/2001 for the approval of the Accounting Regulations harmonized with the Fourth Directive of the European Union and International Accounting Standards and OMPF 306/2002 for the approval of Simplified Accounting Regulations harmonized with the European Directives (and, starting from 2005, OMPF 1827/2003)- it is done with great difficulty, raising the question of the opportunity of a IAS-based accounting system, since IAS is the output of an accounting culture strongly anchored in principles and professional judgement. By asking the Romanian companies to prepare financial statements in accordance with Accounting law, OMPF 64/2001, but also with IAS and accounting framework, there can burst out a possible conflict. Even if at the European level it was decided that there are not significant differences between IAS and Directives, nationally these may appear. At least regarding the terminology used by IAS and by the European Directives there are differences related to each ones specific origin. For example, art.7 of OMPF 94/2001 states that in the situation of a conflict between these two, the companies have the possibility to choose to endorse the accounting treatment that ensures the fair view of the respective transaction. At a closer look, OMPF 94/2001 reveals strong influences of IASB, such as: The valuation of the research expenses according to OMPF 94/2001 these will be recognize in the balance sheet only in certain situations described in volume III, this is direct link to the old IAS 9 revoked in 1998; The case of the maximum period of amortization of the consolidated goodwill (20 years) art.5.2.b OMPF 94/2001 was part of IAS 22, also revoked and replaced with IFRS 3; From the nine principles in OMPF 94/2001, six have origin in the Fourth Directive and three in IAS1. Thus, the materiality principle is taken from IAS 1 and represents a new concept for Romania, while substance over form concept, even if in IAS 1 is a key element in determining the relevance of the financial statements, in OMPF it is just placed along with the other principles. On the other hand, OMPF 306/2002, wanting to provide a simplified version of the international standards, doesnt have to do much with the European legislation and proves to be far too complicated, difficult to understand and adapt to the real situations in Romanian environment. Another issue, brought out to light by such a comparison is that the Romanian legislation for SMEs and micro-enterprises maintains in the so-called simplified system elements that dont belong there, such those concerning the financial, instruments, fair value, accounts consolidation, groups of companies, and well as cash flow statement. Because these micro-enterprises do not have any intention whatsoever to be listed on the capital markets, to issue shares or form of a group, the above mentioned elements are completely useless and sometimes confusing. Therefore, must be underlined the fact that the Romanian standard setter responded first of all to the Romanias political, economic and social needs to fit in the European accounting landscape so it can join the European Union, and only then to the need for accounting transparency required by the globalisation of the financial markets. In this situation, the prime user of the financial information shouldnt be the State anymore, but the investors as essential part of the development of the stock exchange. In this context we find ourselves at the beginning of the year 2006, the legislative acts mentioned above sketch the accounting reality of the past. However, by the endorsement of the latest regulations OMFP 1752/2005 Accounting Regulations in accordance with the European Directives, which should become effective 1st of January 2006, OMPF 94/2001 and OMPF 306/2002 will be abrogated. This bill refers to: The Fourth Directive of EEC with all the subsequent amendments; The Seventh Directive of EEC with all the subsequent amendments; The Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21st of April 2004 about the biding offers. But even if this law was preceded by OMPF 1827/2003, regarding the approval of the categories of companies that beginning with 2005 will apply IFRS in full; its issuance still came as a surprise for the majority of the practitioners. Romanias year 2006 will belong exclusively to the European accounting Directives and IFRS will be applied in full starting with 1st of January 2007 in parallel with the regulations in accordance with the European Directives. Future trends in the evolution of the Romanian accounting harmonization The intention to adopt the latest legislative act Accounting Regulations in accordance with the European Directives represents a turning point for the evolution of the Romanian accounting harmonization process as well as the application of IFRS starting 1st of January 2007 for the companies complying with OMPF 1827/2003. Also, can be observed that a delimitation of companies, according to their size and listed/unlisted quality wasnt made by the Romanian setting body. Starting 2007, the implementation of IFRS will face obstacles that risk to transform in serious difficulties for the convergence process, making necessary, on one hand, the active involvement of the accounting profession in the standards practical application, training of the specialists and elaboration of professional guides and, on the other hand, the development of the capital markets. From this point of view, such a research project should bring a positive contribution to the problems identification and would suggest viable solutions. The possible evolution scenarios which need to be tested among specialists (as proposals meant to speed-up the harmonization process at national level) include: First of all, the accounting profession must be subject of a continuous training process because there is no easy way in becoming accustomed with an accounting philosophy which is not familiar to you. In this direction, the efforts of CECCAR (The Body of Accounting Experts and Licensed Accountants from Romania) are appreciated as well as the research papers and the studies coming out from the academic environment. Also, the examination of other countries experiences might prove to be very useful is observing the practitioners judgement in similar situations. It would prove arrogance to consider that the obstacles we are facing in achieving harmonization are unique and surpassing them is entirely up to us, because sometimes the solution surfaces by observing and understanding. Thirdly, the fiscal reform must come before the accounting one it wasnt our country situation, and becoming source of inconsistencies with IAS. By this, we understand a total or almost-total independence of the fiscal and accounting regulations. Fourthly, all the categories of users interested in the quality of the financial information should participate at the setting of the accounting standards. An important role in the accounting harmonization process at the national level should be played by National Securities Commission (CNVM), which must be able to establish accounting regulations for the listed companies. An idea that should be included also in the future plans is that of an independent single body which should take part actively in the accounting normalization process; this body could become the direct collocutor of EFRAG and, why not, IASB. Among the objectives of such a body, worth being mentioned the following: to support and monitor the IFRS implementation, to organize workshops for solving the problems that might appear, to elaborate norms for the preparation of the public institutions financial statements (but which should be effectively applied). Conclusions In 2004, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu entitled one of its articles, which was addressed to the American companies scared of the perspective of convergence on the American soil: There is no choice, as if not a country chooses to be part of the convergence process but the convergence chooses the national system with an economic, social and political environment suitable to grow roots in. When discussing the similarities and differences between the Croatian and Romanian accounting systems as well as between the harmonisation processes there is a lot to be said. Thus, some of the conclusions drawn by the present article will be mentioned below. Firstly, both countries struggle to endorse properly the European requirements and to find solutions in order to respond certain national needs. Also, they require a transition period which will allow them to remove the existing differences with the EU accepted IFRS gradually, or/and to give companies lead-time in preparing for the full adoption of IFRS. Secondly, the issue of the too strong connection of the tax regulations with the accounting regulations need to be addressed, by adopting more structured, flexible and constant laws. Thirdly, a special attention must be given to the issue of SMEs accounting, as this type of entities will never be ready to apply the same regulations as the other types of entities. The reason behind it and which is mostly neglected is that these entities represent the social blanket of a country, essential to its sustainable growth. As for the harmonization of the two accounting systems - as part of a much wider convergence trend - this is considered to be a continuous process, but with an evolution quite unpredictable even for specialists. Therefore, monitoring its evolution as well as a pertinent analysis of the endogenous and exogenous factors which influence it, are more than necessary are mandatory. On the other hand, due to the objectives of the long term foreign policy agenda, Romania and Croatia status doesnt allow them to play a more active role in the convergence process; actually, at the national level, we can talk only about an alignment to the requirements of the international regulations (or European, when joining EU). According to these objectives, future amendments of the accounting legislation could be expected. Therefore, in regard to the final objectives of the international accounting convergence, these cannot be fulfilled in full but only partially considering the compromises that have to be made for the allowed accounting treatments. References A survey of National Efforts to promote and achieve Convergence with IFRS; GAAP CONVERGENCE 2002. Gielen F., Barros Hirata A.C.,:Corporate sector accounting and auditing within the Acquis Communautaire Draft for discussion only, February 8,2005. Norwalk Agreement;  HYPERLINK "http://www.iasplus.com" www.iasplus.com, Fourth Council Directive 78/660 EEC, CONSLEG:  HYPERLINK "http://www.fee.org" www.fee.be; National Stabilization and Association Agreement Pact;  HYPERLINK "http://www.mei.hr" www.mei.hr; (official site of Ministry for European integrations) visited on 16 of April 2005. Report on the observance of standards and codes ROSC Report, June 20, 2002;  HYPERLINK "http://www.worldbank.org" www.worldbank.org, web site visited on 20 November, 2005. Seventh Council Directive 83/349/ EEC, CONSLEG:  HYPERLINK "http://www.fee.org" www.fee.be;  They must adopt, implement and enforce all parts of the acquis in order to be allowed to join the EU. The acquis includes all primary legislation (treaties), secondary legislation (Regulations, Directives, Decisions, Recommendations, etc.) and case law (judgments of the European Court of Justice and European Court of First Instance). Hence, since EU rules are constantly changing (new Directives are enacted, Regulations are amended, judgments are handed down), the acquis is not a static document, but one that is in constant evolution. For enlargement negotiations, the acquis has been divided into 31 chapters. Chapter 5 (Company Law) has greatest relevance to private sector accounting and auditing; Chapter 2 (Freedom of Movement for Persons), Chapter 3 (Freedom to Provide Services), Chapter 4 (Free Movement of Capital), and Chapter 6 (Competition Policy), also have implications for private sector and auditing. When applying for membership, an applicant country will receive a roadmap from the European Commission tracing its progress in adopting the acquis. Accession negotiations may be concluded even if the acquis has not been fully adopted, as transitional measures may be introduced after accession. However, transitional periods must be as short as possible and cover as few sectors as possible. Regarding the accounting and auditing regulations, harmonization is achieving a lot more success then harmonization of tax regulations. Especially after June 2000, when the Commission adopted a Communication (HYPERLINK "http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/cnc/2000/com2000_0359en01.pdf"COM/2000/359) entitled The EUs Financial Reporting Strategy: The way forward. In it, the Commission suggested that all EU companies listed on a regulated market (i.e., publicly traded companies) should be required from 2005, to prepare their consolidated accounts in accordance with International Accounting Standards (IAS). A single set of standards would make it easier to compare companies performance figures and raise capital, as well as provide better protection for investors. Member States would also be allowed to extend the application of IAS to unlisted companies and to individual accounts. In addition, the Communication stated that a proper enforcement infrastructure was to be developed to ensure that accounting standards are applied in the same way in all Member States. The Communication also called for the modernization of the Accounting Directives. Subsequent to this Communication,  HYPERLINK "http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2002/l_243/l_24320020911en00010004.pdf" R ^ r t    6 D       |tl\L\h-h]6CJaJmH sH h-h46CJaJmH sH h-h45h-hZ]5 h-hMLh-hU%0J>*B*phjh-hU%Ujh-hU%U h-h-h-hU%6 h-hZ] h-hU%h-hMLCJaJh-hMLCJ OJQJaJ h-hZ]CJ OJQJaJ h&hMLCJOJQJaJR   D     U $ X ^a$gd& $ X a$gd&$a$gdZ]gdU%$a$gdU% $ X a$gd&$ X L^L`a$gd& X L^L`gd&y , 3 6 K R U j (*9EFGvTǿǿǿǸrc[S[h??hv]h-hv]h-hH5\]nHtHh-hZ]5CJ\]aJh-hH5CJ\]aJh-hZ]56\]h?? h-hZ]h-hZ]6h-hZ]5 h-h4h-h]6h-h46h-hBV6CJaJmH sH h-h46CJaJmH sH h-h]6CJaJmH sH )*+,-./0123456789FG[T{$a$gd"&Igdv X gd&$a$gdZ] $ X a$gd&T  +,PQRabcy{,9;=tuıě|tj|j|[K>h-h456\]h-h46OJQJ]^Jh-hv5\]nHtHh-hv6]h??hv]h-hv],h-h"&I0J>*B*CJaJmH phsH +jh-h"&ICJUaJmH sH %jh-h"&ICJUaJmH sH h-h"&ICJaJmH sH h??h"&ICJaJmH sH h??hvCJaJmH sH h-hvCJaJmH sH {;<=tuD* E!!"#'#t##$ $ & F a$gd(I$a$gd"&I$a$gd"&I$a$gd(I $ X a$gd&$ X a$gdv X gdvgdvuDNcjfg*[{μweR%h-h"&I6CJ\]aJmH sH "h-h(ICJ\]aJmH sH h-h(ICJ\aJmH sH %h-h(I6CJ\]aJmH sH "h??h(ICJ\]aJmH sH h??h(ICJ\aJmH sH h??h"&I\h-h"&I6]h??h"&I] h-h"&Ih-h"&I\h??h(I\h??h(I\]h-h(I\ a (( ***r+y++++,,@,---#-(-)-ǽǵǕǍymy^^Oh-h-CJaJmH sH h-h(ICJaJmH sH h-h,5CJaJh-hj5CJaJh-h"&I5h-h(I5h-h(I6\]h-h"&I\h-h"&I6H*\]h??h(I\h??h(I\]h-h(I\h-h"&ICJaJmH sH h??h"&ICJ]aJmH sH "h-h"&ICJ\]aJmH sH $'B(*+++++++?,@,12x233K445*7=?$a$gdlR $ X a$gd(I$ & F X a$gd(I$a$gd"&Igdj$a$gd(I)-X-Y-n-o-p---6.;.K0P000`1e11111133E4F4G4J4K4y4z4}4444555ôôôäôÔôÊxnxxndn\\h-h(I]h-hlR\]h-h"&I\]h-h:TK\]h-h:TK]h-h(I\]h-h(I6CJaJmH sH h-h(ICJH*aJmH sH h-h:TKCJaJmH sH h-h(ICJaJmH sH h-h"&ICJaJmH sH h-h"&I6CJaJmH sH h??h"&ICJaJmH sH $5y5555555W6\6n6o66666666667ŵ}fVF7h-h-CJaJmH sH h??h-CJ]aJmH sH h??hlRCJ]aJmH sH ,h-hlR0J>*B*CJaJmH phsH +jh-hlRCJUaJmH sH %jh-hlRCJUaJmH sH h-hlRCJaJmH sH h-hlRCJ]aJmH sH h-h(ICJ]aJmH sH jh-h(I6H*U]h-h(I6]h??h(I]h-h(I]77"7'7*7r7s7!8888h99 :::];^;_;a;;;<<===>>#???D@@@AAɹɱɱɎɎɎɹɱɩ~o`h-hc5CJ\]aJh-h/H5CJ\]aJh-h/H]h-h:TK]h-h:TK\] h-hh-h(I6]h??h(I]h-h(I]jh-h(IH*U\]h-h(I\]h-hlRCJaJmH sH h-h-CJaJmH sH h-h:TKCJaJmH sH $?@@AAApDDoEEFGGGGG JLR $ X a$gdt$ X d^a$gd(I$ X a$gd(I $ & F a$gd(I$a$gd(I $ X a$gd/H $ X a$gd(IAAARBSBaBbBdBgB{BuDDDDDFGtGyGGGG NNXXYY-[.[y[}[[\&\(\N]P]^^F_G_H__}nh-h45CJ\]aJ h-h9 h-hL-+h-htH*h-ht5\h??ht]h-ht6] h-ht h-h<0 h-hJ h-h:TK h??h(Ih??h(I]h-h(I\ h-hh-hH*h-h(I6 h-h(I+RvS#TUVXZ[\\]x]c^E_F_G_H___jabc5d $ X a$gd& $ X a$gdL-+$ & F X a$gdt $ X a$gdt$ & F X a$gdt___````` a aiaj jkkklplwllln!nqqvvvv(v*vvw w$w9w񡜓titah<CJaJhLhL`mH sH hLh)somH sH h-CJaJh-h-5CJaJh-5CJaJ h-6 h46h-ht5CJ\]aJh-ht5\]h-h9] h-]h-h-]h-htH*]h-ht6]h??ht]h-ht] h-h4#5deIgBhikkkkkkkkkllmnopqts&u vvv $ X a$gdt $ X a$gd&$ & F X a$gdtvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv)v*vv$wrwwZx $ & Fa$gdL` $ & Fa$gdL`$ & F X a$gdL` $ X a$gd&9w:w^w_w`wowpwqwrwwwwwwwww x x*x+x,x6x7xXxZx빪q_qRqJh)somH sH hLh)so0JmH sH #jhLh)soUmH sH jhLh)soUmH sH hLh)somH sH hLh)so0JCJaJ#jBhLh)soCJUaJjhLh)soCJUaJhLh)soCJaJh)soCJaJhaEh<0JCJaJ#j}haEh<CJUaJh<CJaJjh<CJUaJZxaxxxxxy y y yyy y)yOyPyyyyyyyyyyyyyyz-z3zz|te\R\R\h!shlR6CJh!shlRCJjh!shlR0JCJUh-h-6 h-6h-h<CJaJhLh)so0JCJaJ#juhLh)soCJUaJjhLh)soCJUaJhLh)soCJaJhaEh)so0Jjh)soUh)sojh)soUh)somH sH hLh)somH sH hL`mH sH  Zxx!yPyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy  & Fgd(I $ X a$gd&$ X h^ha$gdL` $ & Fa$gdL` $ & Fa$gdL` $h^ha$gdL`zzzz{{||||f}g}}}%~+~~~~WOƷƥƃzozZ(h(hlR0J>*B*CJmH phsH h(hlRCJNHh(hlRCJh(hlRCJNH\+h(hlR0J>*B*CJ\mH phsH "j*h(hlRCJU\jh(hlRCJU\h(hlRCJ\h(hlR\h!shlRCJ\h!shlR6CJh!shlRCJh!shlRCJNH"{|GHCD 7moŻŧŻriXMEMhlRmH sH h1_AhlRmH sH !jh1_AhlR0JUmH sH h(hlRCJ%hlR0J>*B*CJ\mH phsH h(hlRCJNH\+h(hlR0J>*B*CJ\mH phsH U"jh(hlRCJU\h(hlRCJ\jh(hlRCJU\(h(hlR0J>*B*CJmH phsH ,h(hlR0J>*B*CJNHmH phsH Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 of The European Parliament and Council was issued, which requires listed companies, including banks and insurance companies, to prepare their consolidated accounts in accordance with International Accounting Standards beginning 2005.  His role was to interpret and translate IAS, not to create Croatian National Accounting Standards.  Dual concept of financial reporting.     o $ X a$gd&gdL-+gd(I oph-h-6jhR1UhR1hlRmH sH hssNhlRmH sH !jhssNhlR0JUmH sH 6&P 1h:pv. A!"#$% DyK stefana_cristea@yahoo.ityK @mailto:stefana_cristea@yahoo.itDyK www.iasplus.comyK 0http://www.iasplus.com/S xDyK  www.mei.hryK &http://www.mei.hr/DyK www.iasplus.comyK 0http://www.iasplus.com/DyK  www.fee.orgyK (http://www.fee.org/DyK  www.mei.hryK &http://www.mei.hr/DyK www.worldbank.orgyK 4http://www.worldbank.org/DyK  www.fee.orgyK (http://www.fee.org/DyK yK http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/cnc/2000/com2000_0359en01.pdfDyK yK http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2002/l_243/l_24320020911en00010004.pdf@@@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tHZ@Z 4Naslov 2$<@& 56CJOJQJ\]^JaJH@H JNaslov 4$<@&5CJ\aJX@X Naslov 5$$7$8$@&H$a$5CJOJQJ\aJ>A@> Zadani font odlomkaZiZ Obi na tablica :V 44 la .k. Bez popisa RB@R Tijelo teksta$1$7$8$a$ mH sH tH 6U@6 ML Hiperveza >*B*ph^R@^ JTijelo teksta - uvlaka 2hdx^hF>@"F 4Naslov$7$8$a$5\mH sH tH P+2P 4Tekst krajnje biljeakeCJaJpC@Bp 4Uvu eno tijelo tekstahx1$7$8$^hCJaJmH sH tH NRN 8OTekst balon iaCJOJQJ^JaJP@bP a Tekst fusnote,fnCJaJmHsHtH>&@q> a Referenca fusnoteH*VOV (Paragraph Numbering  & F mH sH tH `O` ( Body Text 4$ & F a$CJaJmH sH tH +r-2{> {]^{"LaU)*+,-./0123456789FG[ T {;<=tuD*E'tB !!!!!!!?"@"'(x())K**+*-3566777p::o;;<===== @BHvI#JKLNPQRRSxScTEUFUGUHUUUjWXY5Z[I]B^_aaaaaaaaabbcdefgti&k llllllllllllllllll)l*ll$mrmmZnn!oPoooooooooooooooooozd{{{{{{{{{{{{H0H00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000=0=0=0=0=0= 0= 0= 0= 0= 0= 0= 0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0= 0= 0= 0= 0= 0= 0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0= 0= 0= 0= 0=0=0=80=0=0=0=0= 0= 0= 0=0=0=0=0=0= 0= 0= 0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0= 0= 0= 0= 0= 0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0= 0= 0= 0= 0= 0=0= 0=0= 0=0=0=00000000000000@0@0@000 @0h00@0h00@0h00@0h00h00,   Tu)-57A_9wZxzoBEGIJLMNPRUVXY\{$?R5dvZx CFHKOQSTW[D+ Q a n,,,9m_mommmm n+n6nn ooooo{XXXXXXXXDQ 3 w XX _Hlt87763199 _Hlt87763200 _Hlt90804352 _Ref85619494 _Hlt87772736 _Hlt87765480 _Hlt87764896 _Hlt87764897 _Hlt90802780 _Hlt90802781vv vpyzzzz*z*z{@@@ @@@@@@ v v vzzzz+z+zz{14eN4444t"64(64D064>6 4&6 4$6 446 446 4N64>V``+!J"J""##x*x*,, 0 033v5v5n6n6c7c7??ZAlBlBJJjTjTTl[l[iii{   !"#$%&'()*+,-./0C *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsmetricconverterB-*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region9/*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace=0*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType=1*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName8.*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity Z1992 in2007 in8 in ProductID10/.-/01/01-/-//- /-/--//-/--//-/-/- /-/-/- /--/-llo{{{{{{{{{{{{{)o,oo{{{{{{{{{{{{{3ag((##(#VjWll(l9mpmno!oPoooo{{{{{{{{{{{{{o{{{{{{{{{{{{{$XO`-poDvh]0"Xt0ss#4:҂!`5ECЕ>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]_`abcdeghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry FPG@WData ^1TablefkWordDocument8SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjs  F!Microsoft Office Wordov dokument MSWordDocWord.Document.89q