Ograničenje mogućnosti iznošenja novota i cilj građanskoga parničnog postupka

Autor: Aleš Galič
Jazyk: chorvatština
Rok vydání: 2013
Předmět:
Zdroj: Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta u Zagrebu
Volume 63
Issue 3-4
ISSN: 1849-1154
0350-2058
Popis: Jugoslavenski Zakon o parničnom postupku nije sadržavao učinkovita sredstva za koncentraciju postupka i dobru sadržajnu pripremu glavne rasprave. Već prvi slovenski ZPP iz 1999. donio je u tom smislu određena poboljšanja, a novi koraci učinjeni su novelom ZPP-a (ZPP-D) iz 2008. godine. Stranka parničnog postupka treba doprinijeti ubrzanju postupka i postizanju cilja, sadržajno pravilne sudske odluke. Naglašeno je značenje stadija pripreme glavne rasprave. Uvodi se sustav vremenskih ograničenja iznošenja novota (prekluzija). Cilj toga procesnog instituta nije u tome da se sudu omogući da se jednostavno riješi obveze donošenja potpune meritorne presude. Primarni cilj prekluzija kao procesnih sankcija je prevencija. Ako stranke budu poštovale zahtjeve suda za pravovremenim iznošenjem novota, priprema glavne rasprave bit će bolja, a argumenti stranaka potpuniji i sistematičniji. Za postizanje cilja, sadržajne kvalitete sudske zaštite to može biti samo korisno.
The Yugoslav Civil Procedure Act did not contain efficient tools that could assure concentration of proceedings and a substantial preparation of the main hearing. There were no sanctions for default in filing of preparatory submissions, and judges were not empowered to impose binding time limits for written clarifications and supplementations of the parties' submissions. Already the first Slovenian Civil Procedure Act (1999) brought some improvements in this regard. Further steps were made by the CPA amendments in 2008. The legislator's intention was to put an emphasis on the preparatory stage of civil proceedings. For the first time, the judge was empowered to use his discretion in shaping the procedure and to adjust it to the characteristics of each individual case. The new amendments also promoted the idea that a party to civil litigation should contribute both to acceleration of the proceedings, as well as to achieving the goal of substantive justice on merits. The relation between the goal of substantive justice and procedural sanctions cannot be determined based on ideologically burdened or even demagogical arguments. It is all about finding a right balance. The goal of preclusions is not to enable the court to avoid the determination of the merits of the case. The primary goal of such procedural sanctions is prevention. One can expect that parties comply with court orders and directions. If they do so, the preparation of trial and arguments of parties should be more comprehensive and of better quality. For achieving the goal of good quality of adjudication this can only be beneficial.
Databáze: OpenAIRE
Externí odkaz: