| Popis: |
V magistrski nalogi so obravnavani procesni problemi, ki nastajajo v postopkih glede ugotavljanja obsega in delitve skupnega premoženja med zakonci tako v pravdnem kot v nepravdnem postopku. Ugotavljanje obsega in delitve skupnega premoženja se praviloma začne v nepravdnem postopku in v primeru spora glede obsega in deležev nadaljuje v pravdnem postopku. Posebna pozornost je namenjena posameznim procesnim institutom, ki so se v sodni praksi izkazali kot najbolj problematični (prekluzija, materialno procesno vodstvo, izvedenska mnenja, načini delitve, oblikovanje tožbenih zahtevkov, dokazno breme, delitev v pravdnem postopku,…). Na podlagi analize sodne prakse in različnih teoretičnih pristopov je podanih več odgovorov na številna vprašanja glede vodenja nepravdnega postopka, pri čemer glede obravnavanih postopkov ni nobenih posebnih postopkovnih določb, niti v nepravdnem niti v pravdnem postopku. Praviloma bi se moralo celotno skupno premoženje razdeliti v enem nepravdnem postopku, saj je le na ta način o delitvi mogoče odločiti tako, da se vsakemu izmed udeležencev dodelijo posamezne stvari iz skupnega premoženja. Kakor hitro pride med udeleženci nepravdnega postopka do spora o obsegu skupnega premoženja ali glede deleža posameznega zakonca na njem, mora nepravdno sodišče udeleženca, katerega pravico šteje za manj verjetno, napotiti na pot pravde. Določnega petita glede glavnih stvari in stranskih terjatev v nepravdnem postopku ni potrebno navesti, prav tako ne, na kakšen način naj se premoženje razdeli. Glede na smiselno uporabo določb zakona, ki ureja pravdni postopek, ni dvoma, da prekluzija velja v vseh nepravdnih predlagalnih postopkih, med katere spada tudi postopek delitve skupnega premoženja. Narava razmerja v nepravdnem postopku utemeljuje tudi širši, bolj odprt in liberalnejši pristop pri materialnem procesnem vodstvu. Navedeno pa poleg drugih opisanih značilnosti nepravdnega postopka omogoča, da je nepravdni postopek bolj fleksibilen od pravdnega. Tožbeni zahtevek, s katerim naj sodišče ugotovi obseg skupnega premoženja in deleže pravdnih strank je ugotovitvene narave. Praviloma sodišča, če obstajajo posebne okoliščine, dopuščajo tudi dajatvene zahtevke, s katerimi bivši zakonci dosežejo delitev skupnega premoženja že v pravdi. V magistrski nalogi je zavzeto stališče, da je takšen način parcialne delitve neustrezen, saj je v tem primeru fizična delitev težje izvedljiva, pa tudi sicer v zakonu delitev v pravdnem postopku ni predvidena. Podana je tudi primerjava z avstrijsko ureditvijo, kjer se celoten obseg premoženja zakoncev ugotavlja in deli v enem nepravdnem postopku in z ureditvijo na Hrvaškem, kjer se podobno kot pri nas, premoženje načeloma ugotavlja in deli v nepravdnem postopku, lahko pa tudi v pravdnem postopku, pri čemer se lahko v pravdnem postopku opravi tudi fizična delitev. Magistrska naloga poda odgovore tudi še na druga, v sodni praksi bolj ali manj sporna vprašanja, med drugim, da ugotovljen delež vsake od pravdnih strank predstavlja njen delež na celotnem skupnem premoženju in ga praviloma ni mogoče ponovno presojati niti v primeru, če je pozneje v teku pravda glede drugih stvari, ki naj bi še sodile v skupno premoženje. Nadalje, da nasprotna tožba, s katero bi drugi zakonec uveljavljal večji delež pri skupnem premoženju, po sodni praksi ni več potrebna, oziroma bi celo pomenila odločanje o isti stvari in bi jo bilo potrebno zaradi litispendence zavreči. Zaradi vedno več mešanih zakonov so v nalogi predstavljeni tudi določeni problemi v zvezi z reševanjem premoženjskih sporov med zakonci iz različnih držav in normativna ureditev na ravni Slovenije ter Evropske unije. Iz zaključnih ugotovitev izhaja, da bi bilo smiselno glede na enotno načelo obravnavanja skupnega premoženja in glede na posebno naravo teh sporov med zakonci, deloma normativno ureditev spremeniti tako, da bi obravnavani postopki bili hitreje razrešeni oziroma da bi bilo sodno varstvo bolj učinkovito. Zakonske določbe pa bi In the Master Thesis procedural issues arising in litigation and in non-contentious procedures regarding assessment of scope and division of matrimonial assets are considered. Generally, the determination of scope and division of matrimonial assets is initiated in non-contentious procedure and is in the case of disagreement on scope and proportions continued in litigation procedure. Special attention is given to individual procedural institutes, identified as the most problematic by the case law (preclusion, substantive procedural guidance, experts opinions, means of division, formation of civil claims, burden of proof, division in litigation procedure,…). On the basis of analysis of case law and different theoretical approaches various answers on a number of questions regarding conduct of non-contentious procedure are given, where in regard to procedures under consideration no special procedural provisions not in non-contentious nor in litigation procedure are given. As a rule jointly acquired assets shall be divided in one single non-contentious procedure, as this is the only way where individual things from jointly acquired assets are assigned to each participant. As quickly as the dispute regarding scope of jointly acquired assets or proportion of each spouse arises, the court shall appoint the participant which right it considers less likely to the litigation. In the non-contentious procedure the definite claim regarding principal claim and additional claims is not obligatory. The same holds true about the means of division of assets. Considering the analogue use of provisions regulating litigation procedure there shall be no doubt that preclusion applies in all non-contentious procedures initiated by application, among which there is also the division of jointly acquired assets. The nature of relationship in non-contentious procedure justifies also wider, more open and more liberal approach to substantive procedural guidance. The stated, alongside other characteristics of non-contentious procedure, makes the non-contentious procedure more flexible from litigation. The civil claim with which the court shall determine the scope of matrimonial assets and proportions of litigating parties has declaratory nature. In the case of special circumstances, the courts regularly allow also condemnatory claim with which the ex-spouses achieve the division of matrimonial assets in the litigation. In the Master Thesis the argument is given that such means of partial division are inappropriate, because in this case the actual division is impracticable, as well as the division in the litigation procedure itself is not regulated by the statute. Also the comparison is given with legal regulation of the Republic of Austria where the scope of matrimonial assets is determined and divided in one single non-contentious procedure, and with regulation of the Republic of Croatia where, similarly to our legal system, the property is in principle determined and divided in non-contentious procedure as well as in litigation procedure, where in the latter also actual division may be performed. The Master Thesis also offers answers considering other, in the case law more or less disputable issues among which it is also the issue that determined proportion of each of the litigating party represents her part on the whole of jointly acquired assets and shall not be in principle reassessed, not even if later the litigation about other property that shall represent jointly acquired assets is initiated. Further, that the opposite claim, with which the other spouse would claim bigger proportion on the matrimonial assets according to the case law is no longer necessary or would actually mean a ruling on the same matter, hence it should be dismissed due to lis pendens. Because of the increasing number of mixed marriages in the Thesis also certain issues considering the solution of property disputes between spouses from different countries are represented |
