| Abstract | U radu je predstavljena praksa Europskog suda za ljudska prava u okvirima Europske konvencije za zaštitu ljudskih prava i temeljnih sloboda, u odnosu na praksu sudova Republike Hrvatske, koja se ratifikacijom Konvencije obvezala na izvršenje odluka ESLJP u ponovljenim postupcima, sukladno čl. 428.a ZPP-a koji uređuje takvo ponavljanje postupka kao specifičan institut. ESLJP osigurava zaštitne mehanizme za primjenu Konvencije i tumači Konvenciju kao živi instrument što potvrđuje primjenom ustaljenih načela i u skladu s tim je primjena odredaba Konvencije promjenjive naravi i prati konkretne okolnosti svakog predmeta. Može se uočiti razvoj prakse od samog utvrđenja povreda pa do postupnog predlaganja mjera za izvršenje domaćim sudovima u odlukama ESLJP. Ponavljanje postupka se kroz djelovanje ESLJP i prema Preporuci Odbora ministara pokazalo kao najprimjerenija mjera za otklanjanje povreda odredaba Konvencije u novom postupku pred domaćim sudovima i vraćanja pojedinca u stanje u kome bi bio da nije bilo povreda, restitutio in integrum. U ostvarenju tog cilja, odluke ESLJP za domaće sudove znače ograničenje sudačke autonomije u svrhu ujednačavanja prava, ali i neophodne promjene u zakonodavstvu. Naime, da bi uopće mogli donijeti novu odluku o već presuđenoj stvari, domaći sudovi moraju prvo ukinuti postojeću i predmet vratiti na novo suđenje. U nekim slučajevima odluka ESLJP kojom je utvrđena povreda kakvog prava nije rezultirala ni povoljnijim ishodom za stranku u ponovljenom postupku pred domaćim sudovima, a nekad do ponavljanja postupka nije ni došlo, što je vidljivo kroz odluke u kojima se zahtjevi za ponavljanjem postupka odbijaju zbog formalizma domaćih sudova, koji se može nazvati i pretjeranim, pa i kroz odluke u kojima se odbija zahtjev jer domaći sudovi utvrđuju da nije bilo povreda postupovnog prava, često i tumačenjem odluke ESLJP kao nove činjenicu, koja je prema čl. 421, st. 1, t 10. ZPP-a pravna osnova za ponavljanje postupka. Usklađivanje prava s Konvencijom rezultira i uvođenjem promjena u nacionalno zakonodavstvo što uvelike pridonosi razvoju prava i pravoj sigurnosti. |
| Abstract (english) | The work presents the practice of the European Court of Human Rights within the framework of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, in relation to the practice of the courts of the Republic of Croatia, which, by ratifying the Convention, undertook to enforce ECHR decisions in repeated proceedings, in accordance with Art. 428.a of the ZPP, which regulates such repetition of the procedure as a specific institute. The ECHR provides protective mechanisms for the application of the Convention and interprets the Convention as a living instrument, which confirms the application of established principles and accordingly, the application of the provisions of the Convention is variable in nature and follows the specific circumstances of each case. One can observe the development of practice from the very determination of violations to the gradual proposal of enforcement measures to domestic courts in ECHR decisions. Repetition of the procedure through the action of the ECHR and according to the Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers proved to be the most appropriate measure for eliminating violations of the provisions of the Convention in a new procedure before domestic courts and returning the individual to the state in which he would have been if there had been no violations, restitutio in integrum. In achieving this goal, ECHR decisions for domestic courts mean a limitation of judicial autonomy for the purpose of unifying rights, but also necessary changes in legislation. Namely, in order to be able to make a new decision on an already decided matter, domestic courts must first cancel the existing one and return the case for a new trial. In some cases, the decision of the ECHR, which determined the violation of some right, did not even result in a more favorable outcome for the party in the repeated proceedings before the domestic courts, and sometimes the repetition of the proceedings did not even occur, which is visible through the decisions in which the requests for the repetition of the proceedings are rejected due to the formalism of the domestic courts. of the courts, which can be called excessive, even through decisions in which the request is rejected because domestic courts determine that there were no violations of procedural law, often by interpreting the ECHR's decision as a new fact, which according to Art. 421, paragraph 1, t 10 of the ZPP, the legal basis for repeating the procedure. Harmonization of rights with the Convention also results in the introduction of changes in national legislation, which greatly contributes to the development of rights and real security. |
