Povrat u prijašnje stanje

master's thesis

• Title (english): Return of litigation to a prior status
• Author: Iva Sabljak
• Mentor: Marko Bratković (mentor)
• Committee member: Marko Bratković (predsjednik povjerenstva)
• Committee member: Aleksandra Maganić (član povjerenstva)
• Committee member: Juraj Brozović (član povjerenstva)
• Granter: University of Zagreb; Faculty of Law; (Civil Procedural Law); Zagreb
• Defense date and country: 2023-06-06, Croatia
• Scientific / art field, discipline and subdiscipline: SOCIAL SCIENCES; Law

Abstract

Budući da se u parničnom postupku raspravlja o sporu između parničnih stranaka – tužitelja i tuženika, za očekivati je da će obje stranke zauzeti aktivan stav u parnici kako bi postigle za sebe najpovoljniji ishod. Ipak, parnične će stranke u određenim situacijama ostati pasivne, propuštajući ročište ili poduzimanje određene parnične radnje u roku. Iako se prema današnjem uređenju parničnog postupka stranke ne prisiljava na aktivno držanje u parnici, u određenim situacijama zakonodavac sankcionira pasivno držanje stranke, vežući uz takvo držanje negativne posljedice po pasivnu stranku. Najstroža posljedica propuštanja jest gubitak strankina prava na poduzimanje propuštene parnične radnje u daljnjem tijeku parnice. Stoga je povrat u prijašnje stanje institut koji se u praksi nerijetko koristi upravo radi uklanjanja takvih negativnih posljedica jer se pasivnoj parničnoj stranci omogućuje naknadno poduzimanje propuštene radnje. Da bi stranka uspjela sa svojim prijedlogom za povrat u prijašnje stanje, sve zakonom propisane pretpostavke moraju biti ispunjene. Povratom u prijašnje stanje parnica se vraća iz trenutnog u prethodno stanje – ono u kojemu se nalazila prije strankina propuštanja. Razvidno je stoga da će povrat nepovoljno utjecati na ostvarenje načela ekonomičnosti i na brzinu parničnog postupka. Stoga je od presudne važnosti da sudovi dovoljno kritički pristupaju ocjenjivanju opravdanosti razloga propuštanja i da ne dopuštaju prijedloge za povrat u prijašnje stanje u onim situacijama u kojima je očito da su stranke vlastitim propustom, neopravdano ostale pasivne. Međutim, sudovi ipak ne bi trebali strogo formalistički slijediti procesna pravila i pod svaku cijenu nastojati što brže pokušati privesti spor kraju, osobito u slučajevima kad se radi o neukim strankama koje ne poznaju pravo u dovoljnoj mjeri, a nastoje postići za sebe najpovoljniji ishod spora.

Abstract (english)

Since a dispute between the litigants, the plaintiff and the defendant, is being discussed in the civil proceedings, it is to be expected that both parties will take an active position in litigation to achieve the most favourable outcome for themselves. However, litigants will remain passive in certain situations, e.g., by missing a court hearing or taking a specific action within the deadline. Although litigants are not forced to take an active stance in litigation under the current regulation of the civil proceedings, the legislator will in certain situations sanction such a passive stance of the litigant, by attaching negative consequences for the passive litigant. The most severe consequence of omission is the loss of the party's right to take the missed litigation action in the further course of the litigation. Therefore, the return of litigation to a prior status is an institute often used in practice precisely to remove such negative consequences, as it enables the passive litigant to subsequently undertake the missed action. For the party to succeed with its proposal for the return of litigation to a prior status, all statutorily prescribed requirements must be met. In such cases, the litigation returns from the current status to a prior status – the one in which it was before the litigant's omission. It is therefore clear that the return will adversely affect the realization of the principle of economy and the speed of the civil proceedings. Therefore, it is of crucial importance that the courts take a sufficiently critical approach to evaluate the justification of omission reason and do not allow proposals for a return of litigation to a prior status in those situations where it is obvious that the litigants, due to their omission, have unjustifiably remained passive. However, the courts should not follow procedural rules strictly formalistically and at all costs try to bring the dispute to an end as quickly as possible, especially in cases of ignorant parties who do not know the law to a sufficient extent and strive to achieve the most favourable outcome of the dispute for themselves.

• Keywords: povrat u prijašnje stanje; prekluzija; opravdanost propuštanja; načelo ekonomičnosti; žalba.
• Keywords (english): return of litigation to a prior status; preclusion; justification of omission; principle of economy; appeal.
• Language: croatian
• URN:NBN: urn:nbn:hr:199:322254
• Study programme: Title: Law; Study programme type: university; Study level: integrated undergraduate and graduate; Academic / professional title: magistar/magistra prava (magistar/magistra prava)
• Type of resource: Text
• File origin: Born digital
• Access conditions: Open access
• Created on: 2023-06-13 07:03:05