Pravo na nepristran sud

master's thesis

• Title (english): The Right to an Impartial Tribunal
• Author: Marko Ivanda
• 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: 2023-09-01, Croatia
• Scientific / art field, discipline and subdiscipline: SOCIAL SCIENCES; Law

Abstract

Pravo na nepristran sud jedan je od elemenata prava na pošteno suđenje. Nepristranost se ocjenjuje prema dva kriterija, objektivnom i subjektivnom. U praksi ista okolnost može upućivati i na objektivnu i na subjektivnu nepristranost suda. Što se tiče mnogobrojnih okolnosti koje upućuju na objektivnu nepristranost suda, dvije su glavne skupine, okolnosti osobne naravi i kolizija funkcija. Obiteljske veze između odvjetnika i suda opravdavaju sumnju u nepristranost. Poslovne veze također mogu dovesti u sumnju nepristranost suda i u obzir treba biti uzeta narav poslovne veze te potencijalna hijerarhija. Konkretan ekonomki interes suda, ili sudu bliske osobe, za ishod spora također može dovesti u sumnju njegovu nepristranost. U slučaju da je sudac u istom predmetu već obavljao savjetodavnu, zakonodavnu ili kakvu drugu funkciju, u pravilu se radi o opravdanoj sumnji u sučevu nepristranost. U slučaju da je sudac dva puta obavljao sudačku funkciju u istom predmetu u obzir se treba uzeti sadržaj odluka i okolnosti na kojima se odluke temelje. U svakom slučaju na samom je sudu da samoinicijativno iznese okolnosti koje mogu dovesti u sumnju njegovu nepristranost neovisno o strankama jer se prešućivanjem takvih okolnosti stvara privid pristranosti.

Abstract (english)

The right to an impartial tribunal is one of the elements of the right to a fair trial. Impartiality is assessed with two approaches, objective and subjective. In the case-law the same situation can point both to objective and subjective impartiality. Regarding the many situations which point to objective impartiality of the court, there are two main groups, situations of a personal nature and situations of a functional nature. Family ties between the lawyer and court justify the doubt of the court’s impartiality. Work ties can also lead to doubts about the court’s impartiality and the nature of the relationship and potential hierarchy should be taken into consideration. Specific economic interests of the court, or a person close to the court, in the outcome of the dispute can also cast doubt on the impartiality of the court. In case the judge had already taken on an advisory, legislative or some other role in the same case, generally the fear in the judge’s impartiality will be justified. In case the judge had already served twice as judge in the same case, consideration should be given to the nature of the decisions and the circumstances on which the decisions are based. In any case, it is up to the court itself to disclose any circumstances which could cast a doubt on its impartiality, irrespective of the parties, because withholding such information can cast a doubt on the court’s impartiality.

• Keywords: Pravo na nepristran sud; nepristranost; Europski sud za ljudska prava; praksa; subjektivni kriterij; objektivni kriterij
• Keywords (english): Right to an impartial tribunal; impartiality; European Court of Human Rights; case-law; subjective approach; objective approach
• Language: croatian
• URN:NBN: urn:nbn:hr:199:025756
• 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: 2023-09-07 08:42:05