Ponavljanje parničnog postupka zbog odluke Ustavnog suda

Abstract

Zakonom o izmenama i dopunama Zakona o parničnom postupku iz 2009. godine, uveden je nov razlog za ponavljanje parničnog postupka. Taj razlog preuzima i važeći Zakon o parničnom postupku iz 2011. godine uz određena preciziranja. Pravnosnažno okončan parnični postupak može se ponoviti i kada je Ustavni sud, u postupku po ustavnoj žalbi, utvrdio povredu ili uskraćivanje ljudskog ili manjinskog prava i slobode zajemčene Ustavom u parničnom postupku, a to je moglo biti od uticaja na donošenje povoljnije odluke. Sama kontrola odluka parničnih sudova u postupku po ustavnoj žalbi je od samog početka izazivala određene protivrečnosti. Otvorena su i produbljena neslaganja između Ustavnog suda i Vrhovnog kasacionog suda, u pogledu samog opsega kontrole odluka parničnih sudova, dejstva odluka Ustavnog suda donetih o ustavnim žalbama, kao i samog ponavljanja postupka s pozivom na odluku Ustavnog suda. U radu ukazujemo na otvorena pitanja i iznosimo predloge za njihovo rešavanje.

The main focus of this paper is on the repeated trial due to the decision of the Constitutional Court. This new ground for repeated trial has been introduced through 2009 Amendments to the Civil Procedure Code and is still present within the 2011 Serbian Civil Procedure Code. The trial completed by a final court decision may be repeated upon request of a party in a situation where Constitutional Court finds that there has been a violation or denial of constitutional rights and liberties in civil procedure, provided that this could have resulted in a different decision by a lower instance court. After quashing the decision of the competent civil court, Constitutional Court orders the case to be reopened. On the other hand, Article 426 of Civil Procedure Code provides that trial can be re­peated only upon request of the party. The Constitutional Court insists on its legal standing being followed in the repeated trial, which has already led to conflicting interpretations before the High Court in Belgrade. The author focuses its analysis on inspection of these pertinent problems from the standpoint of essential principles of civil procedure.