Neki problemi u primeni zakona o parničnom postupku u sporovima male vrednosti

Abstract

Zakon o parničnom postupku predstavlja opšti proceduralni okvir za zaštitu subjektivnih građanskih prava od povrede ili ugrožavanja. Specifičnosti materijalnopravnih odnosa koji daju povoda vođenju parničnog postupka uslovljavaju postojanje različitih procesnih režima čija rešenja u većoj ili manjoj meri odstupaju od opšteg parničnog postupka. Samim zakonom o parničnom postupku, a sve češće i pojedinim materijalnim zakonima, uređuju se posebni parnični postupci čija se osobenost ogleda u neprimenjivanju svih instituta opšteg parničnog postupka ili pak primeni nekih instituta u suženom vidu. Upravo zbog toga, moraju postojati jasni kriterijumi na osnovu kojih se može odrediti koji procesni režim će se primeniti na suđenje u konkretnom sporu. Samo jasni kriterijumi sprečavaju stranke da same biraju procesni režim i time dovode u pitanje ostvarivanje prava na zakonitu, jedinaku i pravičnu zaštitu. U ovom radu razmatramo nedoumice u vezi sa primenom pravila parničnog postupka koja važe za sporove male vrednosti. U tom smislu, analiziramo rešenja važećeg zakona o parničnom postupku koja ostavljaju prostora za različita tumačenja, a time ugrožavaju pravnu sigurnost.

The Serbian 2011 Civil Procedure Code has widened the scope of small claims litigations substantially. According to the Article 468 all monetary claims not exceeding the amount of 3.000 euros shall be treated as small claims. This also applies to the lawsuits where claim is not money but the plaintiff stated that he/she would accept to be paid an amount of money not exceeding the amount of 3.000 euros. Finally, small claims shall also include lawsuits where claim is not money but the value of claim stated by the plaintiff doesn't exceed the amount of 3.000 euros. This means that proceedings started by declaratory or constitutive lawsuits can also be treated as small claims under the Article 468 Civil Procedure Code. In this way the legislator tried to expand the application of small claims provisions to more disputes that would now have to be resolved in summary proceedings. However, the Article 471 of Civil Procedure Code has to be taken into account as well. According to the provision of Article 471 small claims litigations shall be conducted only before lower (basic) courts. This rule would mean that no claim that falls into jurisdiction of higher court can be treated as small claim, regardless of the claim value. The colision between the value criteria and the criteria of subject matter jurisdiction leads to legal uncertainty. The parties to the proceedings have to know in advance whether their claim is going to be adjudicated as small claim or pursuant to the provisions governing regular proceedings. Furthermore, the wrong choice of procedural rules made by the first instance court is still not properly sanctioned by the provisions of Civil Procedure Code.