Vremensko važenje procesnih zakona i dozvoljenost revizije u parničnom postupku - različiti stavovi Ustavnog suda i Vrhovnog kasacionog suda

Abstract

Donošenjem Zakona o izmenama i dopunama Zakona o parničnom postupku iz 2014. godine, revizijski cenzus smanjen je na 40.000 evra u opštem parničnom postupku, odnosno na 100.000 evra u postupku u privrednim sporovima. Navedenim zakonskim izmenama omogućeno je i izjavljivanje revizije protiv svake drugostepene presude kojom je preinačena prvostepena presuda i odlučeno o zahtevima stranaka, kao i protiv svake drugostepene presude kojom je usvojena žalba, ukinuta prvostepena presuda i odlučeno o zahtevima stranaka. Česte izmene odredaba Zakona o parničnom postupku, ali i odredaba drugih zakona kojima je regulisano pravo na izjavljivanje revizije u posebnim parničnim postupcima, dovele su do problema u određivanju procesnih pravila koja se primenjuju na odlučivanje o dozvoljenosti revizije u konkretnom parničnom postupku, a postojanje tog problema uslovilo je zauzimanje različitih stavova o ovom pitanju od strane Ustavnog suda i Vrhovnog kasacionog suda.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit under the Public Information and Media Law, and the High Court of Belgrade and the Court of Appeal have ruled against him. He tried to challenge the judgment of second instance court by filing an appeal on the points of law. The Supreme Court of Cassation applied Public Information and Media Law that was in force at the time of publication of disputed information instead of the Law that was in force when the second instance judgment was passed and dismissed the appeal on the points of law. This decision has been quashed by the Constitutional Court, because it violated the plaintiff's right to fair trial. In its ruling the Constitutional Court explicitly stated that admissibility of appeal on the points of law has to be determined in accordance with procedural rules that were in force at the time the second instance judgment was passed.