Izuzeće javnog izvršitelja

Abstract

Jedno od centralnih pitanja koje se odnosi na položaj javnog izvršitelja jeste obezbeđivanje njegove nepristrasnosti u odnosu na stranke izvršnog postupka. U tom smislu treba razmotriti način određivanja javnog izvršitelja koji će postupati u konkretnom izvršnom postupku, ali i mogućnost njegove promene do koje može doći kako voljom stranaka, tako i na zahtev samog javnog izvršitelja. Iako su javni izvršitelji uvedeni Zakonom o izvršenju i obezbeđenju iz 2011.godine, taj zakon nije do kraja definisao njihov položaj, a naročito odnos prema strankama izvršnog postupka, dok je zahtev za izuzeće javnog izvršitelja bio nedozvoljen. Problematičan je bio odnos javnog izvršitelja i izvršnog poverioca, jer je u nekim situacijama javni izvršitelj nastupao kao njegov punomoćnik, dok sam izvršni dužnik nije mogao da traži izuzeće javnog izvršitelja. Važećim Zakonom o izvršenju i obezbeđenju koji je stupio na snagu 1.jula 2016.godine ovo pitanje je rešeno na drugačiji način, ali je praksa pokazala da kada je reč o izuzeću javnog izvršitelja postoje određena lutanja i zloupotrebe u primeni ovog instituta. S tim u vezi, u radu ćemo analizirati zakonska rešenja i ukazati na opasnosti koje nosi pogrešno shvatanje i primenjivanje razloga za izuzeće javnog izvršitelja.

The main focus of this paper was to tackle the disqualification of public enforcement agent in the course of enforcement proceedings. According to the 2016 Serbian Law on Enforcement and Security the powers of public enforcement agents have been expanded significantly. They are exclusively entitled to decide on motion to enforce and for conducting enforcement regarding collection of claims for utilities and other similar services. Besides that they are in charge for conducting all enforcement measures with exceptions related to joint sale of immovable and movable assets, enforcement regarding action, non-action or sufferance, enforcement of decicions in family matters and employment reinstatement enforcement. Enforcement agents are not only empowered to perform actions but they also have competences to decide on different motions and legal remedies filed by the parties and other participants to enforcement proceedings. Therefor it is necessary to provide their impartiality. Although the current Law on Enforcement and Security regulates disqualification of public enforcement agents (exclusion and disqualification), there are still some problems that need to be resolved. First of all, the provisions dealing with disqualification of public enforcement agents are in different parts of the law. Second, only enforcement debtor may request disqualification of public enforcement agent. In our view both parties as well as the participants to the enforcement proceedings should be entitled to request disqualification of public enforcement agent, since his/her decsisions may tackle their rights and legal interests. Public enforcement agent may also find out there are reasons of his/her disqualification in which case he/she should inform the court and the parties to the proceedings. The Law on Enforcement and Security provides that motion for disqualification of public enforcement agent shall not stay enforcement, but if there are reasons for his/her exclusion he/she should cease any work on the case and inform the court and the parties to the proceedings, otherwise his/her actions shall constitute disciplinary violation. The first instance court shall be competent to decide on request for disqualification of public enforcement agent. If the request has been dismissed or rejected, against that decision an objection may be lodged. When the court has granted the request no legal remedies are allowed against that decision. The reasons for disqualification and exclusion of public enforcement agents have been regulated by Law on Enforcement and Security. One reason for disqualification needs to be adressed in special way. Civil Procedure Code provides that a judge shall be excluded if he/she and a party are involved in the proceedings regarding another lawsuit. This reason for exclusion of public enforcement agent hasn't been listed in Law on Enforcement but it may be used for his/her disqualification. However according to the case law of European Court of Human Rights, bringing criminal charges or lawsuits against judges is not in itself sufficient to cast doubt on their impartiality. This is because to require their automatic withdrawal in such circumstances would enable discontented litigants to engage in "judge shopping" by artificially creating bias or prejudice, and thus provide them with easy instrument to remove judges they consider unfavourable. Before Serbian courts discontented enforcement debtors have started to file lawsuits against public enforcement agents in order achieve their disqualification from enforcement proceedings. The courts that are competent to decide on these requests should take into account judgments of European Court of Human Rights dealing with this issue.