Uslov za dozvoljenost tužbe protiv osiguravajućeg društva

Abstract

Član 24 Zakona o obaveznom osiguranju u saobraćaju uslovljava pravo na podnošenje tužbe protiv osiguravajućeg društva, na način na koji je Zakon o parničnom postupku do izmena iz 2014. godine, uslovljavao pravo na podnošenje tužbe protiv države. Oba zakona propisuju da je prethodno vansudsko obraćanje potencijalnom tuženom procesna pretpostavka za pokretanje parničnog postupka. Zakon o parničnom postupku promenjen je 2014. godine. Nakon ove zakonske novele prethodno podnošenje vansudskog predloga nije uslov za dozvoljenost tužbe protiv države. Autor, polazeći od sličnosti odredaba ova dva zakona i okolnosti da je promena Zakona o parničnom postupku bila opravdana, pokušava da dokaže da bi slična izmena čl. 24 Zakona o obaveznom osiguranju u saobraćaju bila legitimna. Autor takođe ukazuje da potreba za usklađivanjem domaćeg prava s propisima Evropske unije, nije razlog koji se protivi izmeni predmetnog člana Zakona o obaveznom osiguranju u saobraćaju.

Article 24 of the Law on Compulsory Insurance in Traffic conditions the right to file a lawsuit against the insurance company, in the manner prescribed by the Law on Civil Procedure before 2014 which stipulated the right to file a lawsuit against the state. Both laws stipulate that the previously extrajudicial addressing the potential defendant is a procedural prerequisite for the initiation of civil proceedings. The Law on Civil Procedure was changed in 2014. After the amendments to the law, the prior extrajudicial proposal is not a prerequisite for the permissibility of a lawsuit against the state. The author, starting from the similarity of the provisions of these two laws and the circumstances that the amendment to the above Article of the Law on Civil Procedure was justified, tries to prove that it is necessary to make a similar amendment to Article 24 of the Law on Compulsory Insurance in Traffic. The author also points out that the need for the compliance between the national law with the EU regulations is not the reason which opposes to the amendment of the Article of the Law on Compulsory Insurance in Traffic.