Show simple item record

Extended statute of limitations: Divergent jurisprudence of the Supreme Court (of Cassation) and the opinion of the Constitutional Court

dc.creatorDraškić, Marija
dc.date.accessioned2024-05-21T11:17:17Z
dc.date.available2024-05-21T11:17:17Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.identifier.issn0003-2565
dc.identifier.urihttps://ralf.ius.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/1798
dc.description.abstractIako se na normativnom, pa i na praktičnom nivou razlika u nadležnostima Ustavnog suda i redovnih sudova može dobro videti i objasniti, u Srbiji se vodila usijana rasprava o tome da li Ustavni sud uopšte može da kontroliše sudske odluke, odnosno da poništava sudske odluke, a posebno odluke najvišeg suda. Cilj ovog teksta je da prikaže jednu odluku Ustavnog suda koja dobro ilustruje i opravdava razloge zbog kojih je Ustavni sud dobio ovlašćenje da odlučuje i o ustavnim žalbama i tako uđe u prostor neposredne zaštite ustavom zajemčenih ljudskih prava i sloboda. U slučaju koji će biti predmet ovog komentara Ustavni sud je delovao na ujednačavanju nedosledne sudske prakse povodom spora o tome da li privilegovani rok zastarelosti treba da važi prema svakom odgovornom licu, a ne samo prema štetniku, i time zaštitio pravo na pravično suđenje onih građana koji su takvom praksom bili oštećeni.sr
dc.description.abstractAlthough the difference in the competences of the Constitutional Courts and courts of general jurisdiction can be observed and explained on the normative and even on the practical level, a heated debate took place in Serbia on whether the Constitutional Court could control judicial decisions at all. This paper seeks to outline one Constitutional Court decision that illustrates the reasons why the Constitutional Court obtained competence for the adjudication of constitutional appeals and therefore entered the area of direct protection of constitutionally guaranteed human rights. In the case that is the subject of this comment, the Constitutional Court acted to harmonize inconsistent case law in the case of the dispute as to whether the prolonged prescription period-in case of damage caused by a criminal offence-runs solely against a wrongdoer, or also against a person liable for damage caused by the wrongdoer, protecting the complainants right to a fair trial.en
dc.rightsopenAccess
dc.sourceAnali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu
dc.subjectVrhovni (kasacioni) sudsr
dc.subjectUstavni sudsr
dc.subjectUstavna žalbasr
dc.subjectPrivilegovani rok zastarelostisr
dc.subjectLjudska pravasr
dc.subjectSupreme Court (of Cassation)en
dc.subjectHuman rightsen
dc.subjectExtended statute of limitationsen
dc.subjectConstitutional Courten
dc.subjectConstitutional complainten
dc.titlePrivilegovani rok zastarelosti - neujednačena praksa Vrhovnog (kasacionog) suda i stav Ustavnog sudasr
dc.titleExtended statute of limitations: Divergent jurisprudence of the Supreme Court (of Cassation) and the opinion of the Constitutional Courten
dc.typecontributionToPeriodical
dc.rights.licenseCC BY
dc.citation.epage209
dc.citation.issue2
dc.citation.other68(2): 194-209
dc.citation.rankM24
dc.citation.spage194
dc.citation.volume68
dc.identifier.doi10.5937/AnaliPFB2002200D
dc.identifier.fulltexthttps://ralf.ius.bg.ac.rs/bitstream/id/2021/1791.pdf
dc.identifier.rcubconv_3357_6
dc.type.versionpublishedVersion


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record