Objektivni rok za podnošenje predloga za ponavljanje parničnog postupka − odluka Ustavnog suda i evropski standardi

Abstract

Ustavni sud je na sednici održanoj 21. februara 2013. godine, doneo odluku kojom se utvrđuje da odredba člana 428. stav 3. Zakona o parničnom postupku nije u saglasnosti sa Ustavom i potvrđenim međunarodnim ugovorom. Na osnovu člana 168. stav 3. Ustava, odredba člana 428. stav 3. Zakona o parničnom postupku prestala je da važi danom objavljivanja odluke Ustavnog suda u „Službenom glasniku Republike Srbije”. Član 428. stav 3. Zakona o parničnom postupku uređivao je objektivni rok za podnošenje predloga za ponavljanje postupka. Njime je bilo propisano da se po proteku roka od pet godina od dana kada je odluka postala pravnosnažna, predlog za ponavljanje postupka ne može podneti. Time je stvorena praznina koju je zakonodavac trebalo da popuni Zakonom o izmenama i dopunama Zakona o parničnom postupku („Službeni glasnik RS“, br. 55/2014).

The main focus of this paper is deadline for requesting repeated civil trial. This question is closely connected with effectiveness of this legal remedy. According to the Article 428, Paragraph 3 of 2011 Serbian Civil Procedure Code, motion for repeated trial couldn’t have been filed after the expiry of five years from the day on which judgment became final. Since the proceedings before European Court for Human Rights and proceedings before the Constitutional Court could last more than five years, Consitutional Court found that in situation when repeated civil trial has been requested because of violations of human rights found by European Court for Human Rights or by Constitutional Court, motion for repeated civil trial cannot be considered an effective legal remedy. Therefor, Article 428, Paragraph 3 of Civil Procedure Code was in violation of Constitution. It became challenge for legislator to deal with this issue. According to the new provision of Article 428, Paragraph 3 Civil Procedure Code there isn’t any deadline for requesting repeated civil trial because of violations of human rights found by European Court for Human Rights or by Constitutional Court. This created a state of legal uncertainty.