Izvršenje u razumnom roku i postupak pred javnim izvršiteljem

Abstract

Jedno od najvažnijih načela izvršnog postupka jeste načelo hitnosti. Svi zakoni kojima se uređivao izvršni postupak i koji su se primenjivali na teritoriji Republike Srbije, propisivali su obavezu organa izvršnog postupka da hitno postupaju i određivali kratke rokove za donošenje odluka i preduzimanje radnji u postupku izvršenja i obezbeđenja. To nije dalo rezultata jer su Evropski sud za ljudska prava, ali i Ustavni sud, doneli brojne presude kojima je utvrđena povreda prava na izvršenje u razumnom roku. Zakonodavac je na to reagovao najpre propisivanjem da nepostupanje u rokovima predstavlja osnov za pokretanje disciplinskog postupka protiv postupajućeg sudije. Ovakve odredbe su postojale u Zakonu o izvršnom postupku iz 2004.godine, Zakonu i izvršenju i obezbeđenju iz 2011.godine, Zakonu o izvršenju i obezbeđenju iz 2016. godine, a zadržane su i u poslednjim izmenama Zakona o izvršenju i obezbeđenju usvojenim 2019.godine. Primena tih zakonskih odredaba, osim što je bila sporna zbog suprotnosti sa odredbama Zakona o sudijama, nije dala rezultate. Zakonom o zaštiti prava na suđenje u razumnom roku koji je usvojen 2015. godine, a stupio na snagu 1.1.2016.godine ustanovljen je mehanizam za zaštitu prava stranaka na suđenje u razumnom roku, a taj mehanizam se primenjuje i na izvršni postupak. Imajući u vidu da je sprovođenje većine sredstava izvršenja preneto u isključivu nadležnost javnih izvršitelja, otvoreno je pitanje zaštite prava stranaka na izvršenje u razumnom roku, u situaciji u kojoj javni izvršitelj sprovodi izvršenje.

The purpose of this paper was to tackle the protection of right to enforcement within reasonable time in enforcement procedure conducted by public enforcement agent. Implementation of most of enforcement means is now in exclusive competence of public enforcement agents. Old enforcement cases that haven’t been successfully concluded by enforcement courts for years are now being transferred to the public enforcement agents. Therefor, it is necessary to provide legal remedies to the parties if public enforcement agent fails to perform his/her activities within deadlines prescribed by Law and in accordance with the reasonable time standard. These remedies are provided for in Law on Enforcement and Security. Public Enforcement Agents are being supervised both by Ministry of Justice and by Chamber of Public Enforcement Agents in that regard. Failure of public enforcement agent to conduct enforcement without delay constitutes disciplinary violation which could lead to their dismissal. Besides this, enforcement creditor can always request his/her case to be transferred to the other public enforcement agent. Law on protection of right to fair hearing within reasonable time can only be applied to enforcement cases that are being conducted by enforcement courts. Although Constitutional Court has ruled otherwise, application of provisions of this Law to the enforcement cases that are being conducted by public enforcement agents would be impossible without severe changes of this Law. At the end it would be unreasonable and inappropriate that the efficiency of public enforcement agents is supervised by enforcement courts, because the main reason for creation of public enforcement agents was inefficiency of enforcement courts and their failure to conduct enforcement within reasonable time.