| Abstract | Tema ovog diplomskog rada je posebni parnični postupak koji se provodi u svrhu rješavanja sporova male vrijednosti. Specifičan pravni karakter sporova male vrijednosti, koji ih odvaja od ostalih posebnih postupaka, očituje se u tome da oni nemaju sebi svojstven predmet spora, već se od redovnog parničnog postupka razlikuju po kriteriju vrijednosti predmeta spora, koja pred sudovima opće nadležnosti ne prelazi 1.320,00 eura, a pred trgovačkim sudovima ne prelazi 6.630,00 eura. Zakonom o parničnom postupku propisano je da se sporovi o nekretninama, sporovi iz radnih odnosa koje je pokrenuo radnik protiv odluke o prestanku ugovora o radu i sporovi zbog smetanja posjeda ne smatraju sporovima male vrijednosti. Suci u Hrvatskoj su, vezano uz povećanje učinkovitosti, podijeljeni oko ideje osnivanja specijaliziranih sudova, tj. sudskih odjela za rješavanje sporova male vrijednosti. Parnični postupak u sporovima male vrijednosti provodi sudac pojedinac i sada je zakonom uređen kao pisani postupak, ali je sudu dana ovlast da ipak održi ročište ako to smatra potrebnim radi provođenja dokaznog postupka ili ako prihvati obrazloženi prijedlog stranke koja traži održavanje ročišta iz istog razloga. Ako je sud odlučio provesti pisani postupak, tada u obrazloženju presude mora biti navedeno zašto smatra da se pravično vođenje postupka moglo osigurati i bez održavanja ročišta te zašto time stranci koja nije uspjela u parnici nije uskraćeno njezino pravo na pristup sudu. U Hrvatskoj već postoji sustav elektroničke oglasne ploče za obavještavanje stranaka te mogućnost podnošenja pisanih podnesaka na standardiziranim obrascima, putem kojeg su neke vrste postupaka učinjene pristupačnijim širokom krugu subjekata. Ideja je da se takav pristup proširi i na postupke u sporovima male vrijednosti te u njima, po uzoru na slovenskog zakonodavca, omogući elektroničke podneske u svrhu smanjenja troškova postupka i potrebe za angažiranjem odvjetnika. Sud može, ako ocijeni da bi utvrđivanje nekih činjenica važnih za rješenje spora moglo biti povezano s nerazmjernim teškoćama i troškovima, o postojanju takvih činjenica zaključiti po slobodnoj ocjeni uzimajući u obzir isprave koje su stranke priložile te njihove iskaze ako je sud izveo dokaz saslušanjem stranaka. Bitno je naglasiti da donošenje rješenja o presumiranom povlačenju tužbe zbog neopravdanog izostanka tužitelja s ročišta podrazumijeva potpunu pasivnost tužitelja, tj. situaciju kada za njega nitko ne pristupi na ročište, a takva pretpostavka nije ostvarena kada za tužitelja na ročište dođe punomoćnik(odvjetnik) pa makar i bez uredne(potpisane) punomoći ukoliko on od suda zatraži dozvolu zastupanja uz obvezu naknadne dostave valjane punomoći u roku koji sud odredi. O žalbi protiv presude ili rješenja donesene u postupku u sporovima male vrijednosti odlučuje sudac pojedinac drugostupanjskog suda, međutim u svemu ostalome je postupak po žalbi jednak onome u redovnom parničnom postupku. U postupku u sporovima male vrijednosti žalba protiv presude ili rješenja u pravilu nema suspenzivni učinak i ne može se podnijeti zbog pogrešno ili nepotpuno utvrđenog činjeničnog stanja, relativno bitnih povreda odredaba parničnog postupka te ako je sud u povodu prigovora stranaka pogrešno odlučio da je stvarno ili mjesno nadležan. Posebna žalba protiv rješenja dopuštena je samo protiv rješenja kojima se završava postupak, a ostala rješenja koja sud u tome postupku donosi mogu se pobijati samo žalbom protiv odluke kojom se postupak završava. |
| Abstract (english) | The topic of this graduation thesis is a particular litigation procedure that is carried out for the purpose of resolving small claims disputes. The specific legal character of small claims disputes, which separates them from other particular civil proceedings, is manifested in the fact that they do not have their own subject of dispute but differ from regular civil proceedings by the criterion of the value of the claim, which before courts of general jurisdiction does not exceed 1,320.00 EUR, and before commercial courts it does not exceed EUR 6,630.00. The Law on Civil Procedure stipulates that immovable property disputes, employment disputes initiated by the employee against the decision to terminate the employment contract, and disputes for disturbance of possession are not considered small value disputes. Judges in Croatia are divided over the idea of establishing specialized courts, i.e. court departments for resolving small claims disputes, in relation to increasing efficiency. Litigation proceedings in small claims disputes are conducted by a single judge and are now regulated by law as a written procedure, but the court is empowered to hold the oral hearing if it deems it necessary for the purpose of conducting evidentiary proceedings or if it accepts the reasoned proposal of the party requesting to hold the oral hearing for the same reason. If the court decided to conduct a written procedure, then in the explanation of the judgment it must be stated why it considers that the fair conduct of the procedure could have been ensured even without holding of the oral hearing and why the party who was unsuccessful in the litigation was not deprived of its right to access the court. In Croatia, there is already an electronic bulletin board system for notifying parties and the possibility of submitting written submissions on standardized forms, through which certain types of procedures have been made more accessible to a wide range of subjects. The idea is to extend such an approach to proceedings in small claims disputes and in them, following the example of the Slovenian legislator, enable electronic submissions in order to reduce the costs of the proceedings and the need to hire a lawyer. The court may, if it assesses that the establishment of some important facts for the resolution of the dispute could be associated with disproportionate difficulties and costs, conclude on the existence of such facts based on a free assessment, taking into account the documents submitted by the parties and their statements if the court produced evidence by hearing the parties. It is important to emphasize that the adoption of a ruling on the presumptive withdrawal of the lawsuit due to the plaintiff's unjustified absence from the hearing implies complete passivity of the plaintiff, i.e. a situation when no one attends the hearing on his behalf, and such an assumption is not fulfilled when an attorney (lawyer) comes to the hearing for the plaintiff, at least and without a proper (signed) power of attorney if he asks the court for a representation permit with the obligation to subsequently deliver a valid power of attorney within the deadline set by the court. A single judge of the second-instance court decides on an appeal against the judgement or the ruling rendered in a small claims proceeding, however, in all other respects, the appeal procedure is the same as in regular civil proceedings. In the procedure for small claims disputes, as a rule, the appeal does not have a suspensive effect and cannot be submitted due to erroneous or incomplete findings of the facts. A separate appeal against the ruling is allowed only against rulings by which the proceedings have been concluded, and other rulings that the court makes in these proceedings can only be challenged by an appeal against the decision by which the proceedings have been concluded. |
