Dve kritičke beleške o zakonu o parničnom postupku

Abstract

The Author's criticism is focused on, in his opinion, two typical characteristics of the currently valid civil procedure: the language of the law and the concept of proving determined by Article 308 and Article 314 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The first part of the paper is based on the thesis that the neglect of linguistic culture has culminated in this Act by favoring provincialism in the linguistic expression embodied in the application of the conjunction 'to' in combination with the present tense in situations where the infinitive should have been used. Otherwise, the Author assumes that the differentation of the content of the statement requires the use of both forms, which is demonstrated by numerous relevant examples. The second critic represents a unique trilogy, providing the three different point of view on the Articles 308 and Article 314 of Code of Civil Procedure: a) from the aspect of the principle of efficiency, b) from the viewpoint of Luhmann's theory of legal procedure and c) according to Radbruch's concept of the idea of the law. Despite the fact that they contain different arguments, all three experiments give an identical result - the insolidity of the provisions which determine the nature of proving.