Abstract

The article sheds light on provisions of Codes of Civil Procedure of 1853 and 1860 concerning ordinary legal remedies. As this matter was codified for the first time, a necessity of amending and supplementing some provisions soon emerged. Those amendments and supplements, along with original provisions were examined in this paper. The author also deals with regulations on jurisdiction of Court of Appeal, Court of Cassation and Supreme court. Types and categories of ordinary legal remedies were scrutinized, as well as strict time limits within one should lodge an appeal and proper grounds for making an appeal. The author also responds to questions under which circumstances are ordinary legal remedies allowed, and what types of decisions a higher court can make after reviewing the correctness and reasonableness of a decision issued by a lower court. Shortly after enactment of the Code of 1853 it appeared that judicial procedure is too complicated, expensive and ineffective due to too many legal remedies and legal jurisdictions. That is the reason why the Supreme court as the highest court within the hierarchy of legal jurisdictions and as final court of appeal was abolished in 1860, when new Code of Civil Procedure had been passed. New codification envisaged Court of Appeal as second instance court and, at the same time, court of last resort. Regarding legal remedies, Code of 1860 introduced appeal as sole ordinary legal remedy.

Highlights

  • Ка­да би, ме­ђу­тим, жал­ба би­ла под­не­та про­тив не­ког про­це­сног ре­ше­ња или на­ред­бе до­не­тог у то­ку по­ступ­ка, пр­во­сте­пе­ни суд не би мо­гао да на­ста­ви са до­ка­зним по­ступ­ком ни­ти да из­рек­не пре­су­ду све док ка­са­ци­о­на власт не ре­ши по жал­би и ре­ше­ње не по­ста­не из­вр­шно.[24]

  • Пре­су­да ће се по­ни­шти­ти и уко­ли­ко је суд бит­но по­вре­дио од­ред­бе пар­ нич­ног по­ступ­ка у том сми­слу што ни­је на зах­тев стран­ке из­у­зео од су­ђе­ња су­ди­ју ко­ји је мор­ ао би­ти из­у­зет, као и ако је пре­ко­ра­чио ту­жбе­ни зах­тев у ква­ли­та­тив­ном или кван­ти­та­тив­ном сми­слу, или ни­је ре­шио о не­ком од зах­ тев­ а пар­ни­ча­ра

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Д пр­вог пар­нич­ног про­це­сног за­ко­ни­ка.[4] Апе­ла­та ни­је до­зво­ље­на про­тив пр­во­сте­пе­не пре­су­де уко­ли­ко вред­ност пред­ме­та спо­ра не пре­ла­зи 500 гро­ша чар­шиј­ских, као ни про­тив пре­су­да до­не­тих на осно­ву при­зна­ња, од­ри­ца­ња или због из­о­стан­ка. Прав­но за­ин­ те­ре­со­ва­на стра­на не мо­же уло­жи­ти не­за­до­вољ­ство Вр­хов­ном су­ду про­тив пре­су­де Апе­ла­ци­о­ног су­да ако вред­ност пред­ме­та спо­ра не пре­ла­зи 1000 гро­ша чар­шиј­ских и уко­ли­ко је дру­го­сте­пе­на од­лу­ка са­гла­сна са пр­во­сте­ пе­ном

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call