Abstract
The paper presents legal provisions, attitudes of court practice and opinions of legal science on special procedure in litigation on small claims. The concept, history and significance of the small dispute are explained. The issues concerning the census, ie the threshold value of the subject matter of the dispute on which the application of this special type of procedure depends, were especially considered. The problem of a large number of proceedings in small disputes, the value of which is so low that the mechanism of judicial protection should not be initiated, was pointed out, as well as the necessity of prescribing a minimum threshold for the admissibility of a lawsuit. On the other hand, too high a prescribed threshold in small value disputes does not correspond to the economic strength of citizens, which leads to a reduction in the quality of judicial protection in disputes that are of great importance to the party. Then, the most important specifics of the small dispute were analyzed, which are manifested in the consequences of the absence of the parties from the main hearing, as well as in the limitation of the grounds of appeal by excluding the principle of beneficium novorum. The procedural-legal significance of the absence of the plaintiff is presented, which is reflected in the occurrence of the fiction of withdrawing the lawsuit. Also, the conditions for passing a verdict due to absence as a consequence of the defendant's absence from the main hearing, which is based on the fiction of admitting the facts, were analyzed. It was pointed out that the decision resolving a small value dispute cannot be challenged due to an erroneously or incompletely established factual situation, but only due to an absolutely significant violation of the provisions of civil procedure and due to incorrect application of substantive law. Finally, proposals for amending the law were given, in order to facilitate the application of procedural norms and increase the efficiency of the procedure.
Highlights
Too high a prescribed threshold in small value disputes does not correspond to the economic strength of citizens, which leads to a reduction in the quality of judicial protection in disputes that are of great importance to the party
The census is set too high in our country ”, so it was proposed to reduce it to 900 euros (ПетроOвnиeћo2f0t1h9e).solutions could be that the census, on which the application of special rules on the procedure in small disputes depends, be prescribed according to a subjective criterion, ie depending on the characteristics of the debtor, ie the defendant, based on the rule of non-suspension of appeal against first instance verdict, which ordered the payment of claims that do not exceed the dinar equivalent of 300 euros to a private individual or 1000 euros to a legal entity or entrepreneur does not delay the execution (ЗПП 2020, чл. 368)
The census would not depend on the actual jurisdiction - whether the procedure in a small value dispute is conducted before the basic court or before the commercial court, whether the defendant is a private individual who does not perform economic activity, or it is a legal entity or entrepreneur, which would contribute to the threshold value for the application of this special type of procedure to be harmonized with the economic strength of the person to pay the debt or perform some other act
Summary
Сажетак: У раду су приказане законске одредбе, ставови судске праксе и мишљења правне науке о посебном поступку у парницама о споровима мале вредности. У поступку о споровима мале вредности сходно се примењују и правила из општег парничног поступка у питањима која нису регулисана одредбама Главе XXXIII. Указано на проблем да постоји велики број поступака у споровима мале вредности, чија вредност је толико ниска (нижа је од 1.000,00 динара), да је за исту (вредност) сувишно покренути "велики судски механизам", који много кошта у односу на тако ниску вредност предмета спора ‒ такви спорови се у суштини воде због парничних трошкова, чија наплата представља „главни циљ", а што је у супротности са циљем због којег се и воде судски спорови ‒ ради заштите субјективног права. Тужбе чији основни циљ није заштита повређеног или угроженог грађанског субјективног права, већ проузроковање и наплата трошкова судског поступка, требало би одбацити због недостатка правног интереса, као опште процесне претпоставке која мора постојати код сваке врсте тужбе. Иако ови спорови за грађане нису безначајни, закон налаже да би они требало да буду решавани брже, једноставније, по посебној процедури и с мањим судским трошковима, али то у пракси није случај (Петровић 2019)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
