Search

Copyright of Godišnjak Pravnog Fakulteta u Sarajevu is the property of Godisnjak Pravnog Fakulteta u Sarajevu and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The new Law on Legal Proceedings of the Republic of Serbia was brought in 2011 and its regulations were put into effect on February 1st, 2012. Although it does not represent a result of a complete reform of civil procedure, this law brings a series of novelties. Solutions regarding certain process institutes have been significantly changed and supplemented, and totally new institutes have been introduced to the civil procedure. On the other hand, regulations regarding certain process institutions were eliminated from the law, while certain institutions which had been omitted by regulations of the previous laws were returned. In this paper the author points to the novelties brought by the law, especially emphasizing essential changes, as related to the previous process law, which used to regulate the institutes of the civil procedure [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective cumulation of lawsuit claims is a processing institute, which allows a plaintiff to propound multiple claims against the same defendant or multiple defendants in one suit or during litigation. This paper discusses possible ways of establishing objective cumulation, different kinds of objective cumulation, criteria for distinguishing certain types of objective cumulation, rules of procedure of the court when it comes to the possible cumulation, the application of any accumulation in case law, occurrence of litigation when it comes to objective cumulation, cases where there is an objective cumulation, determination of the value of the dispute in relation to the cumulative lawsuit claims, procedure of first-instance court in the case of objective and subjective cumulation, procedure of appeal court judgment against the defendant's first instance judgment upholding the eventual application, procedure of appellate court in the case of simultaneous accumulation of objective and subjective claims, when only the defendant complains on subsidiary adjudging eventual request, a critical review of the current legal solution regarding accumulation of objective proposal de lege ferenda. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper deals with two spheres of application of extraordinary cognition - criminal and civil law, while outlining its organizational and functional rules viewed in development from Augustus to Justinian. Analysis of cognitio extra ordinem in the protection of individuals' interests shows that this public-law procedure appeared as an exception to regular, formulary procedure of a private-law character, and that it was applied by new organs created by Augustus' delegation of judicial powers drawn from tribunitia potestas and imperium proconsulare. The gradual development of the Roman state to absolute oriental-type monarchy led to the consolidation of a network of hierarchically organised judicial organs, as well as of rules for a single dual-instance procedure, which in the time of Justinian took on their final shape of an exclusive judicial procedure of a libellar (written) type. Similarly, analysis of cognitio extra ordinem in the protection of the interests of the Roman community (at first, especially of the person of the princeps) shows that this public-law procedure of an inquisitory nature (with a written judgment containing not only the decision on the sanction, but also the legal grounds) appeared as extraordinary in relation to the regular system of quaestiones perpetuae characterised by an accusatory procedure. It was applied by new organs formed by delegation of Augustus' auctoritas. However, up until the 2nd century the Senate court operated, and developed its specific procedure, the so-called cognitio senatus. Further strengthening of imperial power during the 4th and 5th centuries highlighted the principles of singular and efficient cognitional criminal procedure, but also limited the principles of publicity, oral litigation and judges' freedom of ruling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]