Search

The action by stages was introduced into the Croatian civil procedure law by the 2003 Law on Amendments to the Civil Procedure Act, with the aim of increasing the general quality and ef)ficiency in providing legal protection and improving the general functioning of civil procedure. Courts do not keep records of the number of received actions by stages lawsuits but available case law indicates that difficulties do exist and thus the need for a serious approach to this issue. The aim of this paper is to point out the importance of understanding the legal institute of action by stages with an emphasis on its practical application. Participants in court proceedings who apply to the court by filing an action by stages must be aware of its legal effects at certain stages of civil proceedings. On the other hand, the court must also ensure the lawful application of this institute so as not to commit procedural violations that would jeopardize the litigants’ legal position. In this regard, the analysis of this legal institute is necessary in order to remove practical doubts and ensure its legal function. Research results of this paper have confirmed that practical doubts should not be neglected and that there is room to consider a more efficient solution than the one in existence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Through this work, the author scientifically investigates the existing way of regulating civil proceedings and the legal status of litigation parties after filing a lawsuit. A special review of the scientific research focuses on the investigation of the legal position of the defendant after the lawsuit is filed, and the legal consequences of him being passive. Through this work, the most optimal model and method of regulating the legal position of the defendant after the filing of the lawsuit, has been scientifically investigated, in cases where the defendant does not enter into litigation by submitting a response to the lawsuit, or takes part in the later course of civil proceedings. Considering that the existing legal solutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina differently regulate the consequences of the defendant being passive at the stage of filing of the claim, the method of regulating the course of the civil procedure in case of passivity of the defendant after the filing of the lawsuit has been scientifically investigated, both in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in the comparative legal systems. Furthermore some solutions were proposed based on a unified approach to the defendants passivity during the civil proceedings, while respecting the principle of affirmative litiscontestation, which was accepted in civil proceedings in Bosnia and Herzegovina. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 concept of civil procedure in a domestic law is a concept which usually secures equal treatment of both parties through the procedure principles, among them a principle of contradiction. The statement of defense is one of the procedure institutes which makes it possible. It was regulated by the Law on Court procedure in civil procedures of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes from 1929, then by Laws on Civil procedure of Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia/Social Federal Republic of Yugoslavia - 1957 and 1977, then in Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina 1998, in Brcko District in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2000 and finally in 2003 in Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republic of Srpska. These last laws have brought important changes in this institution, which partially have made this procedure more qualitative but have also brought dillemas, especially in a context of this institution and default judgement. With regard to the content of provisions about statement of defense, the questions which seek answers and explanation are: is the statement of defense the duty or obligation of the defendant, does the period of time for the statement of defense run from the receipt of a lawsuit or from the service of a lawsuit to the defendant, on which answers the entry of a default judgement depends. This is the frame of this work. [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]