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]

The paper examines the views of domestic civil law theory and case law on inherently dangerous objects and activities, and, in particular, the interpretations of maritime law theory and case law on whether a ship is an inherently dangerous object presupposing the application of a strict liability regime. The central part of the paper is devoted to a critical analysis of the courts’ interpretation of the question of whether a berthed boat is an inherently dangerous object and whether the activity of a marina operator is an inherently dangerous one. Furthermore, the criteria relevant for assessing the legal issues in question are investigated in detail. Finally, determining the relevant criteria leads to guidelines that can be used for theoretical generalisation which can be applied by the courts when deciding in cases involving the legal question of whether a berthed vessel is an inherently dangerous object and the business of a marina operator an inherently dangerous activity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper describes the methods used in determining the place of origin and cause of fire, such as inspection (review of the scene), reconstruction and expertise of the material. A real case of fire is presented, as recorded by an expert with suitable technical training, describing the use of the above methods in determining the cause of fire in a residential building, i.e. family house. In litigation to compensate the damage caused by the fire, the expert was tasked to determine the cause of the fire on the basis of the court documents. The expert was also provided with eyewitness material that was excluded from the court file. Based on the information in the file and the opinion on the excluded material, the expert submitted his findings and opinion in writing, which he defended in the court hearing. In order to supply new evidence, it was suggested that an inspection of the site and reconstruction be carried out. The reconstruction of the event showed that the fire could have occurred as a result of a fault in the electrical wiring, rather than due to a faulty replacement of the old electric meter with a new one. [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 model of examination of witnesses at hearings in criminal proceedings is reflected in its main, cross-examination and additional examination. The goal of this model is to strengthen the role and position of the parties, especially defendants, as opposed to the court, which now becomes a neutral and impartial trier of criminal dispute. Their role is reinforced by the original right to propose and present evidence in criminal proceedings. The authors particularly point out to the great importance of the cross-examination of witnesses in adversarial proceedings, as one of the main "weapon" by which parties exercise their procedural rights and interests. This contributes to the more efficient realization of the right to a fair trial, which is closely related to the defendant's right to an effective defense. After a detailed review of rules and ways of the main, cross-examination and additional examination of witnesses at the hearing, the paper gives a brief comparative law view of the system in the Anglo-American, Italian and Bosnian law. [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 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]

An Amendment of the 1996 LLMC Protocol to the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, 1976 was adopted at the ninety-ninth session of the IMO Legal Committee held in London 16 - 19 April 2012, increasing the global limits of liability related to Article 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(b) of 1976 LLMC by 51 % on the present limits set out in Article 3 of the 1996 LLMC Protocol. Limits set out in Article 7 of LLMC 1976 have remained unchanged. In accordance with the Article 8(8) of the 1996 LLMC Protocol, these amendments shall enter into force on 8 June 2015. The paper analyses the reasons that have led to the increase of the limits of liability and to the justification of such an increase, taking into account that in only 1.34 % of incidents damages have exceeded current limits of liability established by the 1996 Protocol. It analyses the legal and economic consequences of the increase of the limits of liability and its immediate impact on other international conventions relying on the global limitation of liability, such as the 2001 Bunker Convention and the 2007 Convention on the Removal of Wrecks. It warns, however, that the tendency leading to excessive limits of liability may cause a loss of interest of states to ratify the 1996 Protocol and thus have a negative impact on the unification of law in relation to this matter. Therefore, this paper discusses some of the possible solutions that would provide fair compensation for victims, but would not jeopardise the unification efforts and the purpose of the limitation of liability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is an attempt to give a general overview of the institute "ordinary" intervenor in a lawsuit by presenting theoretical guidelines as well as a number of cases from court practice. After the introduction, the issue of (not) having a legal interest is discussed plus other preconditions that must be fulfilled in order that a third person could intervene in the litigation. The legal status of an "ordinary" intervenor in the lawsuit is discussed as well. The issue of giving a statement for the participation in the litigation is also mentioned and related to that the (not) making of a specific decision about intervention is analyzed. The actions that "ordinary" intervenor is/is not authorized to take and the effect of these actions on the party he joined are also examined. The third part of the paper is dedicated to the specific question of the procedural effect on the intervener, the so-called intervention effect and the importance it has in practice. Furthermore the question of subjective and objective limits of the above mentioned effect is discussed. This paper also presents and briefly analyzes other legal texts in which the institute "ordinary" intervenor plays a significant role. Finally, the most controversial issue of the defrayment of expenses the "ordinary" intervenor has is analyzed, based on the principles of causa and culpa. [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]

Primary role of judicial authorities, is that in the name of the state, trace the subjects that have hurt legal norms, as well as to resolve various (property, criminal, family, administrative…) legal disputes between entities and determine penalties against offenders of legal norms. Judicial authority in Bosnia and Herzegovina is not fulfilling its role efficiently and well. There are many reasons for this: longevity of court proceedings, a large number of pending cases, an insufficient number of judges, poorly paid judges, corruption, low level of computerization, poor communication between the media and the judiciary, rarely initiate disciplinary proceedings against judges and prosecutors. There is statistical data on the number of pending cases in various courts, which only confirms the ineffectiveness of the judicial authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In order for Bosnia and Herzegovina to become part of the European union, it is necessary to make harmonization of regulations with European standards, which means to continue with the reforms initiated in the field of justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Adoption of International Law Commission's Draft Articles on State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts is considered by many legal experts and practitioners a breakthrough in the successive development of international law. Primary rules of international law define the core responsibilities of states as members of the international community. It is only through their interaction with the secondary rules, outlining essential elements of internationally wrongful acts, that state responsibility can be established in a methodologically sound and a practically sustainable manner. The International Court of Justice clearly stated in the Bosnia and Herzegovina vs. Serbia case that the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, though putting an emphasis on individual responsibility and prosecution of indicted individuals, does not in any way exclude state responsibility for genocide as "crime of crimes". States have a three-fold responsibility - not to commit, to prevent and to punish genocide. Though derived from individual criminal responsibility, state responsibility for genocide is not of criminal nature. [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]

The commercial court has subject-matter jurisdiction in deciding upon a proposal for the order of provisional measure to return the plaintiff to work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]