Vzorčni postopek po ZPP in analiza skupinskih tožb v slovenski ureditvi

Kupec, Urška

| | SLO | ENG | Cookies and privacy

Bigger font | Smaller font

First page > Show document

Show document

Title:	Vzorčni postopek po ZPP in analiza skupinskih tožb v slovenski ureditvi
Authors:	ID Kupec, Urška (Author) ID Ivanc, Tjaša (Mentor) More about this mentor...
Files:	MAG_Kupec_Urska_2016.pdf (1,16 MB) MD5: E04200ADBF679B54A6F40B46CEE8B47D
Language:	Slovenian
Work type:	Master's thesis/paper
Typology:	2.09 - Master's Thesis
Organization:	PF - Faculty of Law
Abstract:	Civilni postopek poteka med strankami in sodiščem, katero preko sodnikov išče odgovore na vprašanja in sprejme odločitev, ki mora biti čim bolj pravična. Civilni postopek je v svojem bistvu individualističen postopek namenjen posameznikom, da v pravdi uveljavljajo svoje pravice in koristi. V nasprotju s to individualistično naravo civilnega postopka pa večine razvitih držav poznajo institute skupinski tožb v več različicah in pa druge institute, ki omogočajo, da se na podlagi enega postopka odloči v vseh drugih postopkih z enakim ali podobnim dejanskim stanjem in isto pravno podlago ter pa institute na podlagi katerih so možne združitve pravd ali pa več oseb na strani tožečih oziroma toženih strank. Takšni instituti so bili vpeljani v pravne sisteme prav zaradi zagotovitve hitrosti postopka in posledično zaradi čim nižjih stroškov. Pri tem pa se postavi vprašanje kje je meja med zagotovitvijo določenih ekonomskih koristi in med zagotovitvijo ustrezne ravni pravnega varstva posameznikov. Različne države so izbrale različne načine. Denimo, Združene države Amerike (v nadaljevanju: ZDA) so vpeljale institut razredne tožbe, ki omogoča, da določene organizacije oziroma odvetniške družbe v imenu razreda vodijo postopek v njihovo korist. Medtem, ko je razred zelo določno opisan pa ne velja enako za člane razreda, za katere je potrebna zgolj možnost seznanitve z vložitvijo tožbe oziroma z okoliščino, da v tej zvezi poteka postopek. Pri tem pa ni potrebno, da so vsi posamezniki dejansko bili seznanjeni s tem. Pomembno je zgolj, da so imeli možnost, pa čeprav je bila ta možnost zagotovljena z obvestilom na hrbtni strani plačilnega naloga. Na ta način se celoten postopek obveščanja zagotovo pospeši. Prav tako sodba učinkuje za vse člane razreda, ne glede na to ali so se dejansko seznanili s postopkom. V kolikor tega ne bi želeli, bi morali podati izrecno izjavo, da ne želijo biti del pravdnega postopka. Ravno nasprotno temu ima urejeno Anglija, kjer morajo posamezniki izrecno podati izjavo, da želijo biti del civilnega postopka, sicer jih sodba ne zavezuje. Za enak pristop se v svojih, sicer zaenkrat še nezavezujočih aktih, zavzema Evropska unija (v nadaljevanju: EU). Slednja prav tako na podlagi negativne izkušnje ZDA, kjer si odvetniki oziroma odvetniške družbe zagotovijo visoke nagrade na podlagi odstotka prisojenega zneska, stremi k drugačni ureditvi. Pri večini država članic EU je opaziti zelo velike razlike v ureditvah, prav tako večina držav članic, me drugimi tudi Slovenija, nimajo urejenega instituta skupinske tožbe v svojih civilnih procesnih zakonikih, ampak se možnost vložitve skupinske tožbe pojavlja v področnih zakonih. Takšna neenakost v ureditvah ni dopustna. Že zgolj z vidika mednarodnih sporov je nesprejemljivo, da možnost vložitve skupinske tožbe oziroma možnost uveljavljanja odškodninskih zahtevkov znotraj skupinske tožbe ni zagotovljena v vseh državah članicah. Zagotovo je v interesu vseh, da se zagotovi enotna pravna varnost in enakost za vse. Opaziti je, da se na področju EU pripravljajo pomembne spremembe. Zaenkrat se te spremembe kažejo zgolj v nezavezujočih pravnih aktih, vendar bo zanimivo spremljati razvoj in potek teh sprememb v bodoče. Republika Slovenija (v nadaljevanju: Slovenija, tudi RS) sicer sodi med države članice EU, ki še nima uzakonjene kolektivne tožbe bodisi v posebnem zakonu bodisi v civilnem procesnem zakoniku. Ampak, ne glede na to pa je potrebno upoštevati, da je v Sloveniji v letu 2009 z novelo D Zakona o pravdnem postopku, z namenom zagotoviti hitrejši in bolj ekonomični postopek, bila zagotovljena tudi možnost uporabe vzorčnega postopka. Slednji v svojem bistvu ni skupinska tožba, ampak je pa ena izmed možnosti kako bolj smotrno voditi množične postopke. Predvsem pa predstavlja institut na podlagi katerega se lahko doseže višja raven pravne varnosti, saj je sodba, ki jo sodišče izda v vzorčnem postopku, dejansko precedens v vseh ostalih prekinjenih postopkih.
Keywords:	vzorčni postopek, skupinske tožbe, kolektivne tožbe, načelo hitrosti in ekonomičnosti postopka
Place of publishing:	Maribor
Publisher:	[U. Kupec]
Year of publishing:	2016
PID:	20.500.12556/DKUM-64308
UDC:	347.922.6(043.3)
COBISS.SI-ID:	5323563
NUK URN:	URN:SI:UM:DK:GZXV30FU
Publication date in DKUM:	08.03.2017
Views:	2044
Downloads:	265
Metadata:
Categories:	PF
:	Copy citation

Average score:	(0 votes)
Your score:	Voting is allowed only for logged in users.
Share:

Hover the mouse pointer over a document title to show the abstract or click on the title to get all document metadata.

Secondary language

Language:	English
Title:	Model case proceedings and analysis of class action lawsuits in the slovenian legal system
Abstract:	Civil procedure is carried between parties and court, while the court via judges is trying to find answers to the questions and takes a decision, which has to be most fair. Civil procedure is in fact individualistic procedure aimed that individuals in litigation have the opportunity to assert their rights and benefits. Contrary to individual nature of civil procedure, most developed countries are familiar with institute of class actions in different varieties. For instance, institutes are enabling that based on procedures with the same or similar actual state and same legal background court takes a decision just in one procedure and that decision is binding on everybody and institutes based on which it is possible to merge procedures. These institutes have been introduced in the legal system of rules to ensure due process and consequently, for the lowest possible cost. Consequently, the question arises, where is the boundary between the provision of certain economic benefits and ensuring adequate legal protection for individuals. Different countries have chosen different ways. For instance, United States of America (hereinafter: USA) have introduce the institution of a class action that allows certain organization or law firms on behalf of the class leading the process in their favour. Meanwhile when the class is described very precisely, the same does not apply for introduction of individuals about the fact that a class action was filled. The important part is just that individuals had an opportunity for introduction about class action, even though if the possibility was guaranteed with the notice on the back side of payment order. This is the way that the whole procedure goes by quickly. Moreover, the judgement has an effect on all class members, irrespective if they were actually informed about the procedure. If an individual does not want to be a part of procedure, he or she must give an explicit statement that does not want to be a part of civil procedure. European Union (hereinafter: EU) is in its non-binding acts committed to the same approach. EU though wants different approach regarding the costs and payments of lawyers. Member state of EU has differences it its laws, moreover the most of member states, also Slovenia, does not have an institute of class actions in its civil procedure codes, since the possibility of class action is in other sectoral laws. This kind of inequality is inadmissible. From the perspective of international conflicts is unacceptable that a possibility of class action or possibility of claims for compensation is not given in every member state. Surely is in everyone interest that uniform legal certainty and equality is provided for everyone. It is noticeable that there are changes in the EU area. For this time those changes are seen just in soft law but it will be interesting to see development in the future. Slovenia is a member state EU, which does not have class action legislated. Regardless it is important to consider that in Slovenia in year 2009 came a change of civil procedure code. Slovenia got a possibility of using the institute of model case proceedings. The latter was brought in legislature with a purpose to ensure more economical and quicker procedure. Model case proceeding is not a class action, but is a possibility of how more efficiently manage civil procedure. Moreover, is an institute on which base it is possible to achieve a higher level of legal certainty, because the judgement, which the court issues in sampling procedure, precedent in other procedures that were discontinued. With this we can see that is ensured higher level of legal certainty and equality for individuals. Model case proceeding is not a substitute for class action, since at model case proceeding the same risk regarding the cost is made as at individual action. Moreover, the use of model case proceeding is possible just when the individual actions are filled.
Keywords:	model case proceeding, class action, principle of economical and quicker proceeding

Comments

Leave comment

You must log in to leave a comment.

Comments (0)

0 - 0 / 0

There are no comments!

Back