Advertisement

Changing Faces of Post-socialist Supreme Courts: Croatia and Slovenia Compared

  • A. UzelacEmail author
  • Aleš Galič
Chapter
Part of the Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice book series (IUSGENT, volume 59)

Abstract

While both Croatia and Slovenia belong to the circle of successor countries of the former Yugoslavia, and share common roots and traditions, developments pertaining to legal reforms since the 1990s proceeded at different speeds and, partly, in different directions. This paper compares developments in the two states, focusing on the change in the role of the supreme courts in the context of civil procedure where the most profound changes in recent times happened in the evolution of the role of the secondary (further, final) appeal on points of law. At different points in time both supreme courts experienced a crisis that resulted in considerable delays and backlogs. Different strategies to control the influx of cases to the highest tribunals were subsequently employed, with different levels of success. While Slovenia, in the reform of civil procedure enacted in May 2008, generally embraced the view that the question of whether a particular issue of law has general significance is quite different from the question of whether the lower court has decided on it incorrectly in the case at hand, Croatia is still struggling with the introduction of filtering mechanisms that would transform the role of the highest court and emphasize its public function and purpose. Both countries, however, are at best only halfway into new approaches and still have a hybrid (mixed) system of secondary appeals.

Keywords

Public Prosecutor Civil Procedure Legal Certainty High Court Lower Court 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Bibliography

  1. Bobek, M., ‘Quantity or Quality? Reassessing the Role of Supreme Jurisdictions in Central Europe’, American Journal of Comparative Law, 2009, Vol. 57(1), p. 33–58.Google Scholar
  2. European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice, CEPEJ Report on ‘European judicial systems – Edition 2014 (2012 data): efficiency and quality of justice’, Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 2014, also available at: <www.coe.int/t/-dghl/cooperation/cepej/evaluation/2014/Rapport_2014_en.pdf>.
  3. Čepulo, D., ‘Izgradnja modernog hrvatskog sudstva 1848-1918’ [Building-up of the Modern Croatian Judiciary], Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta u Zagrebu, 2006, Vol. 56(2–3), p. 325–383.Google Scholar
  4. Čulinović, F., Pravosuđe u Jugoslaviji [Yugoslav Judiciary], Zagreb: Nakladni zavod Matice Hrvatske, 1946.Google Scholar
  5. Dika, M., Građansko parnično pravo, Pravni lijekovi, knjiga X, Zagreb: Narodne novine, 2010.Google Scholar
  6. Feguš, P., ‘Revizija in zahteva za varstvo zakonitosti kot izredni pravni sredstvi v teoriji in praksi po novi procesni ureditvi’, Pravna praksa, 2009, Vol. 47, p. 6–8.Google Scholar
  7. Galič, A., ‘Reshaping the Role of Supreme Courts in the Countries of the Former Yugoslavia’, in Uzelac, A. & Van Rhee C.H. (eds.), Nobody’s Perfect. Comparative Essays on Appeals and other Means of Recourse against Judicial Decisions in Civil Matters, Cambridge/Antwerp/Portland: Intersentia, 2014, p. 291–317.Google Scholar
  8. Galič, A., ‘Does a Decision of the Supreme Court Denying Leave to Appeal Need to Contain Reasons?’, in Adolphsen, J. et al. (eds.), Festschrift für Peter Gottwald zum 70. Geburtstag, Munich: Beck, 2014, p. 159–174.Google Scholar
  9. Galič, A., ‘A Civil Law Perspective on the Supreme Court and its Functions’, paper presented at the conference ‘The functions of the Supreme Court – issues of process and administration of justice’, Warsaw, 11–14 June 2014 (Warsaw University), <http://colloquium2014.uw.edu.pl/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2014/01/Ales-Galic.pdf>.
  10. Mańko, R., ‘Survival of the Socialist Legal Tradition? A Polish Perspective’, Comparative Law Review, 2013, Vol. 4(2). Available at: SSRN: <http://ssrn.com/-abstract=2332219>.
  11. Petrak, M., ‘Southeast Europe, 1526-1820’, in Wijffels, A. & Van Rhee, C.H. (eds.), European Supreme Courts: A Portrait through History, London: Third Millenium Publishing, 2013, p. 224–229.Google Scholar
  12. Poznić, B., Građansko procesno pravo [Civil Procedural Law], 10. izdanje, Beograd: Savremena administracija, 1987.Google Scholar
  13. Triva, S., Belajec V. & Dika M., Građansko parnično procesno pravo [The Law of Civil Procedure], Zagreb: Narodne novine, 1986.Google Scholar
  14. Ude, L., Civilni pravdni postopek [Civil Procedure], Ljubljana: ČZ Uradni list, 1988.Google Scholar
  15. Ude, L., ‘Reforma revizije in zahteve za varstvo zakonitosti’ [The reform of ‘revision’ and ‘request for the protection of legality’ proceedings], Podjetje in delo, 2007, Vol. 6–7, p. 1078-1085.Google Scholar
  16. Uzelac, A., ‘Accelerating Civil Proceedings in Croatia – A History of Attempts to Improve the Efficiency of Civil Litigation’, in Van Rhee C.H. (ed.), History of Delays in Civil Procedure, Antwerp: Intersentia, 2004, p. 283–313.Google Scholar
  17. Uzelac, A, ‘Survival of the Third Legal Tradition?’, Supreme Court Law Review, 2010, p. 377–396.Google Scholar
  18. Uzelac, A., ‘Features and Shortcomings of Appellate Review in Civil and Administrative Cases in Croatia’, in Uzelac, A. & Van Rhee C.H. (eds.), Nobody’s Perfect. Comparative Essays on Appeals and other Means of Recourse against Judicial Decisions in Civil Matters, Cambridge/Antwerp/Portland: Intersentia, 2014, p. 229–257.Google Scholar
  19. Uzelac, A., ‘Supreme Courts in the 21st Century: should organization follow the function?’ paper presented at the conference ‘The functions of the Supreme Court – issues of process and administration of justice’, Warsaw, 11–14 June 2014 (Warsaw University), <http://colloquium2014.uw.edu.pl/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/-2014/01/UZELAC_Supreme-Courts-in-the-21st-Century.pdf>.
  20. ‘Izvješće predsjednika Vrhovnog suda o stanju sudbene vlasti za 2015. godinu’ [Supreme Court President Report on the State of the Judiciary in 2015], Zagreb: VSRH, April 2016, available at: <http://www.vsrh.hr/CustomPages/Static/HRV/Files/2016dok/izvjesce_predsjednika_o_stanju_sudbene_vlasti_2015.pdf>.
  21. Izvješće Državnog odvjetništva Republike Hrvatske za 2015. godinu' [Report of the State Attorney Office for 2015], http://www.dorh.hr/Default.aspx?sec=645.
  22. Wedam-Lukić, D., ‘Ali naj bo dovoljenost revizije v diskreciji Vrhovnega sodišča’ [Is admissibility of ‘revision’ within the Supreme Court’s discretion?], Pravna praksa, 2007, Vol. 36, p. 8–10.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of LawZagreb UniversityZagrebCroatia
  2. 2.Faculty of LawUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia

Personalised recommendations