Advertisement

Croatia: Omnipotent Judges as the Cause of Procedural Inefficiency and Impotence

  • Alan UzelacEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice book series (IUSGENT, volume 31)

Abstract

The chapter elaborates the origins and history of civil procedure in Croatia since the second half of the nineteenth century (both before and after Croatia became an independent country). After an historical introduction, the author describes the current procedural structures in civil procedure, paying special attention to the distribution of powers between the judge and the parties. Self-understanding of the national judiciary and legal scholars, which regard civil procedure to be based on adversarial principles, is contrasted with the still strong inquisitorial powers that come to surface when analysing procedural routines and practices. The final part is devoted to recent reforms in Croatian civil procedure and to the attempts to stimulate mediation and other methods of alternative dispute resolution. Ambitious reformist plans did find their reflection in various legislative projects, but the practical impact and success of those reforms is still questionable.

Keywords

Alternative Dispute Resolution Civil Procedure Official Gazette Civil Litigation Small Claim 
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.

References

  1. Bilić V (2008) Alternativno rješavanje sporova i parnični postupak (Doktorska disertacija). Pravni fakultet, ZagrebGoogle Scholar
  2. Čepulo D (2000) Središte i periferija. Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta u Zagrebu, pp 889–920Google Scholar
  3. Grgić A (2007) The length of civil proceedings in Croatia – main causes of delay. In: Uzelac A, Van Rhee CH (eds) Public and private justice. Dispute resolution in modern societies. Intersentia, Antwerp, pp 53–171Google Scholar
  4. Jagtenberg R, De Roo A (2006) Conciliation in individual labour disputes in Croatia – Analitical Report, September 2006 (unpublished)Google Scholar
  5. Jelinek W (1991) Einflüsse des österreichischen Zivilprozeßrechts auf andere Rechtsord-nungen. In: Habscheid WJ (ed) Das deutsche Zivilprozessrecht und seine Ausstrahlung auf andere Rechtsordnungen. Gieseking, Bielefeld, pp 41–89Google Scholar
  6. Maganić A (2011) Reception of the Rechtspfleger in Eastern Europe: Prospects and difficulties. In: Uzelac A, Van Rhee CH (eds) The landscape of the legal professions in Europe and the USA: continuity and change. Intersentia, Antwerp, pp 183–199Google Scholar
  7. Najman G (1935) (Neumann), Komentar Zakona o sudskom postupku u građanskim parnicama. Planeta, BeogradGoogle Scholar
  8. Rušnov A, Šilović J (1892) Tumač građanskom parbenom postupniku. Kugli & Deutsch, ZagrebGoogle Scholar
  9. Sprung R (2002) 100 Jahre Österreichische Zivilprozeßordnung. In: Rechberger WH, Klicka T (eds) Procedural law on the threshold of a new millenium – Das Prozessrecht an der Schwelle eines neuen Jahrtausends. Manz, Wien, pp 11–30Google Scholar
  10. Triva S, Dika M (2004) Građansko parnično procesno pravo, 7th edn. Narodne novine, ZagrebGoogle Scholar
  11. Triva S, Belajec, Dika M (1986) Građansko parnično procesno pravo, 6th edn. Narodne novine, ZagrebGoogle Scholar
  12. Uzelac A (1995) Lustracija, diskvalifikacija, čistka. O procesnim i ustavnopravnim problemima izbora sudaca u prijelaznom razdoblju. Iudex 1(3):413–434Google Scholar
  13. Uzelac A (2000) Role and status of judges in Croatia. In: Oberhammer P (ed) Richterbild und Rechtsreform in Mitteleuropa. Manz, Wien, pp 23–66Google Scholar
  14. Uzelac A (2002) Ist eine Justizreform in Transitionsländern möglich? Das Beispiel Kroatien: Fall der Bestellung des Gerichtspräsidenten in der Republik Kroatien und daraus zu ziehende Lehren. Jahrbuch für Ostrecht, Sonderband: Justiz in Osteuropa, Band 43 (2002), 1. Beck, Halbband, München, pp 175–206Google Scholar
  15. Uzelac A (2004) Accelerating civil proceedings in Croatia – a history of attempts to improve the efficiency of civil litigation. In: Van Rhee CH (ed) The history of delay in civil procedure. Intersentia, Antwerp, pp 283–331Google Scholar
  16. Uzelac A, Aras A, Maršić M, Mitrović M, Kauzlarić Ž, Stojčević P (2010) Aktualni trendovi mirnog rješavanja sporova u Hrvatskoj: dosezi i ograničenja. Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta u Zagrebu 60(3):1265–1308Google Scholar
  17. Vukelić M (2007) Alternative dispute resolution and mediation in Croatia. In: Uzelac A, Van Rhee CH (eds) Public and private justice. Dispute resolution in modern societies. Intersentia, Antwerp, pp 225–231Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of ZagrebZagrebCroatia

Personalised recommendations