University of Zenica, Zenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Jedan od osnovnih instituta na kojima počiva parnični postupak
predstavlja raspravno načelo, odnosno subjektivni teret tvrdnji i dokazivanja.
Naime, to da je na stranama teret iznošenja činjenica i teret izvođenja dokaza
regulisano je kao jedno od osnovnih načela parničnog postupka, ali je i dodatno
regulisano odredbama procesnih zakona o tome koja stranka je dužna šta dokazati
i koga pogađa rizik nedokazanosti neke bitne činjenice. Osnovno pravilo tereta
dokazivanja jeste da ovaj teret leži na strani koja iznosi određenu činjenicu.
Dakle, onaj ko iznosi određenu činjenicu treba ju i dokazati, i to čini iz vlastitog
interesa. Dokazuju se samo sporne pravno-relevantne činjenice. Priznate i
općepoznate činjenice, te činjenice koje zakon pretpostavlja ne treba dokazivati.
Na pravilnu primjenu tereta dokazivanja ne smije da utiče neznanje stranaka, te
činjenica da li stranku zastupa profesionalni punomoćnik, jer u konačnom ni
njeni žalbeni razlozi, ukoliko je sud pravilno rasporedio teret tokom
prvostepenog postupka, neće uticati na pravilnost i zakonitost prvostepene
odluke sa aspekta tereta dokazivanja. Suprotno navedenom, pogrešno raspoređen
teret dokazivanja osnov je za izjavljivanje žalbe protiv odluke suda u okviru
žalbenog razloga povreda odredaba parničnog postupka. Istraživanje će biti
usmjereno na praktičnu primjenu instituta u domaćoj praksi, te povezanost sa
drugim institutima parničnog postupka. Naime, u praksi je nerijetko pogrešno
raspoređen teret dokazivanja, odnosno prvostepena odluka bude donesena na
bazi nedokazane činjenice, koju je tuženi osporio, jer je sud smatrao da je tuženi
bio dužan dokazati svoj prigovor. Zbog toga se povreda pravila o teretu
dokazivanja relativno često pojavljuje kao žalbeni razlog povrede odredaba
parničnog postupka, i to kao relativna povreda. Dakle, problem nije u zakonskom
rješenju iako je definicija instituta tereta dokazivanja previše opšta, ali jasna,
nego je problem u praktičnoj primjeni u svakom konkretnom slučaju.
One of the basic institutes on which the litigation procedure is based is
the debating principle, i.e. the subjective burden of claims and proof. Indeed, the
fact that the burden of presenting facts and the burden of taking evidence is on
the parties has been regulated as one of the basic principles of litigation, but is
also further regulated by the provisions of procedural laws on which party is
obliged to prove what and who is affected by the risk of unprovenness of a
substantive fact. The basic rule of the burden of proof is that this burden lies on
the side that presents a certain fact. So whoever's stating a certain fact needs to
prove it, and he's doing it out of self-interest. Only disputed legal-relevant facts
are proven. Recognized and widely known facts, these facts that the law assumes
do not need to be proven. The proper application of the burden of proof must not
be affected by the ignorance of the parties, and the fact that the party is
represented by a professional proxy, because in the final or its grounds of appeal,
if the court has properly distributed the burden during the first instance
proceedings, it will not affect the regularity and legality of the first-instance
decision from the point of view of the burden of proof. Contrary to the foregoing,
the misallocated burden of proof is the basis for declaring an appeal against the
court's decision on the grounds of appeal of violations of the provisions of the
civil proceedings. The research will focus on the practical application of the
institute in domestic practice, and the connection with other institutes of
litigation. In practice, the burden of proof is often misplaced, i.e. the first instance
decision is made on the basis of an unproven fact, which the defendant
challenged, because the court considered that the defendant was obliged to prove
his objection. Therefore, an infringement of the rules on the burden of proof
appears relatively often as a ground of appeal for infringement of the provisions
of civil procedure, as a relative infringement. Therefore, the problem is not in the
legal solution although the definition of the institute of the burden of proof is too
general, but clear, and the problem is in the practical application in each specific
case.
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.