University of Zenica, Zenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Autorica daje pojmovno materijalno pravno određenje, kriterije i orijentacijsku
kvantifikaciju za određivanje visine nematerijalne štete kako je to prihvaćeno na
općoj sjednici Građanskog odjela Vrhovnog suda Republike Hrvatske iz 2020.
godine.
Centralni dio rada bavi se pitanjem povezanosti i uvjetovanosti
materijalnopravnih i procesno- pravnih aspekata, primjene izmijenjenih
orijentacijskih kriterija Vrhovnog suda Republike Hrvatske iz 2020.godine u
sudskoj praksi. Istraživanje je pokazalo, kako je bila pravno upitna mogućnost
njihove retroaktivne primjene na građanskopravne odštetne odnose nastale ili
dovršene prije njihovog donošenja. Njihova primjena dovela je do masovne
preinake tužbi u postupcima za naknadu nematerijalne štete koji su u tijeku,
te povećanjem tužbenih zahtjeva oštećenih tužitelja. Da li bi njihova primjena
retroaktivno bila legalna i legitimna u slučajevima kada je građanskopravni
odnos izvanugovorne odgovornosti za štetu nastao ili je dovršen prije njihovog
donošenja, i da li bi u tom slučaju radi njihove primjene trebalo derogirati i/ili
prilagođavati postojeća procesnopravna pravila i materijalnopravne institute. Pri
tom, autorica ukazuje da su orijentacijski kriteriji zbog svog sadržaja i načina
doveli do nejedinstvene i neujednačene primjene prava.
It is a fact that the Orientation Criteria of the Supreme Court of the Republic
of Croatia from 2002 survived the significant legal change in the concept of nonmaterial harm suffered and fair financial compensation (Civil Obligations Act
05), and that they remained unchanged in implementation for many years. This
in itself is a confirmation of their value, so it can be concluded that, regardless
of individual shortcomings, they achieved the purpose and goal for which they
were adopted, they significantly contributed to the uniformity of judicial practice
in the application of legal provisions on fair financial compensation, and thus to
the equality of all in their application law, legal certainty and the rule of law.
The problems that arose in the period of their relatively short implementation
related to their retroactive effects and in this connection their pressure on the
derogation and/or interpretation of existing procedural and materially already
established legal rules, led to conflicting legal understandings and divided judicial
practice.
Due to their content and method of adoption, the amended Orientation Criteria
caused the opposite effects from those for which they were adopted. Thus, the
issues of their content and vagueness were again brought up to date.
Socio-economic and financial developments after their adoption, galloping
inflation, slowing down of the wage growth index, decreasing real purchasing
power of money additionally actualize the issue of adopting new Orientation
Criteria. They should reflect the legal changes from Civil Obligations Act/05,
the new understanding and conception of non-material harm suffered and fair
financial compensation.
Ultimately, they should also determine the mechanisms for changing the
amount of fair financial compensation on a periodic basis automatically, in order
to enable the injured parties and those responsible for compensation to know at
all times, even for orientation, how much financial compensation they are entitled
to and which are their obligations.
And the most important thing, there would have to be no interpretation that
enables retroactive implementation of compensation legal relationships that arose
in the past, before the adoption of new standards.
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.