University of Zenica, Zenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Predmet rada je primjena člana 37. Zakona o izvršnom postupku Federacije
BiH pred sudovima u Federaciji BiH. U praksi dolazi do nejednakog postupanja
sudova radi različite primjene navedene odredbe. Postoje različita tumačenja i
stajališta pa samim time i odluke u postupanju prvostepenih sudova, te odluke
po žalbi drugostepenih sudova. Sud je organ koji provodi izvršenje, a pogrešnim
tumačenjem navedene odredbe i postupanja sudova, postupak izvršenja se svodi
na to da sud obavlja radnje koje bi u pravilu trebala obavljati stranka u postupku
(tražitelj izvršenja). U izvršnim postupcima nerijetko dolazi do pasivnog ponašanja
tražitelja izvršenja tijekom postupka, očekujući da sud utvrđuje eventualnu
imovinu izvršenika. Kada bi sud prihvatio način na koji tražitelji izvršenja
predlažu provođenje izvršenja, te za njih vršio provjere i utvrđivao eventualno
postojanje imovine izvršenika od mnoštva organa i pravnih lica, a da pri tome ne
učine vjerovatnim da izvršenik ima kakvu imovinu kod istih, takav prijedlog sam
po sebi vodio bi prebacivanju obaveze sa stranke (tražitelja izvršenja) na sud,
što je sa aspekta primjene načela jednakosti stranaka te načela nepristrasnosti
suda u postupku nedopustivo i suprotno članu 37. Zakona o izvršnom postupku
Federacije BiH. Cilj rada je postići bolje razumijevanje i primjenu pravne norme,
ukazujući na postojeću pozitivnu pravnu praksu, čiji rezultat bi bio efikasan i
pravičan postupak, te ujedinjavanje prakse u sudovima Federacije BiH, na
način da sudovi po podnesenim prijedlozima za izvršenje u izvršnom postupku
u kojima je postavljen zahtjev za utvrđivanje imovine izvršenika putem suda,
postupaju jednako.
The subject of this paper is implementation of the Article 37 od the Enforcement
Proceedings Law in Federation BiH. In regular activities, there are different court
practices because of different implementation of the above mentioned regulation.
There are different interpretations and standpoints resulting in different decisions
in the procedures of the courts of first instance, as well as in the decisions on
the appeals of the courts of second instance. The court is an authority that
implements enforcement, and with the wrong interpretation of the aforementioned
reglulation and practices of the court, the enforcement proceedings is reduced
solely to court activities that, as a rule, are supposed to be perfomed by the
party in the proceedings (enforcement claimmant). It is not the rare case that
in the enforcement proceedings, the claimant acts in a passive manner during
the proceedings, expecting the court to evaluate the potential property of the
defendant. If the court accepted the manner in which the enfocement claimants
propose the implementation of enforcement, and if it accepted to verify and
evaluate, on their behalf, the potential existence of the property of the defendant
requesting the evidence from a number od authorities and legal entities, without
making it probable that the defendant owns any such property registered by
them, such a proposal, per sei, would lead to transfer of the obligation of the
party (enforcement claimant) to the court of justice, which, from the aspect of
implementation of the principle of equality of the parties and the principle of
impartiality of the court would be unacceptable and contrary to the Article 37
of the Enforcement Proceedings Law of Federation BiH. This paper is aimed to
provide better understanding and implementation of the legal regulation, pointing
out the existing positive practice the result of which would be an efficient and
rightful proceedings and harmonization of practice in the courts of Federation
BiH, providing that the courts act equally when they make decisions on the
claims in the enforcement proceedings submitted for enforcement and requesting
verification of the property of the defendant through the court of justice.
To conclude, de lege ferenda hereby it is proposed to completely change the
regulation defined in the Artice 37 of the Enforcement Proceedings Law.
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.