Legal Means against the Inefficient Judge

Ostvarivanje postulata pravičnog suđenja, osobito zahtjeva za suđenje u razumnom roku predstavlja sve složeniji zadatak s kojim se suočavaju gotovo svi nacionalni pravosudni sustavi. Kako u takvim uvjetima više nisu izolirani ni tradicionalno vrlo dobro organizirani pravosudni sustavi Austrije i Njemačke, cilj je prikazati djelotvornost nacionalnih pravnih instrumenta koji radi zaštite prava na suđenje u razumnom roku u tim komparativnim modelima stoje na raspolaganju. Ipak, ideja rada bila je otići i korak dalje, odnosno ispitati stvarnu provedivost odluka donesenih u povodu pravnih sredstava izjavljenih zbog povrede prava na suđenje u razumnom roku te pokušati odrediti granice institucionalne odgovornosti sudova i individualne odgovornosti suca. S obzirom da je utvrđeno da djelotvorna pravna sredstva radi zaštite prava na suđenje u razumnom roku ne pokrivaju i individualnu odgovornost suca kojem je određeno u kojem roku ima poduzeti procesnu radnju ili okončati postupak, trebalo je prikazati instrumente kojima građani mogu potaknuti pitanje individualne odgovornosti suca te time utjecati i na izricanje odgovarajućih disciplinskih mjera. U Hrvatskoj je uočena ispodnormiranost odredbi o pritužbama građana na rad sudova i sudaca, jer zakon ne propisuje što pritužba mora sadržavati, u kojem roku će se na nju odgovoriti te hoće li se o eventualno poduzetim mjerama podnositelj pritužbe obavijestiti. Stoga je predloženo uvođenje nadzorne žalbe kao općeg pravnog instrumenta protiv neučinkovitog suca. Argumentacija za takav stav izvodi se iz analize komparativnih rješenja pri čemu se preporučuje ono što bi bilo najpogodnije za Republiku Hrvatsku.Realisation of the fair trial postulate, especially of the demand to have a trail within a reasonable time represents more and more complex task imposed to all national legal systems. Having in mind that in such conditions Austrian and German legal systems are not isolated although there have been traditionally well organised, the aim of this article is to present efficiency of national legal instruments available for the protection of the right to trial within a reasonable time in these comparative models. Nevertheless, the idea of the article has been to go further, that is to scrutinise actual execution of decisions taken when implementing legal means in case of the right to trial within a reasonable time infringement and to try to identify limits to courts’ institutional liability and judges’ individual liability. Due to the fact that efficient legal means for right to trial within a reasonable time protection do not cover individual liability of a judge who received instructions to take a procedural measure or to complete a procedure within certain time, a presentation of instruments which have been at citizens’ disposal to raise an issue on judge’s individual responsibility is given. Such instruments can be used to influence pronouncing of disciplinary measures. It has been noted a low level of normative provisions governing citizens’ complaints on court work and work of judges in Croatia because the law does not prescribe what complaint has to contain, time limits to respond to the complaint and obligation to notify a submitter about measures which are eventually taken. Therefore, the author suggests the enactment of supervisory appeal as a general legal instrument against the inefficient judge. Arguments for such proposal have been based on the analysis of comparative solutions isolating the best ones for the Republic of Croatia